Talk:Noank, Connecticut

Merge discussion

This article represents a merge of the Noank CDP (Census Designated Place) and Noank Historic District, now a redirect to this article. Please comment in the discussion section below, concerning the desirability of the merge and whether the matter should be closed. Comments should address issues relating to the merge or split of the articles and are not meant to be a debate at this phase. If direct discussion is required, it will follow in a separate section. Acroterion _(talk) 12:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

May i now create an article at the NRHP HD name, Noank Historic District, in order to develop what is knowable about the NRHP HD. Further, I would probably like to create an alternate version of the Noank article, meant to be complementary to the Noank Historic District article, at Talk:Noank/alternative, so that the pair of articles could be compared to the existing Noank article. I assume there may now be some development of the existing Noank article, as well. It is fine by me if others might want to copy new material from the separate new NRHP HD article into the Noank article, or otherwise develop the Noank article, but I request some space in order to create the NRHP HD alternative. doncram (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You can always develop historic district information as part of the existing Noank article. Splitting the article when the issue of whether to split or not is itself contentious would not be the best way to go about this discussion I think. At this point in time, it would be better to develop the historic district information all you want within the existing framework and split only when there is agreement to split. You can also develop historic district information in a talk page subpage as you suggest. --Polaron | Talk 17:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a fundamental and important. I don't believe we can have a discussion without allowing the alternatives to be developed. About suggestion that I should develop what I want in the Noank article, I can't imagine that having me and multiple other editors try to develop the Noank article in opposite directions would help in building consensus. For example, what if I or someone wished to revise the Noank article to reduce it down to only supported statements, which currently could amount to reducing it down to being an article about the Noank CDP demographic and area information. About suggestion that I develop historic district information in a different Talk page subpage, I don't feel that is appropriate. Why not use the NRHP HD name? There is no wikipedia policy against developing a wikipedia-notable topic at the name for the topic. At this point, there is not consensus that an NRHP HD article cannot be developed. It seems best for practical reasons (such as to keep edit history in a reasonable place) here and potentially hundreds of similar cases, that development of NRHP HD articles be allowed to occur at the NRHP HD article names.

Consider an opposite question: could a block be put on the Noank article to freeze development of it? If participants here wish to convey what they think the Noank article should be, they could do so in a Talk subpage, Talk:Noank/alternative2. Note: I do not seriously wish for such a block or to force Noank article development to happen only in different Talk subpages, as it would cause unnecessary work, and would confuse or lose edit history. However, enforcing such a block would be equivalent to enforcing that there should be no development of the NRHP HD article at its name. Likewise, edit warring to prevent development of the Noank article would be as well justified as edit warring to prevent development of a Noank HD article, although neither should be allowed. doncram (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection policy does not allow such measures. NRHP editors are not the only people who may wish to edit the article, and this is the encyclopedia anyone may edit. Acroterion _(talk) 19:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Which misses the point that the NRHP editor in question DOESN'T wish to edit the article, but wishes instead to be allowed to develop an article on his area of interest/expertise, without having to contend with spending time and energy working in an article full of potentially unsourced statements outside the area of expertise. My feeling would be "what's the point of developing a good section in an article I see as questionable?". I would then move on and leave the HD undeveloped. This sums up my problem with being FORCED to include HD articles within questionable place articles. It stinks. Lvklock (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean that protection policy doesn't allow articles to be frozen in that manner; protection policy is not to be used as a tool to govern content like that, and I or any administrator would be severely criticized for using the tools in those circumstances. No wikiproject has the authority to govern content so as to exclude outside editors from participating, which is what protection would do. Acroterion _(talk) 19:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that what I said above applies to the other cases where a similar comment was placed by Doncram. I would rather we discuss each case on its own merits and not try to upset the current setup, whether there are currently two article or one combined article. I am hoping a freeze on actually doing any mergers or splits be in place while discussion is ongoing. This would be the least provocative option in my opinion. --Polaron | Talk 02:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But, Polaron, as Acroterion is conveying, it is not acceptable to put a freeze on development. Acroterion only commented specifically on the current Noank article, but the reasoning why page protection by an administrator is unacceptable there applies also to the Noank Historic District page. I don't understand why you object to developing the NRHP HD info at that location. As in other cases, that directly would give you info that could be copied over into the Noank article. Is development of the Noank article your primary interest here? If so, what is the problem with allowing the NRHP HD article to be started and to allow others who might be willing to develop that, do so. At an early stage it would immediately help with a little info you could use. Also if any other editor adopted it and developed it like Daniel Case or Lvklock or others have done for many other NRHP HDs, that would also provide more information available to use in the Noank article. So if your goal is to develop the Noank article, that goal is furthered by allowing the NRHP HD article to be developed. And, right now we are at an impasse on whether the NRHP HD article can be developed. I don't want to disrespect your request not to start a stub article there, but I don't understand it. I wish that Orlady and Nyttend would comment specifically on this. doncram (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there's an issue with terminology. Editors can agree not to do something, and can agree on the form an article should take, and all editors, involved or not, should make an effort to respect that consensus, or to convey their concerns if they believe the consensus is flawed. It's just that an article can't be formally protected using administrative tools to prevent a move or redirect under such circumstances short of active edit-warring. As long as "frozen" is an informal matter of agreement between editors and noted on the talk page, and not "protected," you can do what you want. Acroterion _(talk) 21:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, you can develop the article without being disruptive by adding content to the current framework or using a sandbox or something. The issue is not freezing the development of content but rather an editorial decision on the presentation. I think it makes sense to have a single Noank article describing all aspects. You think that each concept of Noank should have a different article -- like one for the physical settlement, one for the CDP, one for the Fire District, one for the Historic District, one for the school neighborhood zone, one for the zoning commission, one for the health district and so on. What you are proposing to do is essentially present the content the way you want it (i.e. separate) first then make others prove to your satisfaction that merging should be done. All I am saying is that leave the current state of the article (whether there are two or one) and let's discuss whether or not merging or splitting should be done. It just so happens that in this case there is a merged article. In other cases where the article is split, I'm not clamoring to merge the two articles now and then do the discussion. This issue is all about presentation. No one is trying to freeze content development. If you really want to change things over to the way you want them presented before/during the discussion, then you've essentially gotten all that you want. If you can't adhere to an informal freeze of merging/splitting, then there is no point in discussing. If you feel content is missing, add it to the existing framework. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. --Polaron | Talk 22:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason at this time to split this short article. --Orlady (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I hesitate to reply in what may seem to be a ping-pong like fashion, but think it needs to be said: I don't see any reason at this time to block the creation of an article on a wikipedia notable, distinct topic. Redlinks and stub articles are part of growing the wikipedia. doncram (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In particular about Noank, there is no reason to believe that the Noank article is hurt by having a Noank HD article, and there are reasons to expect the Noank article would be improved by allowing it. Namely that GFDL-licensed material will be written at the NRHP HD article, and that sources will be found and made available there. Such material and sources would then be available to be copied or summarized in the Noank article. There are current and future editors who would be happy and willing to contribute to developing a well-defined NRHP HD article, who would not be willing to work in a complicated town/village/CDP article with all of its problems of focus, of unsourced material, of trivia, etc. Also, my expectation is that the NRHP HD article would be developed to be a good historic district article with more specific discussion of important contributing structures, and more specific discussion of the particular history that the district's artifacts speak to, than would be appropriate to keep in the Noank article alone. The topic is different than Noank, and there is no wikipedia policy or guideline against starting it now, and there is no consensus that a "Noank-first" strategy is better. I strongly believe that in general the Connecticut town/village articles will be improved sooner by allowing the NRHP HD articles to go forward. The way to signal that editors are free to develop NRHP HD articles is to list redlinks in NRHP list-articles and to create stub articles, with Talk page requests for photos and suggestions on how to get sources, etc. doncram (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, but lack the patience to keep repeating it as often as the "other side" will say they shouldn't be split. I do not understand how consensus is reached when there are two opposite viewpoints, neither of which is going to suddenly agree with the other. All it comes down to, it seems to me, is who has the patience to keep saying what they think until they wear the others down and they give up.

I am strangely hopeful that we might listen to each other and clear up misunderstandings. I need to respond to Polaron's assertion about me that "You think that each concept of Noank should have a different article -- like one for the physical settlement, one for the CDP, one for the Fire District, one for the Historic District, one for the school neighborhood zone, one for the zoning commission, one for the health district and so on." I do not think that at all. I think conceivably there could be demographics-oriented editors/wikiprojects who could make a case that the CDP is notable, and different, and should be a separate article. But it seems that all the demographics-oriented editors want is to put in the information that appears in the current article, and they are not being prevented from doing anything they wish. About the fire department and so on, those are not notable, though the boundaries of the CDP and all of the rest might usefully be indicated in one map to include in the Noank article. I think there is a good use for having a "Noank" article, to mention those and to trace out some history of the growth of Noank, also in map form perhaps. The crucial difference about the NRHP HD is that it is accepted to be a wikipedia notable topic, there are many examples now of very good NRHP HD articles, and there are current and future wikipedia editors who would like to proceed with creating and developing such an article here. There is adequate motivation for many editors in getting DYK credit, or in crafting an article that they are proud of, or in describing their locale, or whatever, to create NRHP and NRHP HD articles. I think no one has the right to assert ownership over the NRHP HD name, and that a "Noank-first" or a "Noank-only" strategy would be a bad one, even for developing the Noank article itself. Seriously, I don't get what is the motivation, the reason, for wanting to prevent other editors from doing what they want to do. Polaron, I don't want to stop you from developing CT town/village articles; I do want to stop you from stopping me and others from developing NRHP HD articles. I really really really do not understand why you should want to prevent me and others from doing that. doncram (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you yourself create a full-fledged article (or enlist someone to do it for you)? Until then, it makes more sense to merge. Again, no one is stopping development of content. There is nothing wrong with adding content about Noank to the article about Noank. If a split is necessary for length reasons at some future date, we can revisit how to split off -- perhaps something like a "History of Noank" article. If you can't even entertain the possibility of merging now and splitting later, then what are we discussing for? Go create the historic district article and prove that it is significantly different from the locality. I will list again some criteria that I think would be useful for merger evaluations: (1) historic district name is identical to place name; (2) historic district is significant not only for architecture but for historical events; (3) the historic district is contained wholly within the current settled area of the locality. In New England, this is typically sufficient to indicate that the original core of the place and the historic district are the same. --Polaron | Talk 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that you are not stopping content development, because your way allows ONLY for development within an article about things beyond the interest/expertise of I or others who might be interested in developing the NRHP HD atrticle. Lvklock (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So, it should be your way that should be followed? As I said, this is an editorial/style/presentation issue. No one is preventing addition of content. --Polaron | Talk 02:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course! Your way DISCOURAGES editors like me from contributing. "My" way has no effect whatsoever on what you or other like you choose to develop in the town/CDP/place/village articles. Lvklock (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

First, let me grant you that if the historic district name is exactly the same as a place name, then I agree it is best to have one article, unless and until there has been extensive development about the NRHP HD that it makes to split it out for length reasons. In National Register of Historic Places listings in New London County, Connecticut, there is exactly one such example, Taftville, where the primary NRHP name is exactly the same as a place, in this case, the village of Taftville. In the vast majority of cases where there is a place named Washington Square or Rocky Hill-Glastonbury Ferry or Podunk or whatever, potentially corresponding to NRHP HDs named Washington Square Historic District or Glastonbury-Rocky Hill Ferry Historic District or Podunk Historic District, it turns out the HD is not the same as the place, and often it is vastly different. In relatively few cases, such as Old Wethersfield vs. Old Wethersfield Historic District in CT, and in a few examples suggested by Daniel Case and others in the RFC discussion at Talk:List of RHPs in CT, the NRHP HD appears to be essentially the same. I further concede that where the NRIS description of the HD is that it is the place of that name, and there is no other source establishing that they are different, as could have applied for Norris District vs. Norris, Tennessee, that keeping one article until it seems best to split for length reasons, is best. (In the Norris case, there was misleading NRHP.COM acreage information that at first seemed to be convincing evidence that the two were different.)

Second, let me assert: I am in fact working actively to enlist others to develop good NRHP HD articles. I do that in general by working with others to have list-articles of NRHPs, with well-disambiguated names for the articles set up, and with central resources at wp:NRHP on how to get sources and so on. I specifically enlist individual editors: for example, at User talk:46percent, i recently encouraged a new editor who had uploaded some photos, and I advised about how to address the more difficult HD ones. That editor has so far gone on to add photos for almost every NRHP listing in two Oregon counties. I would similarly encourage anyone who showed a current interest in CT NRHPs, as I have in the past tried to encourage several CT editors. The biggest part of enlisting others to develop articles is to set up a congenial atmosphere, to remove bureaucratic or other obstacles, to allow them to contribute as they wish, to answer questions, and to try to arrange for appropriate recognition where possible for the contibutions they make. What we have here in CT, though, is a combative, unfriendly situation, and the high obstacle of your opposition to the creation of articles at many (now fewer than before) NRHP names. I can't honestly recommend to any prospective editor that they should work in this area. I myself want to develop some NRHP HD articles, partly to prove or show something to you, but I find myself daunted at the prospect of dealing with unreasonable contention. As you are aware in conversation at Talk:List of RHPs in CT#Pomfret Street Historic District, I am currently dismayed at the prospects of a) having to battle in the future about whether two hamlets or villages will have to be covered in the article, when it is my informed judgment that they do not fit, and b) that your permission to me to develop an article is temporary, and that pretty much upon your whim you might battle in the future to force an unwanted merger. Even though I want to prove stuff to you by developing that article, the prospect of unnecessary further battling really gives me pause about proceeding on that one article. Likewise, in general I feel I cannot in general enlist others to work in CT articles, until this combative situation is resolved and there is a clear and reasonable agreement on what they will be allowed to do.

Thirdly, you say that "Until then, it makes more sense to merge", meaning unless and until the NRHP HD is developed to a lengthy extent in the place article. That is not an adequate answer to why you should oppose allowing others to develop NRHP HD articles at stub or any other length. I can accept it is your opinion, and that it would make sense to you to have them developed first within town/village articles. But I have given many reasons why it makes sense to me that allowing NRHP HD articles is best. To repeat one, it allows others to do 1500 character long articles on these wikipedia notable topics and get DYK credit, if they wish. I ask for you to respond further to my questions. In particular, you have not commented on my assertion that it helps the development of town/village articles, including the Noank one, to allow separate development of the NRHP HD article that covers some overlapping area and some period of history. I'll stop now. doncram (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no fundamental difference whether NRHP information is worked into the main Noank article or initially set up as separate. This is primarily a style issue. Wikipedia is not primarily for people to acquire a string of DYK credits. I surely hope that's not your main reason for insisting on splits. Again, I'll mention that there are a couple of instances in Rhode Island where mergers seemed acceptable to you just because they weren't my creations. I am beginning to think now that it is with me you have a problem with and not with merging. As long as someone else merges them, you might be fine with it? --Polaron | Talk 02:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we are starting to agree on some things:

• It is a style or personal preferences issue, about when and how articles are to be developed. It is fine for you and others to prefer to work by developing town/village/neighborhood articles and eventually calving off parts. It is not a wikipedia policy or guideline though to work in that way. In fact there are guidelines in favor of stub articles, such as wp:IDEALSTUB, and as far as I know there are no wikipedia policie or guidelines against creating redlinks and stubs and working ahead that way in article development. In my view your preference does not have to conflict with how many others prefer to work on valid wikipedia article topics.
• If I am perceiving that correctly, that you have a personal preference to develop CT town/village articles in a top-down fashion to include NRHP information, then I and others would probably be willing to join you in working in a development campaign to add that kind of information. As you will have noticed, i have occasionally been fixing up or adding NRHP-related info to town articles. I think you may possibly get a good response if you would make a positive proposal at wp:NRHP and/or wp:CT. What I object to is negative campaigning to prevent the alternative, bottoms-up approach to developing articles that I and others also wish to pursue. I also think that is complementary and ends up helping, sooner than you would think, in the articles being developed in the top-down approach.
• I myself have sometimes wondered about others who seemed excessively motivated about DYK credits. However, developing articles to the DYK-eligible level is good to do, and there are many people who do enjoy the experience. Daniel Case, notably among current NRHP editors, goes for DYK all the time; I and others do it more occasionally; I don't think you can't knock those who choose to do it. To me it often seems helpful when collaborating with others to have achieving DYK as a tangible goal, and then to get the additional attention paid to the article in the DYK review process. And then to get the additional feedback from some readers when the DYK is posted, often several thousand exposures. The DYK publication is motivation or reinforcement or some reason, anyhow, for many, for doing a good starter article.
• I've reviewed all the Rhode Island NRHP HDs and agree there are some potential issues there, to be addressed later. The idea right now though is to come to consensus, or to receive a third party judgment, on some CT ones. I think we have to focus on some specific cases, and i thought you also agreed to do so here. doncram (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Now can we talk about Noank? I thought we agreed to informally leave things in the state they happen to be in and proceed with discussion of specific details about each place. If I misunderstood you, please let me know now so I can decide whether it is worth continuing with this. I have already agreed to not have mergers with town articles even though they're appropriate in some cases. That already gives you about half of what you wanted. We're now only discussing mergers with villages and you're still unwilling to find common ground. Let's talk about Noank. --Polaron | Talk 01:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have not replied to some worthwhile points made above, such as that allowing the development of an article at Noank HD would assist in developing the Noank article. But I agree that there has not been anything much discussed that is specific to Noank. Please do let's talk about Noank. You need to make a case why you want to have a consensus decision for merging Noank Historic District. I think you should make a positive proposal for that, including your making a case for blocking the development of a separate Noank Historic District article for some time. I would appreciate if you could clarify in a proposal at what point you would prefer for a separate Noank HD article to be created, or explain if you think it should always be banned. IMO, so far you have not yet made any positive case for covering the Noank HD at all or extensively in the Noank article, much less for blocking a separate NRHP HD article permanently or temporarily. Please do go ahead! doncram (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The historic district is the original settlement of Noank at the mouth of the Mystic River. The CDP associated with Noank includes more modern (post 1920s) residential development west of the historic district as well as even newer houses north of Brook Street. The bulk of the history of Noank, however, is all confined to the original settlement. If one were to discuss the history and culture of the place known as Noank, most of it will be about the historic district. Noank was defined as a CDP only in the 2000 census (it was not a CDP in the 1990 census). The article does need an extensive reworking to change the focus to the social, cultural, and historical aspect of the village. I would go ahead and rewrite the article if a unified article about all things Noank is permitted. --Polaron | Talk 19:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You are already permitted to do that. Please ask further if you perceive there to be any obstacle getting in the way. By the way, have you visited Noank already and taken photos of buildings there? Or would you possibly be able to visit and take pictures, anytime soon? doncram (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess i am not going to get a response to my question about pictures. That's okay, I myself don't like stating on-wiki my current or future whereabouts, and I don't mean to pry. But, what I was thinking, was that I would have make a proposal here: that if P would get pics, I would work to develop a good, extensive coverage of Noank, using the Noank Historic District NRHP application documents which I have now received. Towards an amount of good coverage that i think P and anyone would agree is best summarized in the Noank article, and more fully expanded in a Noank HD separate article. Anyhow, I do have the Noank HD NRHP documents now. Upon request to me by email, i will share them to anyone. The extent of the NRHP HD district is in fact larger than I expected, and its bounds may in fact serve as a pretty good primary definition of what is most often meant by "Noank". Based on the NRHP documents plus the state's economic development plan map for the larger town and other sources now, it looks to me that a) the Noank CDP is a larger area; b) the Noank HD is the historical, traditional area, certainly incorporating the entire original "core" area; c) inbetween are some newer developments that may or may not be commonly known locally as part of Noank. These all deserve coverage in one "Noank" article. I also assess that there is detailed information in the NRHP document which supports creating a more detailed article about the historic area covered in the Noank HD. Personally, I have visited other CT places, but have no connection to Noank. In the absence of a personal connection, and in the absence of photos, I myself am not really interested in developing good articles about Noank and its HD. Many NRHP editors have preferred not to start stub articles or develop fuller articles, if photos are not available. My feeling is that a stub is helpful in that it calls for photos, and helps to enlist locals who might provide photos, so I would wish to create an NRHP HD stub article here. I do agree that this case meets Polaron's criteria 1, 2, 3 stated in discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck. In the absence of some complete proposal at Talk:Poquetanuck that I can agree to, my feeling is that here it is best to allow separate articles, as there is clearly material and wikipedia guidelines/policies in support of allowing separate articles on the Noank and Noank HD topics. doncram (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Polaron, I mean no disrespect to you, but I am now going to proceed to start Noank Historic District as an article and I will also create Talk:Noank/alternative as a complementary alternative to the current Noank article. I did hold off on going against your wish for 10 days now, but I feel frustrated in this example under discussion and I feel it is undermining the discussion, not to have a separate Noank HD article. I believe that no one has supported Polaron's request now, or edit warring in previous cases, to prevent development of an alternative during the present kind of merger proposal discussion. I do see that I could create the same in a differently named Talk subpage, but I do not choose to do so. It remains wikipedia policy and guidelines that an article on a wikipedia notable topic is encouraged and allowed, and I am not going to suggest otherwise by creating this article at a different location. Polaron, I ask you not to battle in that article. I will pause for anyone else's comments and then proceed in that way, here and probably also in the 3 other cases also under discussion. doncram (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Propose to close discussion

On basis that I have the Noank NRHP document and judge that there is plenty of material to have a separate NRHP HD article, and that it is clear at least to me that there is stuff to say about the village and/or CDP which is not about the HD, and vice versa, I suggest that we close this discussion. No one has taken me up on my offer to share the NRHP document, which I actually think is kind of odd. Given that, I think everyone else should defer to my informed judgment here. My proposal is:

Noank proposal A (9/22/2009): We agree to separate development of articles on "Noank" and on "Noank Historic District", with the NRHP infobox and related categories to appear in the latter only. The Noank article should link to the NRHP HD and it can include summary information about the NRHP HD.

Please vote "Support" or "Oppose" or make a different proposal. doncram (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Since Doncram has the NRHP nomination form, I will not oppose a separate article assuming that he or someone else will be actually working on expanding the separate historic district article. Let's give this one a chance and see how the article grows. --Polaron | Talk 17:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Per Polaron and Doncram. Let's see what develops. Acroterion _(talk) 19:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Noank CDP

What is the area of the Noank CDP? There is a "reference map" linked from the website factfinder.census.gov which shows one area, but then other maps covering various demographic information show different areas.

Map links (not sure if these will work as hard links):

• Factfinder webpage for Noank
• reference map
• one demographic info map

doncram (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there is an 1868 map of Noank available halfway down this page at the Noank Historical Society. Comparing, it seems that Noank at least back then is quite different than the Noank CDP area. doncram (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That 1868 map you refer to is essentially the same area as the Noank National Register district (i.e. the area around Route 215 and east and south of it on the peninsula). --Polaron | Talk 01:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that Noank is like many other places, where there was a recognizable tiny settlement, then it grew and grew. I once saw a very interesting exhibit of a sequence of historic maps of Boston, at the Boston library. It showed the growth of the settlement, and also in that case the dramatically changing shape of the city as the Back Bay and other areas were filled in. A map showing Noank overlays as of different times, plus the HD boundary and the CDP boundary, would be helpful. However, this is aside from the question of whether an NRHP HD article can be developed. Suppose the NRHP HD area is more or less the same as one version of Noank's past (which has not been established). It is still different from Noank today, just like a museum of a city is not the same as a city. doncram (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable residents info removed

I noticed additions and deletions of unreferenced assertions about notable people, and i think it's best to remove all. What was in the article before recent additions was:

• Aviatrix Amelia Earhart married George Palmer Putnam in Noank February 7, 1931.
• Painter Robert Brackman (1898–1980) lived and worked here.
• Admiral William Halsey (American Navy, WW2) lived here. His descendants still do.
• American choral music composer Mark Daniel Merritt (1961-) lived in Noank during his childhood.
• Arctic Explorer Peter Freuchen (1886–1957) had a second home in Noank.

I think it's best to remove all unsupported info, rather than leaving some in, because it suggests to others that they can add unsupported assertions. It seems wrong to encourage them to add, when it only leads to long-involved editors abruptly removing those additions. Anyhow, consider all this info challenged -- i challenge it -- and it is wikipedia policy that unsupported info can and should be challenged and removed. Removed. --doncram (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, i visit again upon noticing some changes in the notable residents section in the article, which had been restored, and which i further changed. Then i notice this discussion section here was itself removed, and i have just now restored it. I don't get it, do other editors want to suppress discussion about info accuracy, or to suppress info selectively, or what? --doncram (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, my mistake, it was i who accidentally restored the section, when revisiting a previous edit that i thot was most recent, but was not. I agree with my original view, i.e. that unsupported info should not be in the article, and i removed the entire section again. I have, by the way, started an article about fisherman, painter, and writer and storyteller Ellery Thompson, which had been added to the above items, and was deleted by a different editor. This person seems more notable and related to Noank than others. --doncram (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I restored the section and combined it with "cultural references", which is also unsourced. I added a single "Unreferenced" template for the entire section. This information is almost certainly valid, and it's an important element of this little community, so it's a shame to hide it. The big template should suffice to alert both contributors and users to the issues with it. --Orlady (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Noank, 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I will edit to fix this within a week. The article begins with a suggested pronunciation that is nonsensical: Noank (/ˈnoʊɪŋk/ NOH-ink).

This pronunciation was added in 2019, maybe as vandalism, maybe as a prank. At this point there's no way to know, and motivations are irrelevant in any case. No one says Noh-ink. It's NOH-ank or ˈnoʊæŋk in IPA. Though this hardly needs proof, there is ample proof in the popular sticker... it rhymes: https://www.carsonsnoankct.com/product/noanker-sticker/30 EllenM4014 (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit done. EllenM4014 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@EllenM4014 I was about to say as a local Noanker I was laughing at the realization on the page that no one pronounces the town like that hahaha! I want to add the fact that in the past 20 years the term "Noanker" and the Noanker bumper sticker has become associated as the unofficial/official identifier as well as "get-out-of-jail-free card" for the locals. Since not many people know what it is and belive it means "No Boating" no one but Noankers buy them. Funforme3 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)