Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven County, Connecticut

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

Image needs replacement[edit]

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:Gianttower.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:NH Lawn Club in 2007.JPG[edit]

The image File:NH Lawn Club in 2007.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

properties in more than one town/city[edit]

I clarified in town/city column that two properties are included in both Hamden town and New Haven city. In this edit, Nyttend reverts that (and perhaps fixes a link to the New Haven city NRHP list too, which is fine). I don't find the edit summary reason stated as convincing. New Haven is a town/city in the county, and it seems obviously helpful to show the multiple towns a place is in, in the town/city column. Nyttend, can u please reconsider or explain? --doncram (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this list is to include properties in the municipalities of New Haven County other than the city of New Haven. We don't include properties in the city of New Haven on this list, except, of course, for properties both in New Haven and in other parts of the county. Since New Haven properties aren't eligible to appear on this list, New Haven shouldn't appear in the City or Town column; that's the point of adding an extends-into note in the Summary column. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point of the Town/City column in each row, for each NRHP place, is to report the towns/cities that the place is in. The column is not labelled "Towns/Cities in New Haven County only, and excluding the city of New Haven itself". I think it is clear for readers to show that a place is in two towns, whether it is Hamden and New Haven, both towns in the county, or whether it is a New Haven County border town and another town in a different county, appropriately labelled. Also, I don't think the overlap of a place into 2 towns should be made into a burden for the description column to cover. This list-article's descriptions are not much developed, but from other experience with descriptions in similar list-articles, I judge that I would not want to devote a sentence or two to the overlap, precluding other description, when the easy/efficient way to communicate overlap into 2 towns is clear in the town column. As I was back to make a different edit, I noticed these again and fixed them, in my view. Nyttend, I hope you will consider these an improvement.
If you don't perhaps we should get some other views. I know you've been maintaining many other NRHP list-articles and I presume you may have been applying the same type of edit rule in all of them. If it is more general than just here, I guess I hope we can change that more general edit rule. And perhaps others will want to comment. Could you possibly please comment on the extent to which you have made similar changes, or point to other examples that may differ in some ways, in order to assist in a more general discussion? --doncram (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole list is for New Haven County minus the city of New Haven. Other municipalities are irrelevant and thus shouldn't be included in this list. Readers will understand from the intro that New Haven city and other counties aren't included. I have never seen another list formatted the way you want to have it, except for the occasional list where a site is listed in a community in another state, such as the Blood Run Site in Iowa that was listed in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well this is seeming rather rigid and arbitrary and reader-unfriendly to me. I tried again now, in this version, to mention the towns (Southbury, Roxbury, New Haven, New Haven) in the description column. Towards clarifying whether in your view it is taboo to mention them in the description column as well, before we get some other opinions. Is it okay or not, in your view, to mention in the description column the towns that places are in, if they extend into towns outside of New Haven County or into the city of New Haven? --doncram (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for removing the names of the other towns from the descriptions column for the sites that extend into other counties — if everyone did things exactly as I think best, we'd always include the name of the town as you've done. No wonder you were confused, since my edits weren't at all what I thought they were. I also didn't mean to undo your disambiguation page fix. Confused, however; why do you say that my idea seems arbitrary? Rigid and reader-unfriendly are all in the mind of the beholder, but I don't see how it could be arbitrary. Finally, your wording in the summary section seems to follow WP:EGG better; I think that it can be said a little better, but this may lead me to go through all the NRHP lists on my watchlist and see which ones have my wording that should be fixed. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that the adjoining towns are getting mentioned in this list. This seems particularly important in the case of the NRHP-listed New Haven city parks that are on this list because they are partly in another town. However, the principle of least surprise leads me to think that a list entitled "National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven County, Connecticut" ought to include properties in the city of New Haven (not merely mention in the boilerplate-style introductory text that they are in another list). If the scope of this list is best described as "National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven County, Connecticut outside of New Haven", shouldn't that be the title? (Given the current title, I'd like to see a link to the New Haven list incorporated into the list section of the article. I did that for Hartford a little while back, but my work was summarily reverted without explanation.) --Orlady (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The intro says that properties and districts in the city are listed separately, with a link to the list. If we adopted your name change proposal (which has absolutely no precedent nationwide, as far as I know), what would you do with state lists that have counties removed for similar reasons? "National Register of Historic Places listings in Tennessee outside of [names of the 58 split-out counties here] Counties"? Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list portion of National Register of Historic Places listings in Tennessee includes entries for the 58 split-out counties. Thus, a user who dives in to the body of the list will not be confused or disappointed if the place they are looking for is covered in a split-out list. In contrast, a reader of these Connecticut county articles who goes straight to the body of the list (instead of reading the full introductory text) is likely to be bewildered by the absence of the county's main city. --Orlady (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood what you meant. Sorry. See my latest edit. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) The town column here could reflect the towns/villages given by the National Register as locations of places as it did at first, but in fact it reflects official incorporated towns. This was a change led by editor Polaron and seemed to receive consensus that it was okay or better, in discussion now archived from Talk:List of RHPs in CT. Use of legal town lines provides a complete partition of the county. Some information about overlaps of HDs with towns is minor and might best be relegated to footnotes within this article (attached to the town mentions in the town column), or left for explanation in more detail in the linked NRHP HD articles, and should not dominate the description of the HD in the description column. However, to be clear, all towns that a historic district is in, should be listed in the towns column, in order for this to be factual and encyclopedic. It is just factual, what towns a place is in! (Note, this has some parallel now with budding contention at National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven, Connecticut, where it is being contested by revert edits whether the official neighborhoods a place is in, should be shown in the neighborhoods column.) Come on, people, it is obvious that you should give the towns in a towns column and give the neighborhoods in a neighborhoods column! --doncram (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven County, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_New_Haven_County,_Connecticut&oldid=1202921005"