" 
 ::::::::Thanks for 'splaining that. As indicated, it was past my bedtime when I looked at those diffs, and I was thoroughly befuddled by all those indications of changes.    

 ::::::Back to my comments.  
 ::::::As noted, I am glad that we seem to agree on item 1.  
 ::::::Regarding item 2, my issues are that (1) Wikipedia should not ignore the list of one state agency while giving great deference to the list of another state agency (particularly when the agency being ignored is the agency with jurisdiction over local communities) and (2) the term ""principal communities"" lacks any recognized meaning and should not be enshrined in here. 
 ::::::Regarding point 3, if the only explanation for choosing the criterion is that it's arbitrary, I respectively submit that we don't need it. Joking aside, no participant in this discussion has been able to convincingly demonstrate that this particular checkbox on the NRHP nom form is a meaningful indicator of whether the two articles should be combined. I see no purpose in establishing an arbitrary criterion that no one can explain the purpose of. 
 ::::::Regarding point 4, because I believe that reasonable determinations can be made without asking people to measure the distances between two centroids, I submit that this arbitrary criterion is unnecessary. 
 ::::::To replace points 2, 3, and 4, I suggest the following:  
 :::::::""The community is a named place, smaller than a town, identified on one or more of the lists of Connecticut cities, towns, boroughs, and villages maintained by state agencies (   ). Comparisons of available geographic coordinates, land areas, maps, and descriptions indicate that the historic district comprises essentially all of the named place or a substantial portion of the place."" 
 ::::::Regarding point 5, we agree on ""one article"", which is (as you wisely point out) the crux of the matter. You are saying the HD article name should be a redirect and I'm saying ""no redirect."" This is a matter that can be discussed later.  
 ::::::Regarding point 6, it's apparent that we're not getting anywhere, but I'll try again. I believe that there are no cases where a reliable source will ever be found saying that Podunk and the Podunk Historical District are ""essentially the same place."" Sources might say that that ""Podunk is listed on the National Register as the Podunk Historical District"", or perhaps that the Podunk Historical District is ""in Podunk"" or maybe even that it's ""near Podunk,"" but they will never say they are ""essentially the same."" Accordingly, making the statement ""they are essentially the same"" is always wrong. The ""essentially the same"" terminology is a shorthand locution developed and used in Wikipedia to describe a concept that I think we all understand, but is not a fact to be reported in an article (without sources or with) because it is never going to be verifiably true. Meanwhile, when (as is the case for Poquetanuck) the local historical society says that the village ""is"" a National Register historic district, the article should be able to contain a sourced statement to that effect.  
 ::::::As for my suggestion that a simple declarative sentence in the form, ""Podunk Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on April 1, 1980"" (cited to NRIS) is never wrong, I think I now understand your objection. Your view is that if a person looking for for ""Podunk Historic District"" is redirected to the Podunk article, the Podunk article must include an explicit statement regarding the geographic relationship between Podunk and the Podunk HD. I am not aware of any policy or principle that says that the article that is the target of a redirect (or a piped link) must necessarily cover a topic that is substantially the same as the topic indicated by the redirected title. Indeed, one of the recommended uses of redirects identified in WP:Redirect is redirects from sub-topics and small topics to broader articles. Redirecting a village HD title to the article about the village where the HD is located is similar to redirecting a team member's name to the article about his team. Also see the redirection of Nicholas Mikel (perpetrator of an act of violence) to Fort Campbell (place where he perpetrated that violence). When an HD article title redirects to the village article and the village article contains some content related to the HD, why shouldn't the user be satisfied that the redirect is valid? (A