Talk:Wilder, Vermont

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Wilder, Vermont.
was pretty much word for word in the article, removing tags and closing discussion for this reason. If someone wants to somehow expand on the topic it can be split! -- DarkCrow^Caw 19:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

---

I've proposed merger because the area of the district and the village appear to be essentially the same. Given that the CDP encompasses 0.8 mi², or approximately 500 acres, and that the district encompasses 400 acres, there's obviously part of the CDP that's not in the district. However, some of the CDP's area above the river appears to be woodland (presumably added because it wouldn't be a good idea for the CDP to have extremely irregular boundaries), so the settled area [corresponding to a village as described in Village (Vermont)] should reasonably be seen to be equivalent to the historic district boundaries. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, earlier discussion of whether these articles should be merged occurred at the state-level National Register talk page. --Orlady (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Other than my comment at the bottom, I don't see anything in that section that attempts to say that the boundaries themselves are essentially identical. I interpret your previous words to mean "they're similar enough that they shouldn't have separate articles", but not to mean "they're essentially identical in every way". Do I misunderstand you? Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't get wh

• Support I initially setup the historic district article to point to the village article with the intention of discussing the historic district in the village article. To me the boundaries don't have to match perfectly in order for merging as long as the original village core is the mostly the same as the historic district. In the case of Wilder, the historic district actually appears to be roughly the same as the "Wilder Urban Compact", which is smaller than the CDP because it excludes unpopulated fringe areas. The urban compact doesn't extend west as far as I-91, as far south as Bugbee Street, and also excludes the lake at the mouth of Dothan Brook north of the village area unlike the CDP. (The CDP is bounded the way it is because there is a requirement for visible boundaries, e.g. streets and rivers). --Polaron | Talk 13:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly support merger (I posted that link to the earlier discussion only to maintain documentation of the record of earlier discussion, and did not comment further at that time because I was not then in a position to do so.) I did support merger earlier, and my opinion has not changed. I do not agree that the boundaries of an historic district and village must be essentially identical in order for the two articles to be merged, but if they are essentially identical in this case, that supports my position that the articles should be merged. I perceive that this situation exhibits all four of the possible "reasons to merge" listed at WP:merging: (1) there is substantial identity between "Wilder the village" and "the Wilder village historic district," (2) there is a large amount of overlap in the content and potential content of the two articles, (3) the historic district article is a stub without much in the way of useful content and no near-term prospects of major expansion, and (4) the short historic district article "requires the background material or context" from the village article in order to provide worthwhile information for readers. (I have expressed my views on the general topic of merger of HDs like this one in much greater length at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut#Content forking.) --Orlady (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I'll be fairly brief: No one has collected the available, free, National Register of Historic Places application and/or after-the-fact inventory documents describing the NRHP HD. So, attempts to reason about the extent of overlap, and about the facts of the NRHP HD listing, are uninformed by that most basic source. It is speculation way beyond my tastes to assert that the CDP must be the NRHP HD area "plus woodland", based apparently on the 400 vs. 500 acre sizes of the two areas. Hugely different sizes would prove they are different geographically; identical sizes would not prove they are the same. Overlap of history is also not addressed: the NRHP HD could be all about how the preserved contributing properties speak to a certain history that is best described through discussion of detail of the NRHP HD, and which would complement but best not be merged with other history relating to previous/later/other periods, persons, events not exemplified in the NRHP HD artifacts. It appears to me that several persons wish for there to be complete overlap. This is just nonsense, in my view, to discuss, without anyone obtaining (and hopefully sharing) the most relevant source document which should contain a map showing the exact boundaries of the NRHP HD. And, to make comparisons of overlap, one would also need a map or other clear source on the CDP (I don't know if that has been obtained or not). So, I oppose a merger being forced. Also, there was a discussion section open about this case at Talk:List of RHPs in VT#Wilder Village Historic District, which documents repeated, low-grade edit warring on this very article pairing. Given the history of edit warring on this specific case and on others like it, I think the merger proponents should do more before anyone should allow them to prohibit NRHP editors writing a fully sourced, encylopedic article about a wikipedia notable NRHP HD topic, free from the burden and unpleasantness of dealing with the often unsourced and frankly crummy nature that is typical of CDP/town/village articles (I am not specifically now looking at the writing of this CDP/town/village article, which may or may not have unsourced statements, trivia sections, and so on, but certainly many do). doncram (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wilder CDP

Here is your detailed map. Google Maps is also useful: it highlights Wilder in a darker color from the surrounding countryside; the only bordering area not darker is White River Junction, which likewise is a CDP; you can see from its map that the two border. Comparison of the map and Google's satellite view will show that much of the area in the CDP is woods, which doesn't fit the description of the district (from nrhp.com) as "Library, Multiple Dwelling, Religious Structure, Restaurant, School, Secondary Structure, Single Dwelling". While it's different in many other situations, the overlap is quite clear here. By the way, please don't think of this as a "forced merger"; I'm simply trying to demonstrate that these two areas (the district and the settled area) really are identical. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded the map and added it to the article. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing that, i'm inserting a copy here too. I take it that CDP maps are available from the census bureau. Getting similar maps will help in other discussions. This is progress and greatly facilitates discussion of geographic overlap. According to somewhere, streets included in the NRHP HD "include Norwich, Passumpsic, and Horseshoe Avenues, and Chestnut, Gillette, Fern, Hawthorn, Locust and Division Street". Comparing this CDP map to Google maps, you can see that the street labelled Wilder Dam Road here is the lower section of Passumpsic Avenue; Norwich Avenue is the north-south street just to the left, and Horseshoe Avenue is the little loop street below Fern, and the other cross-streets are named. So, all the streets named in the NRHP HD are within the CDP, but are all concentrated in one small part of the CDP. It is a mystery where the supposed 400 acres of the NRHP HD lie. Perhaps the NRHP HD area figure is a data entry typo in the NRIS database (echoed by the NRHP.COM)? What is lacking for comparison of geography, and for clarification on any potential typo on the area, is the NRHP HD document. doncram (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You're correct: all municipalities (aside from municipal MCDs, such as New England towns) and CDPs have maps available. Go to http://factfinder.census.gov and type in the name of the community. Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, factfinder also has maps for New England towns. --Orlady (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice; I've never had reason to look for those. All I know is that they don't have profiles (whence someone could access the appropriate map) for townships in Ohio and states farther west, and as both midwestern townships and NE towns are MCDs, I assumed that there wouldn't be profiles for New England towns either. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Where's the mystery? The CDP shown on that map totals 0.8 sq mi, which is 500 acres. The HD is 400 acres and includes (but is not necessarily limited to) several named streets that are depicted on the map. It's clear that some parts of the CDP aren't developed, but are part of the CDP due to the Census Bureau's need to use convenient boundaries (in this case I-91), so the developed part of the CDP is roughly 400 acres. Are you suggesting that this interpretation is wrong, and that the HD is somewhere different from the area shown on the map? --Orlady (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Break for convenience

I'm guessing that one thing causing problems for us is some of the newer development: obviously some buildings in the community aren't old enough to be in a district that was designated in 1999. However, I don't think that there are 203 buildings-and-object along those streets alone. Rather, like with so many other districts that give only a general idea of their boundaries, I believe that this one encompasses the entire settled area and has those streets simply as summaries. Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, when I search Focus for the HD, I find (aside from the fact that the nomination isn't available) that one reason for its listing was community planning. Sounds like a weak argument (but another one nonetheless) for merger. Nyttend (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not altogether suprising. The "early planned community" text has been in the article since October 2005 when it was added (unsourced) by someone who apparently knew something about Wilder and considered this one of the place's salient features. That factoid apparently came from the very short blurb on the town website.[1] The perpendicular streets (a planning feature) were also a highlight in one of the very old sources that I was able to find online. HD nominations are often drafted by local people who are well aware of the salient things in their communities that are interesting or significant, so it stands to reason that if the urban plan is locally recognized as a piece of unique history, it would be a feature of the HD listing, too. --Orlady (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting discussion on various topics, but with respect to merger discussion, the speculation on likely overlap is just speculation. The NRHP HD article can be a well-sourced proper article already, as far as it goes, which is not to include speculation on geo- and history- overlap. doncram (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Because there's apparently a complete overlap here, I'm trying to offer reasons that I believe that the overlap has been made. By the way, the planned community bit that I mean is from the results you get when you search Focus: I was unaware that something was in the article about it. Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Umm

The area of the town is 500 acres, give or take. The HD's 40 acres, not 400. That's 400 acres of woods or whatever, not 80. I'm aware of the 10x issue, but it apparently goes the other way. I'm holding off on a merge for now, as the discrepancy is way outside the ground rules I've proposed.. Acroterion _(talk) 02:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The prior discussion (above) occurred before we discovered the 10x error. As a result, all contributors to the discussion thought the HD had an area of 400 acres. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

For reference, a rough map of the boundaries of the historic district and the urban compact are here. The historical development may still have sufficient overlap that a merge might make more sense. --Polaron | Talk 02:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That agrees with my impression of the relative areas. There are several other examples of this situation in Orlady's list. I'll continue on for a bit and see what I can see elsewhere in the candidates. Acroterion _(talk) 02:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Google Earth reveals considerable suburban development. If there is a consensus for merging on the basis of the town core, that's one thing, but that's not what the discussion above was about. Acroterion _(talk) 02:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

All above noted. Just making sure we're all talking about the same things. Acroterion _(talk) 03:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting merger to the town or to the CDP? Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge to the CDP; not Hartford, which properly speaking is the town. Sorry for the terminology lapse. Acroterion _(talk) 13:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This was the first of these that I looked at, and I was concerned that the factor-of-ten issue had distorted the discussion. This appears to be a village-center merge. Acroterion _(talk) 02:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My personal viewpoint on this has always been that they should be merged to the Wilder, Vermont (village/CDP) article, not so much because of land area but because (1) we have very little actual information about the HD, (2) a lot of the information in the village/CDP article is about Wilder's history -- and can be presumed to be relevant to the HD, even if it is not strictly about the HD, (3) I have a hunch that the HD listing is going to turn out to more about the historic core of the village as a coherent whole (for example, the village plan) than about specific buildings, and (4) the likelihood of developing much more in the way of meaningful content about nonhistorical aspects of Wilder that could overwhelm the history part seems very, very small. The village/CDP article provides meaningful context for the data about the HD, while the HD info adds useful value to the article about the village. They "work" better together than they do apart. --Orlady (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This was the first of these that I looked at, and I was concerned that the factor-of-ten issue had distorted the discussion. This appears to be a village-center merge. Acroterion _(talk) 02:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I would like to see some clarification here, namely that there shall not be a merger. This is now an obvious case. The original merger proposal by Nyttend and the support by Orlady was heavily predicated on the incorrect area information. Acroterion, do you need any more discussion? I would prefer not to respond to new arguments much more than saying I disagree with Orlady's new arguments 1, 2, and 3, and I don't necessarily agree with 4 either. If you need more clarification I will respond, but i think there has been adequate clarification here that this should be closed already as do not merge. doncram (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll explain my reasoning at greater length tomorrow, but sleep beckons, and I'm making no decisions tonight. My feeling after reading some quite interminable arguments is that CDPs, at least, are creatures of the Census Bureau that use the village centers as convenient statistical/geographical landmarks. Thus, comparisons of CDP acreage and HD acreage have little to do with each other. It is the place that is important. I reiterate what I've said elsewhere, that the easy availability of the maps associated with the NRHP noms would deal with most of the arguments I've seen, and that we're reduced to the same circular arguments that are wearing out everybody's good will in the absence of better material that will eventually become available. Acroterion _(talk) 03:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that we understand that the nrohp.com area figures are wrong, I obviously can't support a merger for the reason that the areas have identical boundaries. I would remove the tag, but obviously others support the merger after I've stopped. Thanks, Polaron, for providing the Google map; it would be nice if I knew how to do that :-) I don't think that a merger is appropriate here: quite obviously, the community — whether you go by the CDP boundaries or simply the area where there are streets and houses — is several times the size of the HD. After all, areas such as that shown here aren't anything like the HD: the HD itself is a place within Wilder that is distinct from the rest of the "place" of Wilder around it by its historic nature. It can be and is defined, and its much smaller size guarantees that we could focus specifically on it. Including a note on the Wilder article about the district and its significance to Wilder is appropriate, and including a note on the HD page about how Wilder's history is significant to the HD is likewise appropriate. I don't see these areas as being the same "place". Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)