Talk:Norris, Tennessee

Merger discussion

Prequel to merger discussion

(The following "prequel" discussion is, in my view, an argumentative presentation including quotes by Orlady from Talk page discussions, and sarcastic and argumentative commentary, which provides a biased view apparently intended to make me look bad somehow. It is misleading about me, in my view, for example in claiming that I deleted Orlady's comment at my Talk page, which I did do but only to copy over to the complete discussion at her talk page (encountering an edit conflict there when I did copy it over). I previously put this "prequel" discussion into a collapse box, with no commentary like this, but Orlady restored it. I because she must believe it is essential for others to follow her presentation of the previous discussion. Frankly this account of previous discussion is irrelevant and I think it is a burden for anyone considering the potential merger of the NRHP HD article "Norris District" into the "Norris, Tennessee" article to have to wade through this. To the reader, I suggest skipping ahead, now, to #Now the actual discussion. doncram (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

Doncram changed the link destination for "Norris District" in the list article National Register of Historic Places listings in Anderson County, Tennessee from Norris, Tennessee to Norris District, created the article Norris District, and posted the following on my talk page:

Norris example

Hey, I feel like a bit of an automaton for doing this, but I am going to start Norris District article now, and allow for development/discussion of whether it is the same or not as Norris, Tennessee. This is because your edit just now suggests the possibility that someone would dispute the NRHP HD is different than the town, while area figures in the town article already indicate that the NRHP HD is very different in size (besides other likely differences in history evoked by district elements vs. history of the town).

To be clear, my issue in general is that NRHP articles should be allowed. I "approve" of the general presence of redlinks in the TN NRHP list-articles, which suggest that NRHP articles will be allowed. In general I would and do defer to local editors who have specific knowledge and also awareness of the specifics of the NRHP HDs specifics, if they wish to create combo articles (as by Bms4880 with respect to Elkmont, Tennessee). Also in general i do not want to start NRHP stub articles, but where there is some indication that a separate article will be disputed, as by in some New England states by a kneejerk type of redirecting of NRHP HDs to towns/hamlets that do not show in-depth knowledge of the particulars, then I think it should be disputed (by creating an NRHP stub article) sooner rather than later or it is some kind of deathtrap for new editors. As i have said before, the NRHP HD articles can easily be wikipedia-notable articles with complementary, different foci than hamlet/town/whatever geo area articles that may overlap with their geographic areas.

So, let's go ahead and discuss the Norris District if you wish, hopefully which you would raise if you wish to do so by a merger proposal which would be the appropriate wikipedia process to consider it, by my understanding anyhow. doncram (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Orlady replied on Doncram's talk page, but Doncram deleted the reply:

Norris, Tennessee and the Norris historic district

Please refrain from starting articles about topics you don't actually know anything about (and don't have sources for) just because you can (and because it's an opportunity to get under the skin of other Wikipedians who know and care about those topics and will have to divert their attention from productive activity in order to engage in arguments with you). I see your actions related to Norris, Tennessee and Norris District purely as attempts to create wikidrama.

PS - Lest you fail to recognize this fact, the historically significant aspects/elements of the community that are the basis for the HD have long been a major focus of the article Norris, Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Doncram's reply on Orlady's talk page

To respond about Norris in particular: I did start the Norris District article for reasons explained above, directly to you, beforehand, and this is entirely legitimate and constructive so far, and I certainly hope that it will remain entirely positive, but whether it does or not depends on others as well. I also linked to it and otherwise slightly improved the Norris, Tennessee article (by fixing up a reference). There is no need for "wikidrama" or for you or any editors investing any time whatsoever, you could just let those two articles be. Whatever you say about the history of Norris, it has not been detracted from in any way, by the addition of a separate stub article on the NRHP HD. The NRHP HD now serves to advertise to anyone local that pictures and development on the topic of the NRHP HD would be welcome, and since it mentions the areas of the two it opens the "research question" of what defines the historic district vs. the town in a low-key way that can just be left open there in the NRHP HD article until someone is moved to address it. In my view, the only potential negative for readers and editors now is the merger proposal which you added, which I think is a minor detraction for readers and I agree is potentially a distraction for editors. I think it would be best to remove the merger proposal and not have any discussion there at all. But I will respond and discuss there if there is any discussion opened (so far there are just the merger proposal tags). doncram (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the photo request template is not unique to the NRHP Wikiproject, and was on this talk page long before you created Norris District.

Your magnanimous offer to discuss this issue is accepted with all the sincerity with which you made the offer. --Orlady (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Now the actual discussion

Here's what I started writing earlier (before much of the above-described talk page page transpired):

The article, Norris District, newly created by a Wikipedian who does not actually have any meaningful information about the topic, needs to be redirected to this article.

Umm, I think you are referring to me. I created the article and in my view it does have some "meaningful" information, supported by two inline references. doncram (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

All the published materials I have ever seen regarding the Norris historic district (for example, this university page about the district and its significance) while living in the local area over multiple decades have identified the district as encompassing the planned residential-commercial community of Norris, as described in Norris, Tennessee. Doncram has found that the NRIS database entry for the historic district that was listed 34 years ago (in 1975) actually covers a much larger area than the city of Norris (whose boundaries are shown on this map). The NRIS database entry also mentions A.E. Morgan as the person associated with HD; Arthur E. Morgan is universally identified (for example, here) as the TVA head who (strongly influenced by his wife, who I recall was named Lucy) directed the community plan for Norris. Thus, the inclusion of his name strongly associates the Norris HD with the town of Norris. Doncram has, however, elected to use a large part of the stub article's text to speculate on the detail of the land areas, pointing out the difference and saying the district "includes part or all of the 6.9 square miles (17.8 km²) area of the city of Norris, Tennessee."

Umm, I don't get your point. I suspect intended sarcasm is getting in the way. By saying that i "elected to use a large part of the stub article's text" for one purpose, are you meaning to suggest that there is a shortage of space? There is no shortage of space. Also I think there is no speculation. I think all this may be about your taking offense for some reason for my use of the phrase "includes part or all". I believe it is a factual statement that the historic district does include part or all of the city of Norris. Don't you agree? I think you do agree, or else you would not be arguing for merger. So what is the speculation that you object to? doncram (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that your statement that the HD includes "all or part" of Norris is your original research on the scope of the HD. You don't actually have a clue... The fact that this statement and the supporting comparison of land areas are a major fraction of the article supports my view that the article has no information value that justifies its existence separate from Norris, Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I'm sorry, could you please answer the question? What is the "original research"? You yourself just edited the following sentence in the "Norris, Tennessee article: "It is included in the Knoxville, Tennessee Metropolitan Statistical Area and in the Norris District." Do you agree or do you not agree that some or all of Norris, Tennessee is included in the Norris District? doncram (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You refer to this edit. I made a mistake. I intended to completely remove the reference to the Norris District from the lead paragraph, and my edit summary that was what I was doing. Sorry for misleading you. --Orlady (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I can also speculate. Considering the massive acreage listed in the NRIS database, one possible speculation is that the acreage includes the city of Norris, Norris Dam, Norris Dam State Park, the entire area inundated by the reservoir impounded by Norris Dam (not all of which is in Anderson County, which is the only county named in the NRIS listing), and possibly other areas (not all of them in Anderson County). However, this TVA environmental assessment of a proposed transfer of some TVA land between the city and the dam does not mention the Norris District historic district, and indicates that the dam, the Norris Freeway, parts of the state park, and other areas have been found to be either eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register (among other things, this indicates that these areas are not already listed). Another possible speculation is that somebody made a mistake. Comparison of this NRIS entry with the adjacent entry for the Oak Ridge Historic District makes me wonder whether the acreages listed by the Tennessee Historical Commission can be trusted. The Oak Ridge Historic District is described in NRIS as having an area of 35,000 acres. That number is less than the total area of Oak Ridge, but it exceeds the entire area of nonfederal land in the city and is far larger than the actual HD. I estimate that the actual land area of the Oak Ridge historic district (as shown on a map in the nom form) is less than 3000 acres, and the nom form gave it as "3500 acres." As near as I can tell, the 3500 acres included some areas that are described in the nom but were not included in the HD, and anyway it appears that somebody made a factor of 10 error in transcribing the acreage from the nom form to the NRIS.

The main point of the above is that Norris District is based solely on a database entry providing cryptic details of a bureaucratic action that was taken 34 years ago, augmented by speculation regarding the possible meaning of those cryptic details. This speculation is original research that does not belong in a Wikipedia article.

I agree that your speculation is speculation. What is "this speculation" of mine that you label as wp:OR? Honestly I don't understand what you label as wp:OR now and in some previous cases where you have referred to my editing as wp:OR. Perhaps there is some confusion here about wp:OR? doncram (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

See above. --Orlady (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you may not have read wp:OR recently, perhaps it has changed greatly from however you remember it.  :) That wikipedia guideline/policy is about introducing non-documented information into articles. As far as I can tell, your complaint with me is that I stated in the NRHP HD article that the Norris District includes "some or all" of Norris Tennessee, while your own editing in the "Norris, Tennessee" article states that Norris, Tennessee is entirely included in the Norris District. Actually it is not absolutely clear from any source yet that it is entirely included, but I do believe that you believe it is reasonable to assert that it at least partly (or wholly) included. Please read wp:OR, and I hope you will follow up here to retract your accusation about "original research" introducing potentially false information, or to explain what else you may have meant. doncram (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Check out WP:SYN (a section of WP:OR). It says (in part) "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C." Your statements about the relationship between the Norris District and Norris, Tennessee are based on taking a fact about the land area of the city from reliable source A (the Census Bureau) and a fact about the land area of the HD from presumed reliable source B (NRIS) and using them to reach conclusion C, that the city of Norris is just a tiny portion of the vast area of the historic district. To use East Tennessee vernacular, that conclusion "just ain't right" -- both Bms4880 and I have some firsthand familiarity with the place, and we both understand the historic district to be the planned community of Norris, which is wholly within the Norris city limits. Furthermore, I am now firmly convinced that your reliable source B (NRIS) has a 10x error in the acreage of the HD. Other evidence indicates that NRIS has extra zeros in the acreages of several HDs in this area. --Orlady (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the notability of this or any other historic district is not derived from the fact that it is listed on the National Register (that is merely an indicator), but rather is based on the significance that caused it to be recognized on the National Register. The article Norris, Tennessee describes an historic community whose historical significance is recognized by a National Register listing. The article Norris District merely describes and speculates upon the details of the National Register paperwork that was filed 34 years ago.

Until such time as there is solid information about the NRHP listing, the page Norris District does not belong in article space. Furthermore, even when such information becomes available, I expect to see no basis for asserting that the fact of the NRHP listing possesses notability separate from the community itself. Therefore, Norris District should be redirected to Norris, Tennessee (or perhaps deleted). --Orlady (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I think you have it backwards. The article contains only facts supported by sources, and it is your discussion which is full of speculation. I do not think a merger is warranted based on that speculation. Also, the stub article is fine as it is, in mainspace. It is longer than many other stub articles, although, indeed, it is a stub. I suggest dropping this merger proposal for now, at least until someone obtains better information about the historic district. doncram (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Your Norris District article is supported only by an NRIS database entry (which database entry happens to be republished on various websites, but is still just one source). As you are well aware, the NRIS database has errors in it. I have strong reason to believe that the "40,000 acres" information that your article speculates upon is merely a mistake (this value is impossibly large) and I have added it to the long list of errors at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues. I contend that your stub article about the Norris District is not merely uninformative, but is misinformation, since it consists of speculation (original research) about a "fact" that doesn't make sense. Users of Wikipedia are not well-served by articles that consist of either original research or information that is obviously wrong (even if that information comes from sources that are often reliable), and it is even worse to present articles that consist of a combination of original research and information that is obviously wrong.

I see no good reason to keep your Norris District article. Indeed, I think it would be irresponsible to keep it in its current version. --Orlady (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, it is okay for you or someone else to develop it. It is a stub. There are sources stating that its area is significantly larger than the city of Norris, Tennessee. It is wikipedia-notable. This is getting a bit ridiculous. Why are you so bent on eliminating this stub article? doncram (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I vote for merger. The town of Norris and the Norris Historic District are basically referring to the same entity. As I understand, Morgan developed greenbelts to surround the town of Norris which may not have been included in the town's incorporation (this might explain the HD having more acreage than the town), but their development and maintenance would be entirely intertwined with that of the Norris community, and certainly wouldn't necessitate a separate article. Bms4880 (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Bms4880. Regarding your comment about acreage, the greenbelt is not nearly large enough to explain the difference in acreage. The problem with the 40,000 acre number is that it is a very large area -- larger than the entire water area of Norris Lake. If the actual area of the HD is 4,000 acres (as I now suspect), it almost certainly includes some or all of the Norris greenbelt. --Orlady (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In the Encyclopedia of Appalachia (p. 756), it says that TVA set aside 4,200 acres for Norris Village, of which 1/4 would be a residential area. So it appears the entire TVA reservation for the town was designated, and as you suggest, someone made a typo and added a zero. It's not 40,000. Isn't the nation's largest historic district the 10,000-acre district in Butte, Montana? Bms4880 (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. It seems there's a lot of competition for the title of "largest historic district", based on this article from Nevada and this article from Butte. The second article says the Butte district is the largest National Historic Landmark district. --Orlady (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As usual, my preference is for the Historic District stub to be alloewd to remain in order to facilitate development by a contributor ho gets the NRHP application and uses it to expand the stub. It is Wiki-notable itself, and should be allowed to remain. Lvklock (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it notable? What will appear in the HD's article that won't appear in the town's article? Bms4880 (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your question is reasonable. I think a reasonable answer is: the NRHP HD is notable for reasons explained in its NRHP application and associated correspondence and other documents, which no one has yet obtained or consulted. The wikipedia-notability of NRHP places has repeatedly been shown for dozens or hundreds of NHRP articles that were, in the past, sometimes brought up in AFD discussions, which uniformly resulted in Keep decisions. In most cases involving an NRHP HD and a similarly named town/village/hamlet, it has proven useful to have complementary articles, one going into more detail about the NRHP HD's contributing properties and how the existing buildings and other structures illustrate some past history of the area, while the settlement article provides other historical information not specifically exemplified by the current historic district artifacts of buildings and so on. This has been found to be "best" in many cases. In this case, there is further the apparent fact that the area of the NRHP HD is very different from the area of the . It may possibly turn out that there is an error in the National Register database (I have myself identified many NRHP database errors, although overall it is very accurate), but it is sourced and should be regarded as a fact until some other source contradicting/correcting it emerges. It is, in fact, speculation that leads one editor, Orlady, to argue that the two must be the same. Please understand, Orlady and I have both been having multiple disagreements in other NRHP HD vs. settlement articles elsewhere, and it suits her views elsewhere right now to find these two are the same, geographically (which would not actually settle the merger proposal). I assert, here, openly, that Orlady is biased towards finding "no difference" between the NRHP HD vs. the settlement. And, given that sources state they are different, there is not adequate information present to insist that the articles must be merged. In my view, it is premature, even ridiculous, to have this discussion, in the absence of anyone having collected the NRHP application document which would describe clearly the bounds of the NRHP HD area and also describe the contributing properties. I asked Orlady not to open this merger proposal prematurely, and I asked her to withdraw it once opened, and yet it remains open, thereby consuming multiple editors' energies. It is absurd, given currently available information, to try to insist that the two articles must be merged. doncram (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Doncram says "Please understand, Orlady and I have both been having multiple disagreements in other NRHP HD vs. settlement articles elsewhere, and it suits her views elsewhere right now to find these two are the same." To the contrary, it would appear that the only reason Doncram got involved with Norris is that I have been involved with the article in the past and it is an historic district where he could create the same kind of stub article that he has created in place of redirects for numerous New England historic districts (and that I have objected to). He may have perceived it as an opportunity to "get under my skin" in hopes that I would take the bait and engage in an edit war (or other unseemly behavior). I can't imagine any other reason why he would suddenly take an interest in East Tennessee and alert me to his new interest by posting a message on my talk page. If anything good has come out of this, it's the identification of order-of-magnitude errors in the NRIS acreages for the three historic districts in Anderson County. (I've confirmed that the Oak Ridge Historic District nom form listed it as 3500 acres and the NRIS gives the area as 35,000 acres. Similarly the nom form for the Woodland-Scarboro HD gives its area as 700 acres and NRIS erroneously says it's 7,000 acres. Dollars to donuts the same error was made on the Norris District. I don't have the Norris District nom form, but it do know that the 40,000 acre number isn't credible.) Thanks are due to Doncram for helping bring these errors to light. (I wonder how many other NRIS errors there are in acreages for Tennessee National Register sites.) --Orlady (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad you are happy about uncovering potential errors in NRIS database. It certainly would be fine and good to establish, by obtaining the actual NRHP documents, whether those are in fact errors or not. doncram (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

These are very real errors, and I now believe that they affect many (perhaps all) Tennessee entries in NRIS. I've now compared three nom forms for Tennessee historic districts with the NRIS data for those districts, and in every case the acreage in NRIS was 10x the acreage on the nom form. In addition to the ones mentioned earlier, the Cades Cove historic district in Blount County, Tennessee, is listed on its nom form with an area of 6,853 acres, but NRIS gives its area as 68,530 acres. The acreage given in NRIS for the Elkmont district is 5,160 acres, which is way bigger than the Elkmont district is in real life -- 516 acres is credible, though. In addition to Norris, Elkmont, and the three HDs that I've checked the nom forms for, I think the acreages of several other historic districts are suspiciously large (for example, it is difficult to credit that the state has many historic farms with sizes like 890 acres), but I am not as familiar with those places as I am with Norris and Elkmont, and I don't have the nom forms handy for comparison. --Orlady (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the theory that the historic district listed on the National Register is "wiki-notable", I am not disputing the fact that Norris is a historic place, notable for its history and notable in the history of community planning. This notable history is reflected in the Norris, Tennessee article, and I have access to print sources that I could use to expand that article if I ever get around to doing so. The fact that Norris is a historically notable place does not, however, mean that the Norris historic district as listed on the National Register is a separate and independently notable topic. (That district is, by the way, known to be geographically equivalent to Norris, more or less, in spite of the bizarrely large acreage value in NRIS.) For one thing, although I've looked today at a bunch of publications that post-date the NRHP listing (both online and offline publications) about Norris's history and historic significance, I've not found anything (other than Wikipedia, the NRIS database, and sources that mirror either of these) that mentions the National Register listing. This includes books that discuss the National Register listings of other properties in the area. If the Norris District as listed on the National Register has been the subject of multiple third-party publications (as is required for WP:N), those publications sure aren't easy to find. The place is what's notable, not the National Register listing. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's all very nice, I am perfectly happy for the process of developing NRHP HD articles to turn out to uncover new information and corrections to make in settlements articles as well.

To repeat the main unanswered question in this discussion: Orlady, could you please answer the question: What is the "original research" you refer to? You yourself earlier edited the following sentence in the "Norris, Tennessee article: "It is included in the Knoxville, Tennessee Metropolitan Statistical Area and in the Norris District." Do you agree or do you not agree that some or all of Norris, Tennessee is included in the Norris District? If you do agree, would you please state what is the original research which is the problem? Or, please, will you agree to retract your accusations against me? doncram (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated earlier, the "original research" is WP:SYN: interpreting numbers from two different sources to generate an interpretation of the relationship between the city and the HD.

The edit you refer to is this diff. I made a mistake. I intended to completely remove the reference to the Norris District from the lead paragraph, and my edit summary said that was what I was doing. Sorry for misleading you. --Orlady (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Doncram: While you've provided a citation showing that the Norris District is 40,000 acres (which would make it 4 times larger than the district claiming to be the nation's largest), Orlady has clearly shown your source to be unreliable. And while I'm sure there are valid arguments for having separate articles for historic districts (such as in large cities), in this instance, the historic district and the town are referring to the same thing. I don't see what would fit in an article on the HD that wouldn't fit just as easily in the town's article. Bms4880 (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We need a section break

My apologies if this has already been mentioned, but isn't this question decided by the boundary as given in the "Location" column? It's described as "City of Norris on U.S. Route 441". No references to "Bounded by" or "Roughly along" or specific street names or addresses. It seems to me that this proves that the HD boundaries and the city limits are identical. Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your pointing to that earlier might have been helpful, but in this case there was evidence, to start, that the Norris District was very different from Norris the town. The mention of City of Norris in the NRIS database does not "prove" anything, although it is a strong suggestion. The NRHP.COM source for the evidence of difference was the same source that had been used by some merger participants here in merger proposals elsewhere, and it was regarded as an accurate source. Without that, I agree (as I have stated elsewhere) that an NRHP HD which is described as being roughly or exactly a town should be merged with the town article. Or at least that should be the default, with deference to anyone who actually does the work to develop the article(s) and who might choose to separately discuss the HD (for any of various reasons: to cover the HD in more detail than is appropriate in a town article, or to get away from unsourced material and controversy in a town article, etc.). doncram (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

NRHP nom form

The NRHP nomination form for Norris District has finally arrived, and it gives the district's size as 3000 acres. There is no discussion of anything beyond the town's boundaries. The merger should now proceed. Bms4880 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, merge away. If you have gotten the NRHP document, and are otherwise informed, and are wanting to develop a merged article, go ahead. Unless, as you read the NRHP document and otherwise consider the sources, you feel it is best after all to develop a separate NRHP HD article, then I would support that also.

Process-wise, I think this whole process has been fine, in that having separate articles spurred some research and did not prevent anyone from editing, in advance of anyone really having definitive sources.

I do take issue with the tone of some remarks along the way. We can't go back now, but I would hope for civil discussion of sources and evidence in other discussions. doncram (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I take issue with people who assume that all of my local knowledge (and that of other good-faith contributors trying to build articles about their local areas) is wrong. --Orlady (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be bad. I hope no one does that; I certainly don't, myself, so I know you must not be referring indirectly to me. :) doncram (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, here, I took your insistence that the 40,000 acre figure "must be" wrong, into consideration when I raised your "factor of 10 issue" to more salient consideration at wt:nrhp, and it has turned out you were right in your belief on that, and that was an important thing to get clear. You, elsewhere, have many times had beliefs that turned out eventually to be incorrect, as do most of us, including me and User:Polaron, in case you are referring to many CT NRHP HD issues. What i think is wrong is insisting on the rightness of your judgments, when they are (informed) guesses. It is particularly easy for people to mis-estimate what might or might not be covered in an NRHP HD listing, it turns out from many cases I've seen. I don't feel sorry about any comment I made in this entire discussion of Norris District, in which I called for getting definitive information about what the NRHP listing covered, by obtaining the NRHP application which would explicitly describe what it covered. I'm not at all sure it is helpful to continue this conversation here, though. If you want to respond further, I'm not sure if I will reply. If you want, put in a new "last word" on the topic. doncram (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So... you want to un-merge the articles? I don't see the point of this post. Bms4880 (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bms4880, could you please share a copy of the NRHP application document? Do you have it in electronic form, or if not could you scan it? doncram (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)