Making historic districts go to community articles is generally a bad idea, unless the community is essentially identical in boundaries to the district. Why? Among other things, it makes it sound as if the community and the district are the same, which (as far as I can see) they aren't in this case — not all of St. Elmo is listed. Better to let the reader know that we don't have an article on it than to confuse the reader by making him/her think that the information we have on one entity is actually information about another entity. Moreover, if we have this as a link to the community, people will have little incentive to write about it, since it will seem that there's already an article about it; the writing of an actual article would be more likely if the district name were left as a redlink until someone was ready. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- And moreover, this is against standard practice nationwide — the subject is the district, not the community, so they must be separate. Otherwise, it makes the history of all of the community part of the district history, when they're clearly distinct; if they weren't distinct, the entire community would have been listed. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Reverting myself: after reading the nomination form, it's obvious to me that the entire community is indeed listed. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
