Talk:Gales Ferry, Connecticut

Split proposal

Although Gales Ferry, CT is part of Ledyard this article is not about its relationship to Ledyard but rather about the village itself such as it is. Mail to Gales Ferry is addressed as such and therefore without prejudice to the town of Ledyard it seems fair to identify Gales ferry as its own thing at least in the header to the article at least partially about it.

Question though: should this whole entry be split? If the anonymous poster editing the header to read "part of Ledyard, CT" feels stongly that Gales Ferry should be more tightly identified with Ledyard, perhaps it is better to merge the section of the "Gales Ferry" article about the "community of Gales Ferry" into the Ledyard article and leave the section on "The Ferry" alone in the "Gales_Ferry" entry with just a disambiguation line at the top redirecting to an appropriate section within the Ledyard article. This would call for a restructuring in the Ledyard article as well. Without more attention to the relationship if any between the Yale facility and the town it may be worth reconsidering them as separate entities for the purposes of this encyclopedia and perhaps then it would make sense to join the village's section to the Ledyard article if it is not felt that the Village's article can stand alone. I think someone who actually lives in Gales Ferry should decide how the place will be listed.

The splitting of the two historical districts seems as though it will generate two unecessarily short articles which will each lack sufficient material unless someone wants to flesh out each with some details and notability. The whole collection of the historic district is notable but each as itself? I would want to hear how each district is notable all by itself. The division into two districts I assume must be primarily arbitrary and administrative absent any compelling explanation. -- CharlusIngus

I agree that I don't see a point to splitting the page. While splitting villages off from towns makes some sense in terms of identity, I'd be pretty surprised if the residents call themselves "ones" and "twos". Markvs88 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I added the tags suggesting a split off of the two NRHP historic districts, quite a while ago, in midst of running discussion with other editors about many other pairs of CT towns/hamlets/villages and NRHP historic districts which overlapped wholly/some/minimally/not at all. The whole discussion was largely uninformed. My basic position was that mergers should not be forced when there was not good information supporting the merger; that the default should be no merger. Since then, the NRHP nomination documents for most CT NRHP listings have become available on-line, and looking at them could/should actually inform the question of splitting them out or not. I'll try adding those references into the historic district sections in this article now. --doncram (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

References added, and some development started. The documents show that the 2 historic districts are chunks of the village, east and west of the railroad cut, both irregularly shaped to include historic houses and to exclude more modern, non-historic buildings. Another CT question was whether to merge or split articles about Rocky Hill – Glastonbury Ferry vs. Glastonbury – Rocky Hill Ferry Historic District. There, the ferry continues to operate, and had/has an article, and the decision was to keep separate. Here, Gales Ferry does not refer to any operating ferry, right? --doncram (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand what would be gained by splitting the article. The only division between the two districts is a railroad track. IMO, in this case it makes sense to keep it as one (more important & higher quality) article. Markvs88 (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose a split, largely for the reasons succinctly articulated by Markvs88. A single, but improved, article about the village of Gales Ferry -- including its historic elements -- would be preferable to a set of several separate articles about different aspects of the place. --Orlady (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a lot of time on your hands and an inclination for reading talk pages, some background information related to the reasons for the splitting proposal may be found at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut/Archive 3, Talk:Poquetanuck, User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list, and other talk pages mentioned on those pages. --Orlady (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with any suggestion that people now should go to those archives and Talk pages. Those are records of long-running contention about hundreds of CT NRHP historic districts and towns/villages/hamlets that might or might not overlap, where several editors including me tried to sort out what to do when no good information was available about the extent that histories and areas of these places might overlap. Here, there is good information about the historic districts now available, in the form of the NRHP documents to which i added links.

What would be most helpful now would be if Polaron, or any other editor, could possibly create an includable(sp?) map showing the boundaries of the 2 historic districts and, if any are available, the boundaries of any available definition of Gales Ferry the village or hamlet. I see a map in each of the historic districts' NRHP documents. Polaron has previously provided maps that helped clarify relationships in several other cases. Polaron, what say you? :) --doncram (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As there is no consensus for the split I have removed the tag. I put all the information together in one section, removing the info boxes which simply repeated the information and took up a lot of space. SilkTork *^YES! 18:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

location checking needed

The article currently states that "Gales Ferry includes several farmsteads that are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, including the Nathan Lester House on Vinegar Hill Road, the Perkins-Bill House at 1040 Long Cove Road, and the Capt. Mark Stoddard Farmstead at 24 Vinegar Hill Road." Are those places in fact in Gales Ferry, or is Gales Ferry just the nearest village to these farmsteads? The source, the National Register's NRIS database, is not clear (the town/village location field is often just a "nearest to" descriptor). --doncram (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

These places do have Gales Ferry mailing addresses but are well east of the original village. The Gales Ferry ZIP code includes much more than the original village. --Polaron | Talk 18:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Per that comment from April, i just now revised the article to assert those places are nearby but not in the village/hamlet. This is progress i guess. --doncram (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

coords

The ferry location is given as 41°25′50.41″N 72°5′36.06″W, but that is incorrect, that location is out in the Atlantic ocean as seen in the Bing map link. Coords for more locations in the article could be added, too. doncram (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The correct coordinates were added in this old version

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gales Ferry, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)