Talk:Marion, Connecticut

329:

information (the history section was moved to the HD article), it looks odd to label it as "disputed." Since the only sources cited for the Marion article are the GNIS and zip code databases (additionally, the NRIS database is the only source cited for the HD-specific content in the HD article), it is difficult to see a basis for disputing the accuracy of the assertion that the HD is in the neighborhood it is named for. I think the easiest resolution of the "dispute" would be to indicate in the Marion article that the approximate southern boundary of the Marion neighborhood is I-84 in Cheshire (this is what Polaron says to be true, and his personal knowledge is at least as good in this case as anything cited in the article), then delete the disputed template. Can this be considered? --Orlady (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

907:

i.e. to emphasize that counter to appearance in the photo, some expert source has deemed this to be Queen Anne, it's not just a wikipedia editor's personal judgment. Anyhow, it's a short description about one property, intended to be matched by short descriptions of other historic, contributing properties. In the past also you have expressed a lot less interest in architectural details, which is fine, but the historic district is designated primarily for its architecture (criterion C on NRHP nom), so i think describing the architecture is highly appropriate. Good, i guess, that we continue to agree on the topic of this discussion. --

862:(ec) To Polaron: Thanks for replying. I gather you do now support merger. I agree with Orlady's thoughts prior to your last in this statement of her opposition to merger, specifically that the two topics are different topics, well treated in separate articles. You also suggest the possibility of splitting a list article out of the historic district article. I don't think that is necessary. There are quite good historic district articles which have very extensive coverage of the historic properties included in them (some given in discussion linked at 189: 866:). There may be a few cases where splitting out a list-article makes sense, but the historic district article is not too long or detailed, IMO. I think the information in the two topics is now fairly well enough developed, at least to make it clear that the article structure (i.e. having two articles on the two topics) works well and will accomodate more development. I wouldn't now want to ask you to develop some alternative, if you are asking me to ask you, as the current structure seems good and best. Thanks. -- 74: 53: 1508:-- it is part of the town of Stonington, but it would not make sense to call it "Mystic (Stonington)" because it has such a strong and distinct identity (it probably has higher name recognition than Stonington). Marion is not as well known as Mystic, but because Marion has a history as a discrete and distinct community -- and you can send mail to "Marion, Connecticut" (it has its own post office), I think that "Marion, Connecticut" is the obvious name for the article about it. -- 626:

would not be welcome, when in fact it would be welcome. Happily, another editor has now visited and taken pics, and some development is happening (e.g. i added the NRHP nom doc reference and added a bit). It remains to develop discussion of more of the individual contributing properties in the district, but I think now it is clear that the merger tags are argumentative-only, not serving a useful purpose. To remove the unhelpful legacy of past contention, i'll remove them. --

84: 1158:

which there is not. Polaron has on several occasions explained to others that he paid no attention to naming conventions when creating articles, and disavowed there being any order here. Now it may suit him to argue that there is a "convention", i dunno. It suits Born2cycle's argument at the big RFC if there were an odd convention in Connecticut, but there is no consensus, no decision, there is just a random set of names currently existing in

22: 467:

situation. But I agree that language in the Marion article can be approximate/imperfect as long as there is a separate article about the historic district where the specifics are clarified. I do object to the Marion article being technically inaccurate if the clarifications are not provided somewhere, and I note there still remains a proposal to eliminate the separate article. Thank you for clearly opposing the merger proposal. --

179: 158: 1171:, instead we get this. This move discussion is in effect a split of discussion from the RFC. I guess it could become a new center of valid discussion about CT neighborhoods, altho i prefer for no big proposal for a lot of page moves. There has been a history of contention in CT place name articles, involving proposals to merge them into articles that are on the different topics of NRHP historic districts. -- 785:

his tavern, but that building burned in 1836 and was rebuilt in a different style by Levi B. Frost, a 19th-century industrialist. The site of Rochambeau's encampment and a monument commemorating the encampment also are included in the HD. However, Rochambeau's visit probably has at least as much to do with the history of Marion as it does with the HD. --

654:(ec) Funny one side of the merger tags was already gone; i removed the other. I was going to say this seems over. But, no, about new suggestion to eradicate the neighborhood/section article; that does not seem appropriate either. We should not mislead other editors who might develop the probably-notable separate topic of the neighborhood/section. -- 743:

historic district as the core part of that place. Anything historically significant after all took place in the core area. Unless we are headed for one article about the history of the village and another about a list article about the contributing buildings as I have suggested elsewhere, then there is no point in having two articles. --

581:

to is that here there should be separate articles; that editors should be free to arrive and develop. And you're not interested in developing! Not here or in any other NRHP HD case where the big agreement was to have article structure merged, as you seem usually to prefer. There's no benefit to changing the decision then. --

1443:

local treatment, and that local treatment supports a convention). Again i haven't reviewed all that, but I don't think MelanieN was out of line at all and i doubt that any entirely false claim was made. If u seriously think so, put it into some higher level dispute resolution. Thanks MelanieN for commenting here. --

1144: 334:

to be in two towns, yet be wholly contained in a neighborhood which is solely in one town (which is what the article asserts about the neighborhood). This is a repetition of discussion further above, perhaps not read or not understood. Hope this helps others understand why this is a disputed page. --

828:

Because the historic district is not totally distinct, a merge into the place article is still appropriate. As I suggested above, a merger of the historical narrative here and a separate list article if one wants to go into architectural details of each property probably makes the most sense. But you

760:

is not necessarily about "significance." As a community with its name on a post office, Marion is the sort of place that ought to have an article, even if that article is a stub (which this one no longer is, IMO, in spite of the label on it). Also, the last time I was in the area I saw that there are

742:

If one excludes the historic district, there is nothing of real significance in the swath of suburban homes surrounding it. I challenge anyone to find anything of significance written about the non-core parts of Marion. I think the best solution would be to have a Marion place article and discuss the

640:

The merger should always be towards the more developed article. I'm sure that when one adds the history of the Marion historic district, one has effectively discussed everything that makes Marion significant. I'm for redirecting the neighborhood article to the historeic district article, which is now

625:

If there were a merger, there would be an unfortunate situation of having an uninformed, combo article about two topics which would best be developed separately. Potential editors would be misdirected towards believing a good article about the historic district and its architecture and other history

417:

I intend to remove the "disputed" template again. The alleged "dispute" is ridiculous. It's abundantly clear from the National Register nomination form that Marion is a Southington neighborhood that includes the historic district, and that the fact that the HD includes two houses on the Cheshire side

333:

To respond: the National Register's NRIS database is a generally reliable source which provides the info that Marion Historic District is in two towns, in two counties. My edits that the district extends into Cheshire, which is in New Haven County, have been reverted. It is not possible for the HD

1460:

At this point I don't see a need to escalate. I think Melanie was acting in good faith, but going by the impression she had based on what others said (much like you are now), rather than by actually looking in detail at the changes I made (as diffed above). In fact, I think a lot of the disconnect

1335:

Earlier on that same page, Born2cycle was asked why he had rewritten the Project Page guidelines to make them state as policy his version of how he thought neighborhoods should be named; he replied "It was bold". His changes were later deleted when it turned out they were not based on consensus. See

813:

Orlady's edits to the article, to reduce and clarify the Rochambeau-related material, seem good to me. Polaron, the reasons you stated August 13 for original merger proposal no longer completely apply. You re-added merger proposal tags. Could you please state your reasoning for your new proposal,

774:

The historic district is part of Marion, so the HD article could reasonably be merged into the Marion, Connecticut article, but the reverse is not true because there's more to Marion than the historic district. Since the HD article is now well-focused on the buildings in the district, it seems to me

668:

Funny the merger tag on just the HD article was restored, by Polaron, just after P indicated above that is not his preference. The old proposal is done, over, by apparent consensus of two (P and me). Honestly i think further discussion and proposals are not needed, but if someone really thinks the

580:

of development of CT NRHP articles, both individual places and historic districts, since then, including almost all of Fairfield County and the city of New Haven and much elsewhere too. Editors will show up here, too, if there is not undue contention driving them away. The big agreement you agreed

349:

What you're not getting is that that bit of Cheshire around Marion Avenue north of I-84 containing several houses is considered part of the community of Marion. It also used to be that the Cheshire town line was a bit further south than the modern town line. Further, I doubt there are more than five

1442:

I'm not going to review all that. Fact is, Born2cycle, you are actively involved in advocating change in U.S. naming convention statement/guideline/policy, and you are actively editing in San Diego and now also Connecticut places, and you're making arguments both ways (that "convention" dictates a

906:

To Orlady: I don't think that is "bilge". To clarify perhaps, the Beecher House does not look like a Queen Anne style house, as its square tower and i think some other features do not seem conventional for Queen Anne. That's why i worded the statement about it to state that it "has been termed",

842:

I agree that it could still make sense to merge the HD article into the place article. However, it's not worth fighting about it. If merged, there wold be a push for the place article be revised to make the HD the centerpiece of the place article, which I think is too much emphasis on the HD. Also,

696:

This has never been resolved and needs to be discussed more widely with Connecticut editors. The main point of the tag is to point to a place of discussion. If you're so strict in the wroding of the tag, let's fix it but please don't unilaterally remove tags when there is no agreement to remove it.

286:

My edits to state that the Marion Historic District extends into Cheshire, which is in New Haven County, have been reverted. It is not possible for the HD to be in two towns, yet be wholly contained in a neighborhood which is solely in one town. So something has to give. It's okay by me to leave

271:

I added disputed tag to the article as it appears to be factually incorrect. My attempts to correct the article may have been imperfect, but there has been discussion for about 6 months and no resolution of some basic facts. I thot my recent edit clarifying what I believe to be true was accurate,

1426:

If you're going to accuse someone of improper guideline editing, it's only courteous (and helpful) to provide the diffs showing the edits that you believe support your claim. If nothing else, that way you can at least verify you're correct about what you're claiming and avoid posting false claims

784:

However, after reading through the NRHP nom, I have the impression that the HD article places too much emphasis on Rochambeau's visit. The buildings named in the article in relation to Rochambeau did not exist in their present form when Rochambeau came through. Asa Barnes did entertain officers in

548:

There's been no development by you, no response to explicit request for helpful development, above. For the record, towards preventing you making a claim of no opposition as in a related case in which you have acted sneakily, i oppose merger. If there is an actual, informed discussion by editors

466:

I don't exactly see how the analogy applies--I think there are some differences. When I put the disputed tag in, there was heavy-handed editing going on that was supporting technically false statements, and tagging seemed a better alternative than edit warring or otherwise battling to correct the

390:

Funny, the disputed tag disappeared with no discussion. I restored it, as the factual accuracy of this article remains in dispute. Also funny that a previous lack of development in the somewhat related article about a historic district was used to justify some argument; it would seem better for

435:

Furthermore, I see this dispute template as being very much like certain Freemasonry editors' disruptive insistence that a building listed on the National Register as "Masonic Temple" or "Masonic Hall" cannot be included on a list of Masonic buildings unless the specific nature of that building's

1157:

I noticed and objected to B's moving this and a couple other CT neighborhoods, along with an assertion on his part that there is a CT "convention", which i see now he gets as an idea from a recent edit by Polaron. B believed the false assertion in P's several edits, as if there is a convention,

367:

It would definitely help towards resolving the disputed tag, if you could provide a sourced statement in the article explaining that Marion extends into Cheshire. And it would help further discussion about merger/split if you could clarify the relationship between Marion and the Marion Historic

1354:

You're totally out of line Melanie. I will address only your most outrageous claim, which is that, "he rewrote the Project Page guidelines to make them state as policy his version of how he thought neighborhoods should be named". That's completely false. I presume you're talking about the

1300:

I have no advice on how to style the neighborhood or area of Marion, because I am not familiar with how it relates to the surrounding area. However, I will point out that Born2cycle has been trying, repeatedly and unsuccessfully, to change the neighborhood names of San Diego from their longtime

1117:

I agree with Dough4872 that Marion, Southington, Connecticut might be an okay name, although I think this is the only Marion in Connecticut so Marion, Connecticut is both clear and precise enough. Given your view, Dough, I suggest you then clarify that you do not support the move as proposed.

302:

Marion, as it is commonly used, does extend a bit across the Cheshire town line (the area around Marion avenue north of I-84). Because the center is in Southington, it is not unusual for this to be simply known as a Southington neighborhood but that doesn't preclude the community from sprawling

725:

are any indication, it is likely that some of those 57 buildings are no longer extant.) I've just spent some time expanding both articles to include information that I think is particular to one article or the other. Some information (such as the history of Rochambeau's visit) belongs in both

1419:

Did this change the meaning of the guideline? No! It's saying the same thing, in more clear terms is it not? Really, I just boldly elaborated on how the names are disambiguated when disambiguation is required. But the original and my revised wording were perfectly consistent on the most

328:

article is currently prominently labeled with a "disputed" template. This was placed there by Doncram to indicate that he does not believe the statement that the Marion historic district is "in" Marion. Since the Marion article consists only of a general geographic description and zip code

669:

wikipedia would be better served by further discussion about some new proposal, then make a new proposal now focussed on what you now believe best. If the proposal is for a merger, do it properly with posting notices where needed (not just tarring this developing HD article). Thanks. --

847:

of the HD article is interested in padding the HD article with bilge like "The Lester Beecher House, 1166 Marion Avenue, has been termed a Queen Anne style house for its irregular massing and 3 story tower", I think the place article is better off without the content of the HD article.

1313:. He sometimes claims this is Knowledge's preferred style, but actual usage does not support that claim. In a recent discussion of neighborhood names I did a rough survey of how neighborhoods are actually named in a dozen of the largest American cities. I found that four use 1503:

are unlike city neighborhoods elsewhere. That is, they are discrete villages (or distinct "sections of town") with well-established identities that are separate from the identities of the towns of which they are a part. An example that has been noted repeatedly elsewhere is

1423:

What happened is that these changes brought attention to what the guideline said, and consensus turned out to not support it, so it was all removed (which was fine by me, by the way), but please don't blame me for putting something in the guideline that was there all along.

1256:

convention for city-names, and then it's a good argument that neighborhood names should be consistent. (If ", Connecticut" is required as part of all CT city names, even where they are uniquely named with just one word, shouldn't it be included in neighborhood names?).

533:

article in over a year. Both it (aside from a passage taken from the town article, which applies equally well to the neighborhood) and the neighborhood article are very stubby. Merging the two would provide historical context for the locale and serve the readers better.

1390:

Please note that the words in yellow were not my words. They were not there the last time I edited the guideline in Sep of 2009, and they were there when I started editing them again on Nov 8, 2010. These words clearly state that "neighborhoods within cities do not ,

1464:

I suggest someone more interested in facts than disparaging someone with whom they disagree would take a few minutes to review the diffs I posted, and could easily evaluate whether Melanie's claim that I rewrote the policy to make it say what I wanted it to say

938:

To be clear, i oppose merger. The merger proposal was re-added by Polaron, who apparently wants for others to discuss this for no reason that i can understand, and P does not himself currently want merger. I believe there is no one now in support of merger.

1457:

If you don't think it's out of line to accuse someone of inappropriate editing without providing the diffs that support that claim, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point. I sincerely hope nobody ever treats you like that.

974:

Comment: Ready to close with decision not to merge. 2 editors oppose with explanations. Reason for merger proposal never really explained, in my view, and development of the article(s) since has now made such a proposal even less appropriate.

799:

Indeed. My original contention was to merge the historic district history into the place article and have a list article detailing the buildings in the historic district. But I suspect the owner of the two articles in question would not approve.

595:

If you merge, then there will be no more contention. If you let this be merged, I will endeavour to develop the article. How about that? You act like the sole gatekeeper of all Connecticut historic districts. Do I have your permission to merge?

765:). Furthermore, I found that the NRHP nom form documents information about Marion (for example, about the fast pace of suburban development in the two decades previous to 1988) that is not at all relevant to the historic district. 1162:. Which could be cleaned up by moving them all to conventional names, like "Marion, Connecticut" or perhaps "Marion, Southington, Connecticut". The trend has been that way, except for recent moves by Polaron and now Born2cycle. 1330: 391:

the editor to put some development into this article. Hopefully a local editor or other new participant could come in with more authoritative knowledge and actually provide sources to resolve the definition of this place. --

1621: 1337: 1241:

About the first, perhaps Polaron or other CT editors could point to such examples. I do recall that several times (perhaps once in response to question from Nyttend about why some places have "(CDP)" in their article

863: 249: 1245:

About the second, i have noticed moves by Orlady and myself and i think others, towards "Name, Connecticut" formatting. Markvs88 is one other active CT editor who has just commented further below in this

1302: 1412:

Where possible, neighborhoods within cities use ]. Where disambiguation is required ] is used unless there is a conflict with that too, in which case the state is included in the title as well: ].

418:

of the town line (both of which houses are next door to historic properties on the Southington side of the line) is a minor footnote that does not change Marion's association with Southington.

1616: 239: 1611: 1081: 719: 1275:, and Marion may be one of those, but I think it's fair to say that, in general, that is not a common way to refer to most neighborhoods and communities of cities in the U.S. -- 1314: 215: 1306: 1322: 1402: 1363: 202: 163: 1143:. Born2cycle objects to the current policy or guideline there and states, here, some of his objections. This is extending/expanding out from the RFC that B opened, 1318: 1152:

I believe there is no policy/guideline on neighborhood names, but the "Marion, Connecticut" naming makes sense as being most consistent with city naming rules.

722:

seems to be the historic district and the 57 buildings that were in that district as of 1988. (If the fates of buildings in the historic districts in Cheshire

140: 1253: 1469:

entirely false. In fact, Melanie knows (and you should be able to surmise) that had I done as she claims, my edits would have the guideline say to use

1084:. Similarly, other CT neighborhoods should be titled "Neighborhood, Town, Connecticut" as this convention is used with other city neighborhoods such as 1377: 1326: 1310: 1140: 761:

Interstate highway signs pointing to Marion, which seems to have a bustling commercial district due to its proximity to the I-84 and I-691. (See

1563: 957:

Update: I gather that Polaron does now support merger. I still think the current two-topics-in-two-articles treatment is good and best. --

1601: 1356: 1108: 350:

houses in the historic district that are in Cheshire and I don't think that's enough to say these two entities are completely different. --

130: 1546: 1436: 1349: 1482: 1452: 1284: 1266: 1236: 1212: 1180: 194: 1517: 1127: 1271:

Thank you. There may be some neighborhoods/communities, particularly those with their own zip codes, that are commonly referred to as

916: 1062:. I moved this accordingly, to make it consistent, but it was reverted, so it's apparently a controversial move, and here we are. -- 966: 948: 837: 823: 751: 678: 663: 649: 635: 604: 590: 571: 558: 400: 377: 358: 311: 1606: 1596: 875: 857: 808: 794: 735: 476: 445: 984: 705: 542: 523: 1473:

when disambiguation was required, but I never edited it to say that, because I knew there was no consensus support for that. --

530: 106: 1139:. Current name of "Marion, Connecticut" is consistent with policy/guideline on general U.S. place name rules for cities, per 829:

probably won't be convinced to allow for the merger no matter what anybody says anyway. Are you willing to give this a try? --

1366: 1188:"Polaron has on several occasions explained to others that he paid no attention to naming conventions when creating articles" 1159: 1043: 1145:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/January/Archives/2011/February#RFC: United States cities

1085: 211: 563:

It's not my job to develop this. My point is nobody is interested in developing it so that is why it is better merged. --

1581:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1401:. Namely, I moved the phrase about neighborhoods into a separate paragraph at the bottom of the guideline, to say this 1071: 1013:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

718:

article is the community/neighborhood/section called Marion, including its history and present existence. The topic of

490: 1026: 97: 58: 1101: 1046:, the convention seems to be to not disambiguate CT neighborhood names unless disambiguation is required (per 343: 296: 436:

association with Freemasonry has been certified to the personal satisfaction of those Freemasonry editors. --

33: 1529:

points out, Marion has a post office, therefore it exists to the federal government. I suggest this be

1355:

changes I made in early November (I hadn't touched the guideline prior to that since September of 2009)

1331:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/November#Neighborhoods of US cities

723: 279:

Marion is a neighborhood in the town of Southington in Hartford County, Connecticut, United States.

214:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

105:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

21: 995: 1038: 1559: 1534: 39: 1376:

The standard form for municipalities and unincorporated communities in the United States is

1338:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/November#US Neighborhoods

1478: 1432: 1280: 1232: 1208: 1067: 8: 1505: 1196: 1168: 1096: 1055: 1033: 864:

Knowledge:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Editor help#Historic districts

715: 325: 1542: 1345: 89: 1461:

in these discussions stems from going by how things appear rather than digging deeper.

1380:(the "comma convention"). In general, census-designated places follow this convention 1191:"The trend has been that way , except for recent moves by Polaron and now Born2cycle." 1448: 1262: 1176: 1123: 990:

The above is preserved as the archive of a merger proposal. Please do not modify it.

980: 962: 944: 912: 871: 834: 819: 805: 748: 702: 674: 659: 646: 631: 601: 586: 568: 554: 539: 519: 472: 396: 373: 355: 339: 308: 292: 1420:

controversial point: neighborhood names are not disambiguated except when necessary.

1555: 1513: 1500: 1359: 1058:), and, when disambiguation is required, to disambiguate according to the pattern, 853: 790: 731: 441: 266: 1474: 1428: 1276: 1228: 1204: 1063: 1047: 1365:(that edit did not touch the U.S. guideline). The version prior to that was on 726:

articles, but I think it's time to let these two articles develop separately. --

1091: 1023: 1252:

About the fourth, they are very related: I and many other editors accept the

1590: 1538: 1341: 844: 207: 762: 1622:

Start-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of Low-importance

1572: 1444: 1258: 1172: 1119: 1004: 976: 958: 940: 908: 867: 830: 815: 801: 744: 698: 670: 655: 642: 627: 597: 582: 564: 550: 535: 515: 468: 392: 369: 351: 335: 304: 288: 549:

actually developing material, I would be happy to revisit this opinion. --

73: 52: 1526: 1509: 1051: 849: 786: 757: 727: 437: 317: 102: 1382:

and neighborhoods within cities do not, unless disambiguation is needed.

1219:

This move discussion is in effect a split of discussion from the RFC .

1499:- Many (but not all) of the named communities that are located within 1398: 498:

The following is an archived discussion concerning a merger proposal.

1195:"To Born2cycle i called for some central discussion, perhaps at 720:

Marion Historic District (Cheshire and Southington, Connecticut)

287:

this as a disputed article. I won't expect to comment further.

1167:

To Born2cycle i called for some central discussion, perhaps at

178: 157: 1617:

Low-importance National Register of Historic Places articles

814:

or otherwise clarify if you oppose or support merger now? --

1203:

I just found this on my talk page - sorry I missed it." --

224:

Knowledge:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

1612:

Start-Class National Register of Historic Places articles

227:

Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

206:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. 1003:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

775:

that it's a good idea to keep the two articles separate.

282:

The neighborhood includes the Marion Historic District

1571:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

1185:

Citations, please, for each of the following claims:

1254:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

184: 101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 79: 1588: 714:These are two separate topics. The topic of the 504:No further edits should be made to this section. 203:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places 1141:Knowledge:Naming conventions (geographic names) 1329:by itself. You can read that discussion here: 230:National Register of Historic Places articles 1325:, and only one, Honolulu, consistently uses 1321:. Only one, Atlanta, uses parentheses, i.e. 1147:, which is getting plenty of hot discussion. 275:It is currently stated in the article that: 529:There has been no local development of the 195:National Register of Historic Places portal 19: 1221:(what does one have to do with the other?) 1537:, since they lack POs, are okay. Best, 1369:and said this about U.S. neighborhoods: 1303:Neighborhoodname, San Diego, California 1589: 1160:Category:Neighborhoods in Connecticut 1044:Category:Neighborhoods in Connecticut 1086:Somerton, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1080:, although i would prefer the title 1018:The result of the move request was: 221:National Register of Historic Places 212:National Register of Historic Places 200:This article is within the scope of 164:National Register of Historic Places 95:This article is within the scope of 15: 1602:Low-importance Connecticut articles 1533:deciding factor. OTOH, places like 763:this map to a pizza place in Marion 38:It is of interest to the following 13: 14: 1633: 510:The result of the discussion was 115:Knowledge:WikiProject Connecticut 1607:WikiProject Connecticut articles 1597:Start-Class Connecticut articles 1082:Marion, Southington, Connecticut 187: 177: 156: 118:Template:WikiProject Connecticut 82: 72: 51: 20: 1393:unless disambiguation is needed 244:This article has been rated as 135:This article has been rated as 1: 1547:16:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 1518:14:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 1483:18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 1453:17:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 1437:08:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 1350:07:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 1315:NeighborhoodName, City, State 1285:18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 1267:17:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 1237:07:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 1213:07:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 1181:03:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 1128:03:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 1118:Change your !vote, please. -- 1109:02:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 1072:01:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 985:19:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC) 524:00:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 218:and see a list of open tasks. 109:and see a list of open tasks. 1307:Neighborhoodname (San Diego) 1249:About the third, u answered. 1027:21:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 967:16:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC) 949:14:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC) 917:16:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC) 876:16:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC) 858:16:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC) 838:16:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC) 824:15:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC) 809:21:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 795:20:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 752:18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 736:16:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 706:14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 679:14:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 664:14:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 650:14:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 636:14:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 477:15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC) 446:16:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 401:14:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 272:but it has been reverted. 7: 1564:00:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 1471:NeighborhoodName (CityName) 1358:. The first time I edited 1273:NeighborhoodName, StateName 1060:NeighborhoodName (CityName) 605:01:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 591:23:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 572:22:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 559:21:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 543:20:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 312:23:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC) 297:20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC) 10: 1638: 1323:NeighborhoodName (Atlanta) 491:merge of historic district 250:project's importance scale 141:project's importance scale 378:15:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 359:15:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 344:15:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 243: 172: 134: 67: 46: 1578:Please do not modify it. 1022:per discussion below. - 1010:Please do not modify it. 531:Marion Historic District 501:Please do not modify it. 303:across the town line. -- 758:notability in Knowledge 98:WikiProject Connecticut 1414: 1385: 1319:NeighborhoodName, City 331: 28:This article is rated 1535:Lordship, Connecticut 1410: 1374: 322: 320:commented elsewhere: 1362:in 2010 was on Nov 8 1317:and five others use 1039:Marion (Southington) 121:Connecticut articles 1034:Marion, Connecticut 716:Marion, Connecticut 326:Marion, Connecticut 1397:What I did do was 641:more developed. -- 90:Connecticut portal 34:content assessment 1501:New England towns 756:To the contrary, 264: 263: 260: 259: 256: 255: 151: 150: 147: 146: 1629: 1580: 1383: 1378:Placename, State 1327:NeighborhoodName 1311:Neighborhoodname 1107: 1104: 1099: 1094: 1041: 1012: 503: 232: 231: 228: 225: 222: 197: 192: 191: 190: 181: 174: 173: 168: 160: 153: 152: 123: 122: 119: 116: 113: 92: 87: 86: 85: 76: 69: 68: 63: 55: 48: 47: 31: 25: 24: 16: 1637: 1636: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1576: 1381: 1102: 1097: 1092: 1089: 1037: 1008: 998: 993: 843:as long as the 576:There has been 499: 493: 269: 229: 226: 223: 220: 219: 193: 188: 186: 166: 120: 117: 114: 111: 110: 88: 83: 81: 61: 32:on Knowledge's 29: 12: 11: 5: 1635: 1625: 1624: 1619: 1614: 1609: 1604: 1599: 1584: 1583: 1573:requested move 1567: 1566: 1549: 1520: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1421: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1334: 1301:convention of 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1217: 1192: 1189: 1164: 1163: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1148: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1112: 1111: 1032: 1030: 1020:page not moved 1016: 1015: 1005:requested move 999: 997: 996:Requested move 994: 972: 971: 970: 969: 952: 951: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 779: 778: 777: 776: 769: 768: 767: 766: 739: 738: 712:Oppose merger. 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 666: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 527: 526: 507: 506: 494: 492: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 383: 382: 381: 380: 362: 361: 315: 314: 284: 283: 280: 268: 265: 262: 261: 258: 257: 254: 253: 246:Low-importance 242: 236: 235: 233: 216:the discussion 210:listed on the 208:historic sites 199: 198: 182: 170: 169: 167:Low‑importance 161: 149: 148: 145: 144: 137:Low-importance 133: 127: 126: 124: 107:the discussion 94: 93: 77: 65: 64: 62:Low‑importance 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1634: 1623: 1620: 1618: 1615: 1613: 1610: 1608: 1605: 1603: 1600: 1598: 1595: 1594: 1592: 1582: 1579: 1574: 1569: 1568: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1554:- pointless. 1553: 1550: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1521: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1502: 1498: 1495: 1494: 1485: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1462: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1427:like this. -- 1422: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1413: 1405: 1403: 1400: 1394: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1384: 1379: 1368: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1299: 1296: 1295: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1255: 1251: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1216: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1200: 1198: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1186: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1165: 1161: 1156: 1155: 1151: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1135: 1134: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1110: 1106: 1105: 1100: 1095: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1042:— Looking at 1040: 1035: 1029: 1028: 1025: 1021: 1014: 1011: 1006: 1001: 1000: 992: 991: 987: 986: 982: 978: 968: 964: 960: 956: 955: 954: 953: 950: 946: 942: 937: 936:Oppose merger 934: 933: 918: 914: 910: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 877: 873: 869: 865: 861: 860: 859: 855: 851: 846: 841: 840: 839: 836: 832: 827: 826: 825: 821: 817: 812: 811: 810: 807: 803: 798: 797: 796: 792: 788: 783: 782: 781: 780: 773: 772: 771: 770: 764: 759: 755: 754: 753: 750: 746: 741: 740: 737: 733: 729: 724: 721: 717: 713: 710: 709: 708: 707: 704: 700: 680: 676: 672: 667: 665: 661: 657: 653: 652: 651: 648: 644: 639: 638: 637: 633: 629: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 606: 603: 599: 594: 593: 592: 588: 584: 579: 575: 574: 573: 570: 566: 562: 561: 560: 556: 552: 547: 546: 545: 544: 541: 537: 532: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 508: 505: 502: 496: 495: 478: 474: 470: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 447: 443: 439: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 416: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 402: 398: 394: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 379: 375: 371: 366: 365: 364: 363: 360: 357: 353: 348: 347: 346: 345: 341: 337: 330: 327: 321: 319: 313: 310: 306: 301: 300: 299: 298: 294: 290: 281: 278: 277: 276: 273: 251: 247: 241: 238: 237: 234: 217: 213: 209: 205: 204: 196: 185: 183: 180: 176: 175: 171: 165: 162: 159: 155: 154: 142: 138: 132: 129: 128: 125: 108: 104: 100: 99: 91: 80: 78: 75: 71: 70: 66: 60: 57: 54: 50: 49: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 1577: 1570: 1551: 1530: 1522: 1496: 1470: 1466: 1463: 1459: 1425: 1411: 1396: 1392: 1375: 1297: 1272: 1220: 1202: 1194: 1136: 1090: 1077: 1059: 1056:WP:PRECISION 1031: 1019: 1017: 1009: 1002: 989: 988: 973: 935: 711: 695: 577: 528: 511: 500: 497: 368:District. -- 332: 323: 316: 285: 274: 270: 245: 201: 136: 96: 40:WikiProjects 1556:Jonathunder 318:User:Orlady 112:Connecticut 103:Connecticut 59:Connecticut 30:Start-class 1591:Categories 1475:Born2cycle 1429:Born2cycle 1305:to either 1277:Born2cycle 1229:Born2cycle 1205:Born2cycle 1064:Born2cycle 512:Not merged 1399:copy edit 1360:WP:PLACES 1024:GTBacchus 1539:Markvs88 1342:MelanieN 1048:WP:TITLE 267:disputed 1445:Doncram 1298:Comment 1259:Doncram 1242:name?). 1197:wt:CONN 1173:Doncram 1169:wt:CONN 1120:Doncram 1078:Support 977:doncram 959:doncram 941:doncram 909:doncram 868:doncram 831:Polaron 816:doncram 802:Polaron 745:Polaron 699:Polaron 671:doncram 656:doncram 643:Polaron 628:doncram 598:Polaron 583:doncram 565:Polaron 551:doncram 536:Polaron 516:Doncram 469:doncram 393:doncram 370:doncram 352:Polaron 336:doncram 305:Polaron 289:doncram 248:on the 139:on the 1552:Oppose 1527:Orlady 1523:Oppose 1510:Orlady 1506:Mystic 1497:Oppose 1340:. -- 1137:Oppose 850:Orlady 787:Orlady 728:Orlady 438:Orlady 36:scale. 1525:- As 1367:Nov 6 1246:vein. 1093:Dough 845:owner 1560:talk 1543:talk 1514:talk 1479:talk 1449:talk 1433:talk 1346:talk 1281:talk 1263:talk 1233:talk 1209:talk 1177:talk 1124:talk 1068:talk 1054:and 1052:WP:D 981:talk 963:talk 945:talk 913:talk 872:talk 854:talk 835:Talk 820:talk 806:Talk 791:talk 749:Talk 732:talk 703:Talk 675:talk 660:talk 647:Talk 632:talk 602:Talk 587:talk 578:lots 569:Talk 555:talk 540:Talk 520:talk 514:. -- 473:talk 442:talk 397:talk 374:talk 356:Talk 340:talk 324:The 309:Talk 293:talk 1575:. 1531:the 1309:or 240:Low 131:Low 1593:: 1562:) 1545:) 1516:) 1481:) 1467:is 1451:) 1435:) 1348:) 1333:. 1283:) 1265:) 1257:-- 1235:) 1227:-- 1211:) 1199:," 1179:) 1126:) 1103:72 1098:48 1088:. 1070:) 1050:, 1036:→ 1007:. 983:) 975:-- 965:) 947:) 939:-- 915:) 874:) 856:) 848:-- 833:| 822:) 804:| 800:-- 793:) 747:| 734:) 701:| 697:-- 677:) 662:) 645:| 634:) 600:| 596:-- 589:) 567:| 557:) 538:| 534:-- 522:) 475:) 444:) 399:) 376:) 354:| 342:) 307:| 295:) 1558:( 1541:( 1512:( 1477:( 1447:( 1431:( 1404:: 1395:. 1344:( 1279:( 1261:( 1231:( 1215:) 1207:( 1201:( 1175:( 1122:( 1066:( 979:( 961:( 943:( 911:( 870:( 852:( 818:( 789:( 730:( 673:( 658:( 630:( 585:( 553:( 518:( 471:( 440:( 395:( 372:( 338:( 291:( 252:. 143:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index