Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)/Archive 1

relationship of 3 sites

The current article covers 3 NRHP-listed places whose relationship is currently unclear to me. The Williamson MRA document mentions the Old Town house on page 21, with no mention of others. At page 46 it mentions the Old Town Bridge. Both are near Franklin, Tennessee, not necessarily near each other. I skimmed the the MRA document covering archeological resources but don't find it mentioning either. The NRIS database asserts that the Old Town Archaeological Site is near Franklin, Tennessee.

What source is there asserting that any pair, or all three, are located together? I am just not clear now. If there is an off-line source identifying that the archeological site is near to the house or bridge, i would also be perhaps uncomfortable about using that. The National Register's database indicates that the location of the site is not disclosed. In other cases, I have opposed disclosure of location of address-restricted sites, and in general it is not a good idea unless the location is really well-known (such as by a state opening a museum at the site, and making it very public) and/or unless National Register and state staff are consulted and agree that location information can be disclosed. But without a tie by location, there would seem to be less rationale for having a merged article about the three topics.

Is there more about the locations in an off-line source used already in the article? And, is it possible to describe the relationship without identifying the location of the archeological site? If not, then I would tend to think that splitting the article and keeping discussion separate, so as not to beg public disclosure of the archeological site's location, might be better. --doncram (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i see that the McGuinness online source at http://www.franklinis.com/old-town-s98 identifies that the 3 places are located together, perhaps all three within 300 yards. But, there are many places located near to each other where we don't merge topics into one article. These 3 seem very disparate: a house from 1842 or so; a bridge from 1801; an ancient village and archeological site. Perhaps the house and the bridge were named for the previous ones, but that is not a substantial reason to cover these together either. I don't mind that an editor tried to tie these together, but i don't think it is really working. Is there other reason, besides being located nearby, for covering these three topics in one article? --doncram (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking to check the references cited in the article. "Old Town" is the name of a place on the Natchez Trace that existed long before the National Register of Historic Places was created. It is the place where the mound complex is located (Indian mounds are not easy to hide, even though the address is not published), where a bridge was built in 1801 when the US government built a road along the ancient route of the Natchez Trace, and where Thomas Brown built a house that was given the name "Old Town". More information on the place called "Old Town" is found on this page from one of the books cited by McGuinness. Not enough of the book is available online to make the book useful as a source for the article, but it is a useful source of context -- and if you search the online contents, you will find that the book refers to the bridge as the "Stone Bridge at Old Town." The article was drafted to cover the place and its history, including the three elements listed on the NRHP.

Also, note that the three NRHP-listed properties are not just "near" each other; all three are basically at the same place. 300 yards (i.e., 900 feet) is not a large distance when one is talking about three NRHP listings that have a collective total area of over 15 acres (note that if 15 acres were a square, it would be over 800 feet on each side). From the images on Bing and Google Maps, the bridge is indeed a short distance north of the house. The bridge crosses Brown's Creek just above its confluence with the Harpeth River, and sources indicate that the Indian village was at the mouth of Brown’s Creek. (I can't be sure what features in the aerial images are the Indian village, but there are several elements in the images that could be the remains of mounds and other earthworks.) --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is noted, thanks. You seem to think that the 3 items should be covered in one article, while i tend to think it is an odd kludge-together of 3 differently named things. The bridge name "Stone Bridge at Old Town" could be added as an alternative to the article, but is again, not the same. You don't seriously think criteria of "within 300 yards" should be used to justify mergers of articles about side-by-side buildings, which abound, surely, in lists of Tennessee NRHPs and elsewhere. Why do you want to have these three items together? I am pretty sure we'll have to agree to disagree about the best treatment for readers here, but I wonder if you could explain what is your motivation, i really don't follow. --doncram (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents, since all 3 have separate NHRP designations, they should have separate articles with links in their respective see also lists to the other sites. There is no point in keeping them all on one page, except for the stubbornness of whoever originally lumped them together. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting this 8 months later, I think its best to split this into three articles on the 3 NRHP places. They can link to each other in a "See also" way. I'll pause for comments, but currently I plan to make the split as no reason for merger has been given as far as i can tell, and consensus of editors Heironymous Rowe and me seems to be that splitting makes sense. --doncram (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I further revised the article today to further implement that, removing discussion of the house named Old Town except for hatnote disambiguation. The house has a separate article. There is no way the house is confused with the village/archeological site. This was discussed above, and i think there was 2:1 perspective against this article being an odd 3-way merge for places located near each other. Yet, editor Orlady has reverted, i think with no good reason. Orlady, could you please explain here. --Doncram (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The lede which Orlady restored is like for a disambiguation page: "Old Town refers to three adjacent historic properties in Franklin, Tennessee, all listed on the National Register of Historic Places." The assertion is not true: Old Town Bridge is not possibly confused with Old Town the house or Old Town, the old town. I suppose that continued assertions that there is confusion could be resolved by making "Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)" into a disambiguatio page. I would prefer to have it refer to the old town, and include hatnote disambiguation to the one other place sometimes given that name, the house. Orlady, do you want this to be a disambiguation page, or what? --Doncram (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am convinced by Orlady's repeated edits, now also with assertion that Old Town is a neighborhood of Franklin, Tennessee, that disambiguation needed. Created dab page at Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) covering 3 main entries and a see also to the Old Town Bridge. Hopefully this clarifies and articles on the completely separate topics can be developed in peace. Over. --Doncram (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page for disambiguation page with this title

As "warned" above, Doncram converted this title to a disambiguation page and expunged the article of much of its contents. I have restored the previous condition. The talk page for the disambiguation version of this page is at Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)/disambiguation. --Orlady (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I think you used administrative tools to delete the disambiguation page. Could you please restore the disambiguation page, perhaps to Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) (disambiguation), corresponding to location where u put the Talk page. I see that you disagree with conventional disambiguation; i'll plan to open a multiple page requested move sometime later. Orlady, please provide me a copy of the deleted page. --Doncram (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted version to the article history -- what I should have done as soon as I finished the edit series. Sorry for my omission. --Orlady (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

revisiting

{{Uninvolved|Close|Content-dispute discussion on this page (including discussion prior to this section) has gone on way too long and is not getting anywhere. Need an uninvolved administrator to examine the information and either close it or participate in discussion with the aim of clarifying the "positions" and reaching closure. The issue as I see it is whether the historic properties related to "Old Town" at Franklin should become: (1) Four pages, including a disambiguation page at this title and three articles about the specific properties at other titles, linked to one another only by disambiguation hatnotes. This is Doncram's position and it is apparently (per his comments at WP:AN) based on a perception that there is no relationship between the three historic properties. (2) Three pages, each being an article about one of the historic properties, with the mound site (archaeological site) to be covered in the article at this title, which article would include short subsections about the related properties (and {{main}} templates to point readers to the other articles). This is my position and it is based on a perception that the three properties are related and co-located, with the mound site being the feature originally called "Old Town" that is the source of the geographic name and encompasses most or all of the physical area. (3) Four pages, including one article about the place called "Old Town" and three separate articles about the individual properties there. This proposal probably was an attempted to find a compromise. A flaw that I see in this proposal is that there is no sourced content about the place per se that could be used as the basis for a article about the place. Orlady (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}}

Way too much is written in that "uninvolved" request, by highly involved editor Orlady. FYI, I collected NRHP docs about the 3 sites with relevant info, not yet fully reflected here due to real-life and too much dispute elsewhere. Discussion here has been problematic due to insults / personal attacks that could be better be addressed by arbitration or other dispute resolution, instead. Orlady has refused mediation repeatedly. --doncram 14:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)}}

Doncram, the "uninvolved" template is a request for an uninvolved party (ideally an administrator) to visit this page and attempt to close the discussion. It stands to reason that an involved person would be the one adding that template. I resent your insinuation that there was something nefarious about my attempting, as an involved party, to outline the controversy in the template. Whoever tries to resolve this will (unfortunately for them) need to read this entire page and a lot of the article history; I was merely trying to set the stage to make it easier for them to find the issues within the wall of words. And mediation is not an appropriate or effective means to resolve the issues that swirl around this and other pages. --Orlady (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the request is biased and provides false information. You state "This is Doncram's position and it is apparently (per his comments at WP:AN) based on a perception that there is no relationship between the three historic properties." That is mischaracterizing my view, it is deliberately lying or being recklessly indifferent to the facts of what I have said. I doubt that i implied anywhere there is no relationship between the sites. In the articles, I put in and/or edited statements describing the relationships between the sites. A request for an uninvolved person to come in, should be short and objective, and definitely should not include outright falsehoods about other editors! --doncram 16:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If, after "discussing" this with you for over a year (on and off), I still cannot discern your position, heaven help the uninvolved intervenor! --Orlady (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Something reminded me of this page, and I returned and implemented improvements (sensible hatnote disambiguation + copyediting consistent with the linked articles) in these edits. Orlady returns also to revert. I restored the improvements, which IMO are obvious improvements. Please discuss, if you wish. Two editors (me and Hieronymus Rowe who commented just once a while back) have spoken in favor of this article being clearly about the Old Town mounds site / archeological site. It is not about the house which carries another name or about the bridge which is named differently, though those can be linked. I believe the last version after my edits here does a good job in linking to them appropriately. --doncram 02:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies to anyone who cares about Franklin, as it appears to me that Doncram's changes here have less to do with the substance of the article than with Doncram's habit of personalizing disagreements over editing -- and carrying on long-term wars against individuals who have gained his enmity by disagreeing with him. If he were as high-minded as he lets on, when I commented on his talk page, why did he delete my comment without replying? I did not revert on this article until after I saw that he had chosen to ignore my message to him. The timing of this revert relative to changes that I made to another page where Doncram was warring with another editor, lead me to interpret the changes here as personal retaliation against me. --Orlady (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted your comment on my Talk page because it seemed rude and it somewhat annoyed me. I deleted another comment of yours on my Talk page recently, before. So what. Your comment here and comments and edits at another page that i developed recently (see Talk:Bostick Female Academy) seem like personalized battling by you against me. I feel somewhat stupid for replying; this is off-topic for what the article on Old Town Archeological Site and any possible article on Old Town as a place should say. --doncram 11:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the substance of Doncram's changes:

The sources I have used for my work on this article indicate to me that "Old Town" is a name applied to a place along the Natchez Trace. The Mississippian village at this spot came to be referred to by later peoples (presumably both Native Americans and white settlers) as "old town". That same name also was applied to the bridge built in the early 19th century to carry the Trace across the creek and to the house built on the site later in the 19th century. Considering that "Old Town" is a place, but the Mississippian complex is the primary "Old Town," I have structured the article (this version) to discuss "Old Town" as both a place and a Mississippian mound complex.

Doncram's latest changes (made yesterday, reverted by me ~24 hours later, and reverted again by Doncram 3 minutes after I reverted) removed section headings and content (approximately 1/6th of the article in total), apparently to make the article say that the name "Old Town" applies only to the Mississippian mound complex archaeological site that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Contrary to Doncram's assertion that these edits improved the article, I see them as diminishing its information value and readability -- and I view the manner of his changes as contrary to Wikiquette. --Orlady (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that I would like to restore this version. --Orlady (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be possible to have a principles-based discussion here, about what is appropriate treatment for the 4 topics (archeological site; house; bridge; "place") and disambiguation among at least 2 of them (archeological site and house) that are sometimes referred to as "Old Town". There currently are 3 articles (archeological site; house; bridge) and no disambiguation page; the "place" is not particularly described as such anywhere as far as i can tell. There is hatnote disambiguation from the archeological site to the house at top of archeological site article. The house article, at this version, just amended is named "Thomas Brown House" but includes bolded mention of "Old Town" being an alternate name within the lede, and See also type links to the archeological site article. And, in the articles, there is relatively brief mention of the other ones in the article and "See also" sections. I think this is about right.

Orlady's changes would, among other things, drop the hatnote disambiguation. I had once created an explicit disambiguation page, but Orlady heavy-handedly (IMO) deleted that. To take things one at a time, perhaps, Orlady, why would you want there to be no disambiguation page and also no hatnote disambiguation? I can't understand why you would be against there being disambiguation. --doncram 17:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, I believe this dispute may boil down to fundamentally different opinions/concepts of the purpose and function of disambiguation -- and I happen to think my opinion/concept is the correct one. WP:Disambiguation states that disambiguation is needed "when a single term is ambiguous, and so may refer to more than one topic which Wikipedia covers." I contend that this is not a case of ambiguity about the term -- "Old Town" is ambiguous, since it might refer to any of the disparate places listed at Old Town, but "Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)" is not ambiguous because it refers to exactly one place. WP:CONCEPTDAB states (in part) "if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page." That principle clearly applies here. Although "Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)" isn't a particularly broad concept, it is very clearly a "type of thing that is capable of being described in" a single article (as it was described in this article before you removed informational content and replaced that content with disambiguation links). The additional related topics (i.e., the house and the bridge) are very closely related to the main topic -- not separate topics that happen to have the same name. Furthermore, although I wasn't looking at WP:CONCEPTDAB when I wrote the content of the most recent version of this article that has my name next to it, I believe that the content you are trying to delete is very consistent with the recommendation at CONCEPTDAB that "it is useful to directly address the scope of the term, and the history of how the concept has developed." Disambiguation is appropriate when terminology is ambiguous, but using a set of disambiguation pages and disambiguation links to cover a single topic or set of connected topics is not helpful -- it creates confusion and obfuscation. --Orlady (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you seem to completely misunderstand the facts, or at least understand them differently than i do. The facts as i understand them are: there are two or possibly three topics named more or less exactly "Old Town" in Franklin, Tennessee. One is an archeological site, listed in the NRHP with name "Old Town Archeological Site (40WM2)". One is a house listed on the NRHP as "Old Town", also known as "William Brown House". The third is the place which you have asserted exists as a topic, i.e. a community or location or some other "place" named "Old Town". The house and the archeological site are NRHP-listed and are different from one another, and at least these two deserve Wikipedia articles (and currently have them). It is basic practice in wikipedia to provide disambiguation of one sort or another, such as a disambiguation page or hatnote disambiguation, for two topics that have the same name. What part of "the site and the house both have articles and share the same name" do you not understand? --doncram 21:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comment includes the statement "the 'place' is not particularly described as such anywhere as far as i can tell." I believe you are saying that the article cannot be 'about" a place unless it includes information such as latitude and longitude (included in this article at one time, but deleted by you), street address, acreage, elevation, etc. I disagree; it is possible to say that several different topics are associated with a particular place without providing statistical information about the place. Regardless, in this case, both the versions of the article currently in dispute clearly identify the place as being in Franklin, Tennessee, alongside the Harpeth River at the mouth of Brown’s Creek (formerly called Donelson's Creek), and on the Harpeth River route of the Old Natchez Trace. --Orlady (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the place deserving an article or not; perhaps it could be described in the archeological site article. You are misinterpreting my comment: I was merely observing that the article about the archeological site doesn't particularly describe a place. Namely, it does not in its lede say "Old Town is also a location" or "Old Town is an unincorporated community" or otherwise. Also, it does not give coordinates, like most GNIS-listed place articles have. (And, as a restricted address archeological site, i don't think the archeological site should be given coordinates, offhand.) I was just observing that contrary to some assertions you have made not in mainspace, such as when removing the disambiguation page, there does not seem to be assertion in mainspace about Old Town being a place. I don't have a huge opinion one way or another about whether it is a notable place or not. If it is a place, though, that makes three topics having the same name, and would require clarification in the articles.

I'll watch and reply again, but not too promptly / not too often, due to other commitments and not wanting to argue just for the sake of it. Let's tone it down a bit, okay? --doncram 21:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whose side I fall on in this discussion, but I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in and hopefully we can clear this up and get it put away soon.

• All of the ones with their own NHRP designation should have their own separate article. Each of the articles could have mentions in the other articles and/or be listed on their respective see also lists.
• Is their a community known as Old Town separate from the bridge, house and archeo site? If so does it have a postal designation? or any other kind of citable way to write about it? If so it should also have its own article.
• As for geocoords for the archeo site, if your basing not wanting them listed on the NRIS listing as address restricted, most places listed there are address restricted, I've even seen places that were state parks and tourist sites with state run informations centers listed as address restricted. I'm not sure what their qualifications for this are, but it doesn't seem to make any rational sense.
• The numeric designation 40WM2 is not part of the name. Its part of a nation wide listing for archaeo sites, designating state or part of state(first number), county(letters) and specific site in that county(second numbers). In essence its another name for the site. Heiro 22:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I would like to see this page moved to Old Town Archaeological Site, which is currently a redirect, instead of Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee). Would anyone else object? Heiro 22:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

1. In this case, some sources hint that the house known as "Old Town" is actually built on top of the mound complex or on even top of a mound, while other sources merely say they are "adjacent". Either way, the distinction between the two National Register listings is not geography, but the nature and age of the cultural resource.

2. There is not a modern community known as Old Town. However, from the sources I've seen, it appears that the mound complex was a landmark that was called "Old Town" since at least when the first white people arrived, and probably among Native Americans (albeit in a different language) for centuries before that. The geographic association with the name would explain why the house built at (or on) the site is popularly known as "Old Town" (although the National Register folks were discreet in labeling it "Thomas Brown House") and why the bridge built nearby is called Old Town Bridge.

3. This is one of those instances where the location of an archaeological sites is hardly a secret, notwithstanding the cautiousness displayed by the keepers of the NRHP. For all intents and purposes, it seems that the house and the mound complex are at the same place and can use the same set of coordinates.

4. Thanks for explicating the number. I would be very happy to remove the number from the name that is quoted in the article -- and in other articles that include similar names in their titles. IMO, that kind of identifier is appropriate to include in infoboxes.

5. I would object to naming this "Old Town Archaeological Site". It's not the WP:COMMONNAME. The WP:COMMONNAME of this site is "Old Town," not "Old Town Archaeological Site." This was a mound complex known to people and called by the name "Old Town" long before anyone ever heard of archaeology (at least not in Tennessee). --Orlady (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Although it may be its most common name in the area, go here Old Town#United States(with 27 just in the US), and you'll see plenty of places named "Old Town" throughout the world. Moving this article to its NHRP designated name would solve some of the problems going on here. It would also bring it into line with many of the other archaeological site articles such as Brick Church Mound and Village Site, Bynum Mound and Village Site, Renner Village Archeological Site, [[Shiloh Indian Mounds Site], Parkin Archeological State Park and Kincaid Mounds State Historic Site, almost all of which are not named for their local colloquial name but by their official name. Especially in the case of something named "Old Town" which has so many other places with the same name, it seems like this would be preferable, as opposed to adding the nearest town in parentheses to qualify it. Heiro 01:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As discussed in Wikipedia:Article titles, it is Wikipedia policy to use actual common names for articles, with disambiguation information added paranhetically when needed, rather than fiddling around to create an unambiguous title that does not conform with a common name. For example, if an author was always publicly known as John Doe, but was born with the middle name Aloysius, the article would be titled "John Doe (author)", not "John Aloysius Doe." Applying that rule here, the best name is "Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)".
Regarding the relationship of the site to Franklin, although Doncram's current version of the article says that it is "near" Franklin, my version says it is "in" Franklin because it is my recollection that the sources indicate that it is actually inside the city of Franklin. Thus, the disambiguating term is not a convenient approximation, but an accurate descriptor. --Orlady (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A disambig page can't sit at this title anyway, because it would be an incomplete disambiguation (see WP:INCOMPDAB). Therefore, if this is not the site of the article, then it must either redirect to whichever topic is primary, or redirect to the general disambig page for Old Town, and specifically to a Tennessee section broken out from the existing United States section. As for this being a concept, I'm really not sure. The three allegedly ambiguous terms are clearly related, with the later names being derived from proximity to the older. If they sit on the same location, then they are merely different uses of the same plot of land, but if they are distinct locations, then they are not really susceptible to description as the "same thing". The best way to look at it is from the view of the person making a general incoming link. Is it possible that they may mean to address the general concept, and not any one particular use of the name? bd2412 T 04:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is extremely possible that a person making a general incoming link or otherwise stumbling upon this page would be interested in the general topic of the place in Franklin that is called "Old Town," and not just in the mound site. Several sources suggest to me that the name applies to the place and the various interesting features there, not just to the mound site. This source, published in 1890, describes the mound complex as "an ancient fort at Old Town" (note the word "at"). This webpage is apparently focused on an historical marker that labels "Old Town." It refers to the "remains of [the] ancient village" by the name "Old Town" and it also describes the bridge "nearby" and the house ("300 yards south"; possibly meaning 300 yards south of the marker). This travel book uses the name "Old Town" initially to refer to the house. Later on the same page, it says "the house takes its name from the archaeological site on the grounds" and uses the name "Old Town" to refer to the mound site. The description refers to "mounds visible in the field to the right of the house at Old Town" (again, note the use of "at"). The next paragraph describes the bridge as being "O.2 miles beyond Old Town" and describes another bridge as being similar to the one "at Old Town." On the next page, the bridge is called "the Old Town bridge," wherein "bridge" is rendered as a common noun, not part of a proper name. --Orlady (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Heironymous Rowe for commenting. About the geocoords, yes you are right that some/many sites that the NRHP lists as address restricted have later been developed as state parks or otherwise had their locations made very public (often but not always after they have been secured by a fence or otherwise). In many cases unsecured sites have been NRHP-listed with explicit condition between owners and archeologists vs. the state or the NRHP that the location would remain private, and I would not want to lightly ignore such agreements, but also in other cases the state or the NRHP may have bureaucratically declared the site to be address restricted without good reason. As a general matter, I don't want to cause harm to unsecured sites by publicizing location information, but I don't know specifics of this particular site. I know there is a historic plaque, but I am not sure what relationship that has to the location of the actual NRHP-listed archeological site, which is presumably nearby but could include small unprotected parcels scattered in the general area. It would probably be okay to give the coordinates of the plaque.

Otherwise, I agree with your comments and the suggested rename/move. --doncram 13:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Some facts from NRIS and GNIS:

• Old Town Archeological Site (40WM2) has NRIS info:

Historic function: defense; funerary; religion; domestic
Historic subfunction: fortification; graves/burials; village site; religious structure
Number of acres: 41
Number of contributing sites: 1
Number of contributing structures: 5

and was NRHP-listed but not for architecture.

• Old Town (also known as William Brown House and as WM-397) has NRIS info:

Architect: Lilly,Pryor
Architecture: Greek Revival, Central passage plan
Historic function: domestic
Historic subfunction: single dwelling; secondary structure
Building is listed for architectural criteria
Number of acres: 2.8
Number of contributing buildings: 1
Number of contributing structures: 1

and coord 35°59′37″N 86°56′10″W and was NRHP-listed for its architecture

• Old Town Bridge (Franklin, Tennessee) (also known as WM-47) has NRIS info:

Architect: US Army
Architecture: 
Other names: WM-47
Historic function: transportation
Historic subfunction: road-related
Number of acres: 1.4
Number of contributing structures: 1

and coord 35°59′45″N 86°56′10″W and was NRHP-listed but not for architecture

• Old Town (historical), as an Indian village site location, has a GNIS entry with single point latitude and longitude (coord 35°59′35″N 86°56′15″Wbut no area measure.

The 41 acre, 2.8 acre, and 1.4 acre sizes of the first 3 NRHP-listed items, with 5 structures, 1 bldg+1structure, and 1 structure, respectively, seem pretty disparate to me. The point location of the fourth is perhaps within the 48 acre archeological site area. I would guess the 1.4 and 2.8 acres are property lot sizes. The 48 acres archeological site could well be one or more property lots. I don't see clear evidence that these are the same or overlapping, but haven't checked the coords on one map recently or yet: see GeoGroupTemplate link

.

It's weird to be arguing occasionally about this for a year or more, with no one having collected the NRHP documents that would provide more information. I'll request them now. In the absence of this basic research, there's no strong reason and no urgency, IMO, to changing the current article structure (which has a separate article for each of the first 3 and hatnote disambiguation between the site and the house named "Old Town" exactly). The separate articles work well with having sensible categories applied to them, etc. --doncram 10:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's anything "weird" about this situation, it is that so many minimal stub articles get created on the basis of nothing more than a cryptic entry in the NRIS database -- and that other users who find additional information to correct errors and flesh out the stub articles get attacked for not doing the research in the manner that the creator of the stubs would have done it. I recall (and the history confirms) that this article was created as a two-sentence stub that described "Old Town" as the house, that I corrected that error and greatly expanded the article, and other users added still more content, while the creator of the original stub has focused on rearranging that content into three separate articles, reverting changes made by others, and writing lengthy diatribes on this talk page. --Orlady (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

After analysing this, I agree with Orlady– "Old Town" refers to an area or property, which includes (and is named for) the mounds. Along with the sources mentioned by Orlady, I found several hard copy sources in our library. In National Register of Historic Places, Williamson County, the house and mound complex are given a single entry (p. 45), with the house occupying the bulk of the entry, and an "Old Town also refers to..." which mentions the archaeological site. In Heritage of Grandeur (a history of Williamson County), there is a chapter on "Old Town" which discusses only the house, mentioning it was named after an ancient village. In The Harpeth River: A Biography, the author writes, "Old Town, called such because of the ancient Indian habitation site which used to set on the property, has a double history." He then goes on to discuss how the property originally belonged to John Donelson, who sold it to Thomas Brown, etc. In a later chapter, he discusses extensively the Old Town mound complex. In any case, it's clear that Williamson Countians use "Old Town" to refer to an area or property (or often, the house), which includes the mound site. Bms4880 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you pls. share more information about those sources, including their dates? What you say, that Old Town seems to have been mostly known as a place (the house), seems largely consistent with Old Town (the house) being listed on the National Register as part of Williamson County MRA, with no mention of the mounds, then the mounds be listed separately and covered in the archeological MRA. It doesn't respond to why the actual coordinates of the place, per GNIS, are different than the location of the house by the best coordinates information we have so far (in this Talk page, click on the Google/Bing map links to see the locations). I wonder if the usage for "Old Town" has changed, that it used to refer to the house/place, then later to the mounds. Hard to guess. Anyhow, i did request the NRHP docs and am expecting to receive them sometime soon. Will share more info then. --doncram 18:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are the sources in Google books: [1], [2], [3]. None have previews, though. Bms4880 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I take that back- the Harpeth River one has a preview (p. 80). Bms4880 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

About the first one, "National Register of Historic Places in Williamson County", dated 1994, can you tell if that is substantially the same as the Williamson County MRA, i.e. Thomason Associates and Tennessee Historical Commission (February, 1988). "Historic Resources of Williamson County (Partial Inventory of Historic and Architectural Properties)], National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (which covers house at p 42)? Also, the third, Harpeth River one skips from page 70 to 84 or something like that, not allowing me to see page 80, by the way. Maybe the Google preview varies randomly, i dunno. I'm wondering also if you have copies of these, or they are just available to you at the library? Definitely good that you got them. Thanks. --doncram 18:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I can read page 80 in the Harpeth River book, Doncram. I searched in the book for "old town", and page 80 is one of the pages that showed up in the results list, where it's a readable page. Bms4880 has represented it accurately. --Orlady (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, i tried again clicking on 3 to go to the Google book, then searched within the book for "Old Town", and it shows there is a hit on page 80 but that it is not available to me. Like i suggested, Google seems to be giving access differently to different users. I can't see page 80. To be more precise, in the book just browsing through it without searching, it skips from page 65 to page 85 in what it allows me to see. Do you not believe me? Please be more clear if you wish to suggest that I am inaccurate, or that i was inaccurately suggesting someone else was. --doncram 19:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That's odd, but I believe you. Similarly, I hope that you will assume good faith and believe Bms4880 and me regarding the content that we can read in that book. I am now more convinced than ever that "Old Town" is the name of the location, in general, and not a name that is exclusively associated with any one of the specific features at that location. --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw-- a map in the Tennessee Anthropologist (in the article that discusses the 1991 dig) shows the house right in the middle of the archaelogical site. It shows it sitting on the site of an obliterated mound, and surrounded by several extant mounds. I'm not sure why the coordinates are different, but the house appears to be in the middle of the mound site. One of the salvage excavations was conducted because they were renovating the house. Bms4880 (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for emailing me a copy of that map. It's pretty clear from the map and associated text that the house (not to mention its associated driveway and stone fences) was built in the midst of the mounds, and that the archaeologists think it possibly was built on top of a burial mound. And if the scale on the map is accurate, the house appears to be quite large (I guesstimate its footprint to be about 5,000 sq. ft.). --Orlady (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• It appears to me that we have something resembling consensus (which in this case includes silent acquiescence) that "Old Town" is the name of the place as a whole. Unless there are further objections, I expect to restore the article in the form that focuses on the mound site but also discusses the two other historic properties. (Also, some URL references in the article need to be updated and some good new information has been raised here that also should be added to the article, but those are later steps.) --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please hold off. I have politely enough informed you that i have taken the step to collect documents, and those are coming. There should be no rush here. I don't want to argue it all out further, detailing what exactly there is and is not consensus about, only to redo that a week or two from now.

For example, please note there has been no discussion at all on one point that I am afraid Orlady would assert is now consensus, about the Old Town Bridge, which she has previously asserted is named "Old Town" and must be merged with the location. I don't want to talk about this now, either, have requested more about that too, perhaps which will make obvious what to do without further arguing. It would be a controversial merger or move or whatever, for Orlady to proceed right now, and there's reason to wait and to not discuss this for a bit. Thanks. --doncram 15:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes: "politely." That's not a word I would have used for the edit-warring behavior (this diff and this diff) with which you initiated this discussion, a couple of months after the earlier discussion (above) of the same topic had petered out (and which I'm still convinced was precipitated by a desire on your part to get back at me for my involvement with The Dilemma (film)). But, whatever...

As for substance, it appears to me that:

• On the one hand, we have multiple online and offline sources that indicate that "Old Town" is the place on the Harpeth River branch of the Natchez Trace where there is a Mississippian mound complex, a house that Thomas Brown built on top of one of the mounds, and a bridge across a creek that is named "Brown's Creek" because of its proximity to Brown's house, and that all three of these elements are called "Old Town" (or some variant thereof) because of their close association.
• On the other hand, we have Doncram's belief that a source that he has not yet seen will prove that all of these other sources are wrong, and in fact the various entities known (in full or in part) as "Old Town" are separate and distinct topics whose relation is only one of sharing a similar name that must be disambiguated to avoid confusion.

I proposed a declaration of "consensus" because of silence here and because I could not see how Doncram could justify a continued insistence on his singular view of the situation.

Regarding the bridge, various sources fully document its close relationship to the other "Old Town" elements (including the fact that the creek was renamed for Brown because he lived there). The coordinates from NRIS that Doncram posted above also are consistent with this. The coordinates indicate that the bridge is 8 seconds of latitude (that's just 800 ft) from the house. The GNIS coordinates for the Indian village site place it no more than 500 ft from the bridge and something on the order of 1000 ft from the house. Considering that the 41-acre area given in NRIS for the mound complex site would be, if square, about 1300 ft on a side, and considering the error and lack of precision in a lot of latitude-longitude values in databases, the coordinates support the notion that these are all elements of one and the same physical place. --Orlady (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That's funny, your suggesting somehow-invalid motivations for me. I believe i started the NRHP articles here, and your involvement over more than a year has been unfriendly, wp:OWN type behavior, perhaps merely on the simplistic level of outrage that someone not from Tennessee would dare to be editing on Tennessee location articles. Why are you so intent on forcing something here? The simplest explanations which i can see are pretty negative about your motivations, Orlady.

Okay, about Orlady's long new statements here. Seem like not aimed at building a real consensus on the facts. Sounds like you want to pull a power play now, since one other Tennessee editor, who has in fact previously aligned with Orlady, has collected some information. Two editors, even if they agreed perfectly on what reorganizing is appropriate (not clear they do), do not outnumber the cumulative comments of me and another editor or two about the long-standing facts available. For more than a year, it has been pretty obvious based on info available, by 2:1 "vote", that the topics are separate. I am open to new info. But what's the rush to decision? This info collection now shared among Orlady and Bms includes material not yet available to me, and there is other info collection pending. It would be really unfriendly of Tennessee editors to force some merger here, frankly. I would strongly prefer to have 3rd party, uninvolved editors make a judgment, if the disagreement persists. But, why call for third parties, if more info is pending, which might clarify one way or another. So, give it a break, O. To be clear, there is not consensus about anything. --doncram 02:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To summarize the above comment (and with the full expectation that Doncram will whine that I am being sarcastic), sources mean nothing, substantive information need not be discussed unless it agrees with Doncram's opinion, consensus does not exist unless it supports Doncram's opinion, and everybody who presents information or opinions that do not support Doncram's views is motivated by a personal vendetta against Doncram. --Orlady (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The both of ya need to get over yourselves. This is getting truly ridiculous. Heiro 04:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably, somehow. Update: Orlady revisited to put in her version, which removes sensible hatnote disambiguation to the article about the house of the name Old Town, and to put in duplication and unsourced minor assertions and other problematic stuff. I reverted to the last version, which i believe serves basically pretty well. I think this situation is poor, and that Orlady and I are not likely to agree on appropriate organization. I don't like to bother a larger community of editors, but I tend to think that getting some third party decision is needed. If there is some way to get a third party to come in and decide about the article organization, and Orlady would agree to abide by that decision, i would like to "solve" this situation that way. This is a bigger problem though, as Orlady and I have disagreed in other situations where she has followed my edits and sought to force something different, and I expect there will be future situations. Orlady has previously declined mediation. To address this situation plus the longer-running, bigger problems, Orlady, would you now consider mediation by some 3rd party?

FYI, I have now received the NRHP documents about the three NRHP-listed places. The archeological site one is redacted and does not provide the specific location, though between the three documents the general setup is fairly clear, i.e. that the Thomas Brown House property is in the same area as part of the much larger archeological site area. The Thomas Brown House was NRHP-listed on its own, at a time when the archeological site area designation was in progress. My reading of the NRHP documents supports my previous interpretation of the best way to organize the articles. I bet that Orlady, committed to her view, would not agree. --doncram 12:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that, in you eagerness to revert me, you restored the broken URLs that I fixed as part of my edit? Yes, I could fix them in your version of the article (the one that, for example, uses a disambiguation hatnote to link between the mound site and the house built on top of the mound site, instead of "sensibly" describing the relationship in article text and linking to the other article), but for some reason I am feeling profoundly unmotivated to do that. --Orlady (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you fixed one of the two broken URLs, but the other one is still broken. --Orlady (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Other one is fixed now too, i think. From what you say here, Orlady, maybe the current zone of disagreement is not as large as I have thought. Do you agree that the house named "Old Town" is sensibly described in a separate article? I have perceived your multiple edits over a year plus to be positioning for a remerger of that quite different thing, into the article about the mounds. (I have had this perception because you implemented such a merger; because your repeated edits to the lede have asserted there is just one place; because you heavy-handedly removed a disambiguation page which pointed to the two places named Old Town in/near Franklin (using administrative tools to delete the dab page and then refusing to restore a copy of the dab page but rather, and confusingly, inserting it somehow into the edit history of this article which was once about the house but is now the archeological site); because you deleted the separate article about the house; because of your comments here and elsewhere.) Your repeated edits to the lede seem preliminary to again forcing remerger of the house into this article on the mounds. If that is not currently your intent, then I would be more open to trying to understand what your edits to the lede were attempting to accomplish.

Similarly, Orlady you have in the past sought the merger of the Old Town Bridge into the article about the mounds, while I think it is quite a different animal and better described in a separate bridge article. You've also asserted that it is named Old Town, while I believe it is pretty clearly named Old Town Bridge which is different. And I believe the bridge is nearby but not within the archeological site or the historic Old Town location by any definition. Given your comments, are you now disputing or not disputing these points. It would help to narrow the zone of disagreement if you could comment.

But, no matter what, I expect that you are disagreeing with the organization of material into 3 articles and disambiguation. Will you please answer the question about whether you would abide by some third party judgment. Will you please answer the question about mediation. --doncram 23:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If you would take the time to read the last version of the article that I edited, or indeed any version with my name on it since this version from 22 November 2010, I think you would find the answers to your questions. For over 5 months now, the article structure that I have been propounding includes 3 separate articles. If you hadn't reverted me, this particular article would be about "Old Town" in general, but would focus on the mound site, which is the original meaning of "Old Town." The other two National Register properties are mentioned briefly in article subsections that prominently point to 'Main Article"s about them. --Orlady (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, it's hard to know what your permanent objective is; it seems likely you are engaging in a 2 part plan: first change the article to claim 3 or 4 topics are really all the same, then repeat the merger of the separate articles which you have implemented before. You repeatedly put in a first sentence "Old Town in Franklin, Tennessee, is the location of three historic properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places," which is a) not strictly true (as the Old Town Bridge is located nearby, not in the Old Town location) and has other problems, in that it seems to set up the article to be about all 3 of them, when in fact there are separate articles about them. You just commented further below about the house being in the same location as the mounds. The argumentative tone seems to be towards your arguing towards merger again. If not, why the repeated argumentative tone? So what if the house property includes some part of the mounds.

Anyhow your statement confirms that you are committed to a different article organization and setup of links (i.e. you wish to make the article be about all 3 NRHP places, with subsections on 2 of them linking to separate main articles. I don't think that is a natural organization; we have a disagreement about organization. Would you please answer the questions whether you would abide by a neutral third party judging on the facts here, and whether you would agree to mediation? --doncram 13:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Doncram: Did I email you the Tennessee Anthropologist map that shows the Brown mansion sitting right in the middle of the mound site? Bms4880 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't believe you sent that to me. From the info that I have, I do believe that the house, and perhaps all of its property, is likely within the bounds of the archeological site. It does not follow that they must be merged into one article; i don't know if that is what you are driving at or not. Bms4880, could you please comment on what is your goal for the organization here, i.e. of how many articles and how disambiguation between them should be done? --doncram 23:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I can't speak for Bms4880, but my impression is that he has been using his access to a university library in Tennessee to attempt to shed some light on the subject here. Speaking for myself, that map that he found clearly indicates that the house and the mounds are in the same location. --Orlady (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Then don't speak for Bms4880. --doncram 13:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Doncram: I believe "Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)" should discuss the property in general, giving attention to the three historic sites. The mound article should be moved to the title Heironymous Rowe suggested. Heironymous Rowe suggested I comment on this discussion, and based on what I could find in secondary sources, it's pretty clear "Old Town" refers to a general area, not just the mound site. Bms4880 (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats pretty much what I've been advocating the whole time. It would simplify things. Will anyone else get behind Bms4880 and myself? Maybe establish a consensus on this matter? Heiro 22:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for commenting. I lose track of what is the disagreement here exactly, because there is a high amount of irrelevant accusations about who is wrong about whatever, who has a "singular view" not shared by anyone else, etc., and I have done a fair amount of responding to the accusations against me where I believe those are false. I do believe it is necessary for me to respond to the false accusations here and in other Talk pages where this shit goes on, so I don't apologize for doing so. But the accusations and counter-accusations of wrongness don't seem to help get towards consensus on what the article organization should be.

I would be happy for there to be a consensus decision about the article organization, which i see as being about what to have split vs. merged, and how to have disambiguation among 4 topics. This was previously stated as being "about what is appropriate treatment for the 4 topics (archeological site; house; bridge; "place") and disambiguation among at least 2 of them (archeological site and house) that are sometimes referred to as "Old Town"." Sounds like you two are for there being 4 articles, i.e. for separating the Old Town Archeological Site info from the Old Town location info, and keeping the Thomas Brown House and Old Town Bridge articles separate. I am basically okay with that (and I think i never opposed that), though there remains possible issue about what to include in the Old Town location article (including hairsplitting about the location i.e. whether it should assert the Old Town Bridge is included in the location or not, and how disambiguation vs. the Old Town house article should be provided).

In splitting the location and archeological site info, I suggest that the archeological site info be copied over to a new article at Hieronymus Rowe's suggested title Old Town Archaeological Site (currently a redirect to "Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)#Archaeological site"), rather than moving the current article to there, so that the huge edit history and the Talk page and its edit history will stay here. This page was started originally about the Old Town house (Thomas Brown House) and has been moved back and forth a lot. I think it will be clearer in the future and more accessible for future ANI reports and RFC/Us and mediation and other actions which are pretty likely in the future, for this article not to be moved again now. I trust you both are okay with that?

Then the current article "Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)" would be revised to describe the location and provide mention of the 3 NRHP-listed places, and I think it could/should be stated to be a location (supported by, and including, the GNIS coordinates). I don't think there's a lot to say about the location that wouldn't be duplicative to what is covered in the 3 separate articles then, and I hope the article would be not duplicative, i.e. would instead be complementary/supportive of the other 3 articles, rather than competing with them. If Orlady agrees, I would be happy to see Hieronymous Rowe and/or Bms implement that. And then i suppose there can be continuing, further argument or not about how the disambiguation/links to the other articles are handled and about the assertions of the size of the place at the continuing Talk page of the location article (here). Personally I would avoid claims about the location having any particular size or that the location includes the nearby Old Town Bridge, as I believe such claims cannot be supported. --doncram 20:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a generalized article describing the location and briefly describing all 3 NHRP under the current name is good. And an article with the official mound site name( Old Town Archaeological Site, the current a redirect) be started with full info for that specific NHRP will also work. As for the other 2 NHRP locations, the house and bridge. Since the house already exists as a stub, it should probably stay as is. As for the bridge, has anything been written about it besides that it existed? Unless there is substantial stuff written about it some where, rather than create a stub that can never be fleshed out, I suggest we just leave what we have on it on the main Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) article. Would this be workable to all parties? Heiro 20:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. Regarding dumping or keeping the bridge article, I'm fine either way. One of the books I mentioned above had a page dedicated to it, if we need more info. Bms4880 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have more info, too, a page or two of text, in the NRHP nom doc for the bridge, will get around to adding more to its article, especially if i know this is stable. I think the bridge is a valid topic, best kept separate and categorized as a bridge, included in lists of bridges, etc. --doncram 14:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As soon as the other 2 editors weigh in, and assuming they are agreeable, where do we start? Sarek, as an admin, should we split off edit histories for the archaeo site or just copy and past the info over? I'm not sure how to proceed there. As for the bridge info Bms4880 mentioned, is there enough from that source or others to create at least a start article as opposed to a stub? If all we can find is enough for a stub, for now I suggest we just leave all available info on the main article. If enough eventually comes to light, it can always be split off then. Just my opinion, I'll bow to whatever consensus emerges. Heiro 21:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say figure out what most of the edit history is about, and make the title agree with that. Copy and paste the rest of the current material to a new article, noting the current revision of this article for attribution purposes. But that's just my opinion, not any sort of admin dictate.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with this emerging "four-article" plan, which seems to call for an article about "Old Town" the place, an article about "Old Town" the archaeological site, an article about "Old Town" the house, and an article about "Old Town Bridge".
My problem is that there is nothing to say about "Old Town" the place other than (1) it exists and (2) it is the location of those other things (i.e,. a Mississippian mound complex that is a long-recognized feature and has been the subject of some archaeological investigations, an antebellum house built on/in the mound complex, and the remnants of an early 19th century bridge built as part of converting the Natchez Trace trail into a wagon road). Since there is relatively little sourced information about any of these topics, I initially wanted to cover all of these topics in a single article, but seeing the strong objections to that, I long ago dropped my objections to having separate articles about the mound complex, the house, and the bridge. [Note: I think of Old Town as a single "site" because (as I discussed above on 2 April) all three elements are very close together (i.e., within 1000 ft or so, at most) -- and might in fact be located on the same country-estate property.]
My notion is that the mound site is the unifying topic here -- it's the original "Old Town" (and, as I noted at one point here, it was a landmark called "Old Town" long before anyone thought of an archaeological investigation), it is the namesake for the other topics, and it occupies most (if not all) of the land area associated with the various "Old Town" features. Therefore, I continue to maintain that there should be three articles (not four) and that the article about the mound complex is the right place to address the general topic of "Old Town" as a place. This is what I have tried to do with "my" version of the article (a version that other participants here may not be familiar with because another user has been intent on making it disappear).
I content that "Old Town" (with the name of "Franklin, Tennessee" in parentheses for disambiguation), and not "Old Town Archaeological Site" is the best name for the article about the mound complex because of the number of sources that indicate that the mound complex is a landmark that has known by that name for more than two centuries -- and that awareness of the mound complex transcends its status as a subject for archaeological investigation.
Bottom line: Let's have 3 articles: (1) Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) about the mound complex (including archaeological investigations and interpretations of it), including its relationship to the geographic location and other co-located features that have acquired the name "Old Town"; (2) Thomas Brown House (Franklin, Tennessee) (aka "Old Town"); and Old Town Bridge (Franklin, Tennessee). --Orlady (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Either way, your version or the four-article plan, is fine with me. Bms4880 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The location seems to have historically meant the house, because i think Natchez Trace travellers didn't consider the mounds important while shelter was, and now maybe the location is the mounds. The location Old Town is not the location of the bridge, unless you use no sources and you define location very strangely (as an area). We do not generally define locations to be the area including every dry cleaner nearby that incorporates the nearby place's name as part of its name. --doncram 14:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion "The location seems to have historically meant the house, because i think Natchez Trace travellers didn't consider the mounds important while shelter was" is pure conjecture (as indicated by the words "seems to" and "I think"). It has utterly no basis in any source that I am aware of. Everything that I have read indicates that the mound site was highly visible and was recognized as an "old town." As was typical of plantation houses and estate houses of the era, the house (which does not appear ever to have been operated as an inn) had a name. It took the name of the place where it was built. --Orlady (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not uninformed conjecture. For a good long time, Old Town meant the house. The house, not the mounds, was deemed historically important for NRHP listing, first. Read the NRHP document about the house...which you have not read. The house is named Old Town, and in fact the article title should be Old Town, not Thomas Brown House, by the way. The mounds here and elsewhere were unimportant, in general, for a long time, and in many other cases were completely destroyed, with their mass removed for landfill or other use elsewhere. You believe what you believe, from what you have read and from your personal experience in life and your biases, and you should not imply that others with other readings and knowledge have no information, because they did not prove it with links to online sources for you to conveniently review. Your dismissing me is not helpful, it adds to the negative environment. --doncram 16:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the situation is based on sources that have been cited in this discussion. What is the basis for your contrary view? As written, it would appear that it's original research (if not ESP), but I have to assume that's just an accident of the way you wrote it. If it is based on the National Register nomination documents, it would be helpful if you could email those documents to the other participants in this discussion -- as we have emailed you (or offered to email) some of the sources that we have relied on. (You don't seem to have replied to say whether or not you received email with have the Tennessee Anthropologist material. If you don't have it, I could email it to you.) --Orlady (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Further above, I expressed willingness for there to be 3 articles (with location covered as part of mounds article) or 4 articles. Remaining in dispute, perhaps, if 3 article version would be chosen, is whether Orlady will accede to there being normal disambiguation hatnote or other disambiguation, to point to the Old Town house from the Old Town (location and mounds) article. Orlady is arguing again in favor of "her" version which would not be acceptable: its lede is incorrect in claims about location, its use of sections for the house and bridge convey that it is trying to be a combined article about all 3 NRHP-listed places, and it has other problems. At this point, I favor two other editors' suggestions of the 4 article version, for clarity and good resolution of all disputed issues. The 3 article version would have continuing issues, i anticipate. --doncram 14:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You say that you earlier supported a 3-article plan "above". What statement are you referring to? (Please give a date and time -- that will make it easier to find.)

For at least the last 6 months, my concern has been that your "disambiguation" approach assumes that the only relationship between these three articles is an accident of similar names (much like the case of two architects who worked contemporaneously and both happened to be named John W. Ross), when in fact all there is a clear relationship that should be documented in article text. Your current version (the one that is live because you have reverted pretty much everything I've ever done in this article) does have text (at the end) that mentions the relationship, but suggests that it is little more than coincidence:

"Old Town" also is a name given to the Thomas Brown House, built nearby to the mound complex site in the 1840s or 1850s, "Old Town" is also reflected in the name of the nearby Old Town Bridge that carried the Harpeth River branch of the Natchez Trace over Brown's Creek.

For comparison, "my" version (not updated recently because it seems futile when you WP:OWN the article), has similar language in the lead:

The Thomas Brown House, built on the mound complex site in the 1840s or 1850s, is also known by the name "Old Town." The "Old Town" designation is also applied to the nearby Old Town Bridge that carried the Harpeth River branch of the Natchez Trace over Brown's Creek.

Within the article, however, there are several subsections, including subsections about the house and bridge and a section summarizing the National Register listings:

Bridge

Main article: Old Town Bridge (Franklin, Tennessee)

Old Town Bridge was a frame structure built in 1801 by the U.S. government to carry the Harpeth River branch of the Natchez Trace over Brown's Creek. The bridge was rebuilt several times subsequently, but was dismantled some time before 1988. Only the limestone abutments remain.[2][4]

House

Main article: Thomas Brown House (Franklin, Tennessee)

Old Town, the Thomas Brown House, was built by Thomas Brown at the Old Town site some time between 1842 and 1854.[3] It is a two-story frame structure built on an "I-House" plan, an example of vernacular architecture showing Greek Revival influences.[2]

National Register listings

The Thomas Brown House and Old Town Bridge were listed on the National Register in 1988 as part of the Williamson County Multiple Resources Assessment. The Old Town Archaeological Site was listed on the National Register in 1989 as part of the Mississippian Cultural Resources of the Central Basin (900 to 1450) Multiple Property Submission.

--Orlady (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Orlady sent a scanned map/diagram to me by private email that I acknowledge receiving. I didn't ask for it, and don't particularly want to receive selections out of larger documents that may be selected to tend to support one point of view within an obviously unpleasant, adversarial discussion. However, I'll comment as follows: The map is consistent with previous statement by me, based on Old Town house NRHP document, that the Old Town house property includes 2 small burial mounds on its property. It further tells me that the footprint of the Old Town house apparently was built upon an obliterated other mound, which I guess could be mentioned in the Old Town house article, though it would be better sourced to whatever is the actual, larger source from which the diagram is extracted. The map is inconsistent with repeated previous claims that the Old Town Bridge is in the same location as mounds and house; the location of the bridge is not even within the mapped area. By the relatively small scale of the map, I think it does not cover the entire mounds area, i.e. the entire original village area or the area covered in the NRHP listing of the Old Town Archeological Site. That's all i've got to say. --doncram 13:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, also, I'll share that I came across the photo of a house perched atop a mound that I mentioned somewhere on this page, but could not then recall where I had seen it. I thought it was online somewhere, but it was in fact in the National Geographic magazine, January 2011, page 144, and is a photo of "Sugar Loaf Mound" in St. Louis, the last Indian mound in that city. An Osage indian tribe has purchased it and has plans to remove the house. The "Big Mound" in St. Louis, "one of the largest Indian burial mounds in the United States", was completely obliterated; a historic photo of the last part of it being carted away in the mid-1800s is also included in the National Geographic article. That article about Cahokia and the Mississippian culture is part of what informs me that mounds were not regarded as important in the 1800s, consistent with "Old Town" meaning the house of that name, during that era. --doncram 13:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Doncram's position

Comments above indicate that I cannot correctly identify Doncram's position on the topic of Old Town in Franklin. For the record (and to help explain some of my confusion), I have copied in some discussion that occurred at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive223#Topic ban proposal re NRHP stubs:

I wouldn't go so far as saying that Doncram's approach to disambiguation is entirely wrong (I've created several articles for purposes of disambiguation -- typically after discovering situations of mistaken identity in the destinations of links, and most often for people of the same name), but it does seem to be a case of misplaced priorities ("the tail is wagging the dog," instead of the other way around). Doncram has become single-minded in his focus on disambiguation, to the point that he loses track of the main point of creating content. Another example of what I perceive to be inappropriate emphasis on disambiguation over content is displayed at Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee), related to an article over which Doncram has repeatedly asserted ownership and where he maintains (among other things) that an prehistoric Indian mound complex known as "Old Town" and a 19th-century house built on top of the Indian mounds and also called "Old Town" are actually unrelated topics with the same name that must have separate articles that may be connected only via disambiguation hatnotes (and do not discuss the relationship between these two entities). --Orlady (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a certain amount of sympathy for that point of view -- as a database geek, I want a primary key to refer to one and only one thing. The mounds are notable for one reason; the house (presumably) for another. Therefore, they should be in separate articles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

They are in separate articles. The current issue is doncram's insistence that there is no relationship between the different instances of "Old Town" other than coincinot allodence of name, so he will not allow the different articles to discuss the relationship between the various features called — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlady (talk • contribs) 12:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC) posting incomplete comment as i lost view of window where i was typing

Much thanks to whoever added the unsigned template on the above. The rest of my comment was going to be "...features called 'Old Town.' He will only allow the different articles to disambiguate between them as coincidentally similar names." --Orlady (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I resent the side discussion here, in which Orlady is making negative claims about me on tangential issues. I am not "single-minded" in my focus on disambiguation. I have done a lot of disambiguation, to support development of NRHP in Wikipedia, and I continue to do it, to respond to pressures of Disambiguation-focused editors, specifically a continuing cleanup campaign specifically to mollify editor Station1 (which seems not to have converted him to a personal fan, but I continue nonetheless). It is in fact false that the Old Town house is built on top of mounds; let me state it clearly: I believe that Orlady is lying with that statement, for effect here, and I resent it. She may think it is an allowable stretch of the truth, an exaggeration for effect, because there exists a photo of at least one historic Tennessee house perched ridiculously on top of a mound, but it is not true here. Instead, there are in fact two small burial mounds on the house's property, which are lesser mounds within a larger area of multiple mounds, per the NRHP nomination document describing the site. Her mischaracterization has the effect of suggesting that I am wrong in my views in that discussion unrelated to the present proposal. I perceive it as another negative comment chipping away at my reputation. I expect that others may chide me for making this comment, which is itself negative. Her comments will not be seen as obviously negative to many readers here, but in context of a long program, it is one more instance. I am frustrated; I don't know how to get Orlady to stop focusing upon me and chipping away at me in a wikihounding way (that's what i perceive); she has refused Mediation several times and it is exhausting to contemplate an RFC/U or an arbitration requiring diffs to cover years of this. --doncram 00:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As near as I can determine, I am not making negative claims about you as a person, Doncram. Single-mindedness is often considered to be a virtue, but it can sometimes affect people's perceptions and judgments. I thought I was observing that you truly are focused on disambiguation, that that your creation of stubs about topics for which you have no solid information is just one of the ways in which you get carried away in your determination to disambiguate article titles. The situation with Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) is one that has generated at least 74,178 bytes of discussion (counting just one talk page) over a year's time. I persist in seeing it as a situation that you perceive to be a disambiguation issue, but where several topics with similar names are in fact related. It is somewhat ironic to note that you started that page as a minimal stub (but not one with the "could be this or could be that" attributes that are the subject of this WP:AN discussion) that asserted that "Old Town" was a house. The title you created was (appropriately) clearly intended to disambiguate from other "Old Town" topics. Less than 24 hours later, I came upon the stub, researched the topic and greatly expanded the article to discuss three different co-located National Register properties (the house, the Indian mound site, and the Natchez Trace bridge) that share the "Old Town" name. You have been most vehement in your insistence that the three National Register properties must be addressed in three separate articles. I long ago gave up arguing that they should be covered in just one article. However, until now, I did not realize that the primary reason for your intransigence is that (although you have no sources indicating that the three properties are unrelated) you still refuse to believe/accept the various cited sources that other users have found -- not to mention the lengthy discussions of latitudes and longitudes -- that indicate that the three properties are at the same place. Didn't Bms4880 email you the sketch map from the Tennessee Anthropologist article that shows the house and its driveway in the midst of the mound site? (I am not aware of what you refer to when you mention a "photo of at least one historic Tennessee house perched ridiculously on top of a mound.") It appears to me now that I was giving you too much credit when I ascribed your behavior on that talk page to single-mindedness in pursuit of a worthy goal. --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If Doncram can provide a concise explanation of his views, it might be helpful in resolving this teapot tempest. --Orlady (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a discussion about something else. I don't care to summarize that discussion and don't think it is appropriate here. Your copying that nasty discussion here, which refers to the already nasty discussions here, doesn't improve the environment. For the record, there's nothing in there disproving your mischaracterization of my views above. This seems to confirm you lied about my view. --doncram 01:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That discussion deals extensively with this article collection. In that discussion, you said (edited to eliminate some rhetoric): "It is in fact false that the Old Town house is built on top of mounds. ... There exists a photo of at least one historic Tennessee house perched ridiculously on top of a mound, but it is not true here. Instead, there are in fact two small burial mounds on the house's property, which are lesser mounds within a larger area of multiple mounds, per the NRHP nomination document describing the site." I responded (also edited): "Until now, I did not realize that the primary reason for your intransigence is that you refuse to believe/accept the various cited sources that other users have found -- not to mention the lengthy discussions of latitudes and longitudes -- that indicate that the three properties are at the same place. Didn't Bms4880 email you the sketch map from the Tennessee Anthropologist article that shows the house and its driveway in the midst of the mound site? (I am not aware of what you refer to when you mention a "photo of at least one historic Tennessee house perched ridiculously on top of a mound.")" --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I appreciate Orlady acknowledging further above that "Your current version (the one that is live because you have reverted pretty much everything I've ever done in this article) does have text (at the end) that mentions the relationship, have text (at the end) that mentions the relationship, but suggests that it is little more than coincidence: "'Old Town' also is a name given to the Thomas Brown House, built nearby to the mound complex site in the 1840s or 1850s, 'Old Town' is also reflected in the name of the nearby Old Town Bridge that carried the Harpeth River branch of the Natchez Trace over Brown's Creek." That further confirms Orlady was mischaracterized my position in the wp:AN topic ban.

About Bms emailing me something, no he did not. I do believe, without seeing that, that the Old Town house is located within the outline of a largish area including numerous mounds. As I have stated, the Old Town house property includes 2 burial mounds. The house is not "on top" of mounds, as you have claimed. Sorry I don't have handy a link to the picture of a Tennessee or Kentucky house perched atop a mound that I referred to.

In a different dispute recently, you emailed me a sketch map and claimed that proved something, while I don't agree that it did. I am not eager to receive this sketch map you refer to, as I don't suppose it will resolve anything here.

Orlady, you complained in the wp:AN toppic ban about this discussion here having "generated at least 74,178 bytes of discussion (counting just one talk page) over a year's time". You're really ramping that up now, and you ask me to provide diffs from my own comments further above. Read what I wrote, please. Your copying sections again and again, repeating your insults again and again, hardly advances a discussion. This discussion section seems like badgering. I don't trust Orlady's word--I am pointing out that she lied, in case anyone missed that, and she has not denied it--and she seems often to be suggesting evil-doing on my part. This doesn't seem productive. Therefore I may not respond further in this discussion, except if I feel that there are more misrepresentations about me that I should defend myself against. --doncram 14:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How thoughtful of you to go to the trouble of spoiling a pleasant spring day with that WP:ABF attitude. Please consider the possibility that I was not "lying" about your position in my repeated efforts to try to describe it. Please consider the possibility that it is very difficult to interpret your meaning in the midst of the thousands of words of discussion on this page. And note that I did not ask you for diffs; I merely asked you for the date and time so I can find your comments and read them in context. Meanwhile, I've emailed you the map and associated text, notwithstanding the fact that you seem to have decided to reject these items. --Orlady (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Where do these concepts come from?

The article was recently revised to say that Old Town is "in Williamson County, near Franklin" (no longer "in" Franklin) and that the mound complex "is alongside the Harpeth River on what later became one branch of the Natchez Trace" (no longer simply "on the Harpeth River branch of the Natchez Trace").

I'm puzzled by these changes, which aren't sourced. My investigations (call them "original research") using online maps do indicate that Old Town is in northwestern Williamson County, near Franklin, but not inside the current city limits or even in the urban growth boundary. Thus, I think the geographic location is OK, even though sources have placed it "in" Franklin.

Let me get this straight. You want to use insulting language about the edits, but then agree that they are factually correct. Where is the OR? I disagree that it is OR to state that the location is in Williamson County. Whether or not it is currently in the current city limits is a factual matter that I am not actually sure about, but in the historic sweep it is correct to say that the location is near Franklin (think of Franklin having been a small town at one time). It is "near" Franklin, meaning it is not in modern downtown Franklin. I see no OR.

However, I can't agree with "is alongside the Harpeth River on what later became one branch of the Natchez Trace". First off, what is later than "is"? It appears to me that the mound complex "is" alongside the Harpeth River and "is" on the Harpeth River branch of the Natchez Trace. I surmise that the intent was to say that the site was not on a branch of the Natchez Trace when the mound complex was built, but I don't buy that. First off, the previous version of the article never said that the mound complex was built on the Harpeth River branch of the Trace; it merely said that it's there now. Secondly, I'm not aware of any source indicating that the mound complex was not built on the Harpeth River branch of the Trace. Notwithstanding whatever the current version of the [[Natchez Trace[[ article, it's my understanding (based on diverse sources) that the Trace (which is an interconnected collection of trails, not a single trail) existed for centuries before white people laid eyes on Tennessee, and that archaeologists who have investigated Old Town assume that it was located where it is because of the river, the Trace, and the crossing of Brown's Creek. If the intent was to say that the Trace did not exist when the mound complex was built, I see that as a piece of WP:OR that's inconsistent with many sources. --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Those amendments to the article were in 2 edits, the main one with edit summary "revise about assertion of location, avoiding unnecessary disclosure and avoiding synthesis (e.g. about 2 creeks being the same, not in a source AFAIK). Drop dup cat.". Funny you should be making accusations of original research. I think the wp:OR accusation should apply more strongly to the previous language, which included wp:OR in the form of synthesis (wp:SYNTH?) about which creek is what (and the synthesis ends up disclosing more about location than is necessary). I think that "the Harpeth River branch of the Natchez Trace" refers pretty clearly to that branch of the 1800's Natchez Trace, which served as path/roadway for return upstream of persons who had brought rafts or barges down the Mississippi to New Orleans. The other branch is known as the Ridge Route or something like that and is covered in a different NRHP listing. These two distinct branches are known in history and described in historical documents, including being described in Williamson County MRA and other documents that Orlady has read. To refer to the prehistoric mounds having been built along the 1800s-era historic "Harpeth River branch of the Natchez Trace" is wp:OR, wp:SYNTH, ahistorical, sloppy, generally bad, in poor taste, and whatever else sounds negative, more so than the language which replaced the original language.

OR is bad. OR was removed by the edits. OR was not introduced by the edits. Yay! Glad we are all agreed. I am sure there are improvements to the language which can be made, but I would prefer not to argue small wording changes until the bigger article structure questions being discussed above are settled. Or until Orlady agrees to allowing a third party to judge on wording, and replies about participating in mediation to address the long pattern of conflict. --doncram 21:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)