Talk:Meadow Marsh

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved to Meadow Marsh. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Luther W. Tilden House → Luther F. Tilden House – Request consideration of correct name for this place, and possible move to "Luther F. Tilden House" if that is correct rather than "Luther W. Tilden House". The building is listed in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places' National Register Information System (NRIS) as "Luther F.", but there are occasional errors in NRIS. A non-logged in editor noted in an edit summary in 2012 that "This is really the Luther W. Tilden house-- it's Luther F's SON. Luther F's two homes are further south on the same road". Perhaps that information is correct. Please help figure out what is correct information and help find sources to resolve this! doncram 17:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Or, even better, move to Meadow Marsh, which is how the estate is known (note that there are other contributing buildings in the NRHP listing, so naming it after the estate rather than the main building seems appropriate). "Luther F. Tilden House" appears to be a creation of the NRHP, or at least of the agency that submitted the property, and more of a description than a proper name. I don't find many sources attributing the home to Luther W. (this is an exception, which claims Meadow Marsh was built 1910 by Luther W), though some (such as this from the Orlando Sentinel) are ambiguous: which Tilden was the "citrus pioneer"? Powers ^T 18:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those comments and links. It seems to me that moving to Meadow Marsh is the best alternative suggested, simply because that seems to be the common name for the site, and it also happens that avoids the issue of whether it was "W." or "F." who in fact was relatively more associated with the site. --doncram 19:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support LtPowers' proposal. Better to go with an established name, and as Doncram says, it conveniently avoids the middle-name problem. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meadow Marsh. 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/20121228180014/http://www.greenmountainbyway.org/historicalsites.html to http://www.greenmountainbyway.org/historicalsites.html

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) 19:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)