Talk:Falls Village, Connecticut

Connecticut Mid‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

explanation of "substantially similar"[edit]

I added statement into article that the "village" of Falls Village is "substantially similar" to the "Falls Village District", a NRHP-listed historic district, with "citation needed" tag. Please, other editors, do not lightly remove that statement as it is compromise worked out among other edit-war determined editors at List of RHPs in CT and elsewhere. If you would like to remove the "citation needed" tag, please obtain and add a source which specifically discusses the relationship between "Falls Village" and the NRHP historic district that is apparently in or near the village. In particular, please obtain and cite the free NRHP nomination document by email request to "nr_reference (at) nps.gov". If anyone cares to disagree with me that this is a fair presentation of the compromise agreement, they are probably lying. :) doncram (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not lying, and I resent the implication that anyone who disagrees with Doncram is a liar. My reasons for deleting that sentence (or, in some cases, tagging it as "needing clarification") are laid out in copious detail at Talk:Baltic, Connecticut, where I actually encapsulated much longer statements elsewhere.

Doncram is adding these sentences because of a perceived need to say something (even if that "something" is basically original research and the sentence doesn't make sense outside the talk page context) about the geographic relationship between a village and an HD in any article that discusses both. I continue to contend that the reader has no need to find such a statement in an article, and the sentences make no sense when added to articles. As noted I on an edit summary earlier today, in the context of an article that sentence serves primarily to leave users wondering "WTF is Wikipedia doing now?" --Orlady (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I readded a "substantially similar" statement, per agreement among some editors (altho against Orlady's opinion) to stabilize CT NRHP articles. The current article contains some sourced description of the HD, but it does not compare the village vs. the HD. I am guessing the NRHP nom document would serve as a good source to characterize the relationship. doncram (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron removed the statement, with an edit summary asserting the relationship is described in the third paragraph. I don't see such a statement. What i see is description of the district, not a sourced description of any relationship of the district to the village. By relationship, what could be put in is some description of the district including some parts of the village, but excluding other parts of the village, with footnote to a map page or other pages of the NRHP nomination document, for example. Or, better, some characterization of what is the village/hamlet as a whole, from some source, and note of what is different vs. the district. I'll wait for some substantial response, and otherwise revert to the "substantially similar" clause with its obvious call for editors to do some research. I suppose another alternative is to agree to split this article to allow separate, internally consistent articles about HD and about village, in which neither attempts to describe a relationship. doncram (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already such a statement based on the nomination form. It is the portion in the central part of the village that was built up as a result of having a railroad stop here. --Polaron | Talk 15:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate NRHP HD article or not[edit]

A bunch of editors have been debating (elsewhere, as well as some above) when and where it is helpful to have separate articles on NRHP HDs, like about "Falls Village District", vs. when it is best to include the NRHP info in an article about a village/hamlet/neighborhood like this "Falls Village, Connecticut" article.

Some of the editors (me included) agree that for Falls Village and Falls Village HD we currently want a merged article. But if there is someone who wants to make a decent separate article, that would be okay too. We just ask, please don't split out a separate NRHP HD article unless a) you have created or are actively developing a DYK-equivalent length starter article using substantial information, and b) you judge in good faith that it is beneficial to have the NRHP HD be a separate article.

Note, for all CT NRHPs, a good source is available, the NRHP nomination document, provided free of charge upon email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. And, in December 2010, the National Register has just made available online copies of almost all of the NRHP documents for CT: see search screen here.

Currently, "Falls Village District" is set to redirect to "Falls Village, Connecticut". (Equivalent notice being placed at Talk:Falls Village District.) --doncram (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:CanaanCTseal.jpg[edit]

The image File:CanaanCTseal.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. --03:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, as the logo is for both places. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Falls Village, 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/20090405124203/http://www.canaanfallsvillage.org:80/History.htm to http://www.canaanfallsvillage.org/History.htm

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) 13:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]