Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut

message: I suggest removing all of the entries from the Hartford County page, and turning the Hartford county page into a summary page, that links to as many articles as are needed. That approach would reduce the size of this page materially, so it would load quickly. Then each reader would decide which of the individual pages they choose to open. At the moment, if you are interested in place in the City of Hartford, but don't know the structure, you might start with this page, which means you have to suffer through the complete load time of this page, only to realize that you don't care about a single entry on this page, and need to load another large page.
(I considered the extreme example of making it a dab page, but I don't think that is warranted, as this page is the logical place to discuss the aggregate counts of NRHP listing in the entire county, and to mention the NHL pages.)
*Hartford County
**Summary information on entire county
**Pointers to National Historic Landmarks pages
**Pointers to City of Hartford, individual towns (as selected), and rest of County
**No table
Then I see individual pages as follows:
* Hartford (city)
** Summary information on area covered
** Table of entries
* Southington
** Summary information on area covered
** Table of entries
* West Hartford
** Summary information on area covered
** Table of entries
* Windsor
** Summary information on area covered
** Table of entries
* Rest of Hartford County
** Summary information on area covered
** Table of entries
--SPhilbrickT 17:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative proposal

message: right|thumb|Map with towns
Here's a map of the county by town.  Perhaps group as west: West Hartford, Farmington, Burlington, Avon, Camden, Simsbury, Bloomfield.  Those east of the river are Enfield, East Windsor, South Windsor, Marlborough, Manchester, East Hartford, Glastonbury).  Remaining are in northern group (Windsor, Windsor Locks, Granby, East Granby, Suffield), and remainder is a southern group (Bristol, Plainfield, Newington, New Britain, Berlin, Rocky Hill, Wethersfield).    Does the Hartford Courant have news coverage / news delivery areas termed "northern suburbs", east, etc., organized roughly like this?  I would be happy for this to be modified to match up to any grouping like that.  By the way, I am noticing that the current list includes places that are smaller than towns, while some other CT NRHP lists town/city column was revised to strictly use town names. --doncram (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, there is really no good way to group towns together. The only possible grouping that's somewhat well-known is the Central Connecticut area consisting of Southginton, Berlin, New Britain, Bristol, Plainville, Burlington. The rest of the Hartford area is pretty much monolithic. Also, this list in its current form does use towns as the location. There is no subtown entity listed in the current list. What specifically are you referring to when you say "places smaller than towns"? --Polaron | Talk 22:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, i was looking actually at the tallies by Nyttend by town at linked page, where there are non-towns like "South Glastonbury: 1, Unionville: 1, Warehouse Point: 1, Hartland: 2, and so on.  I thot he was working from the current list-article.  But, right, Polaron a while back did change this Hartford County list-article to give just towns, not smaller locations that were originally in the list-article.  So, then, the tallies for towns that we were relying upon in this discussion, will be higher than counted by Nyttend. --doncram (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I just cannot support this as it is arbitrary. Markvs88 (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not bothered by an objective though arbitrary division, but i understand this type of division doesn't appeal to everyone.  The oversplitting causes other problems, IMO.  I don't care much though;  if a few editors here want to go with the by-town approach that is fine by me.  I am just trying to share some from my being aware how splits were done elsewhere. --doncram (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Third alternate proposal

message: Perhaps we could do both?
I think the size and slow editing is a function of the images, not the text. What if we had a text only sortable list for the county, then break out according to one of these town based alternatives for a list including the images?  I haven't fully thought this through, it has implications for updating of new properties, but perhaps worth discussing. --SPhilbrickT 11:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is the parsing of the  template that slows the loading of the page, not the images. --Polaron | Talk 12:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems plausible. Maybe someone with more techy skills can run this load tool and see if the results shed any light on it. I've run it, but do not know how to save sharable results. I see the images in the table, but I didn't see the parsing of the coord template, but this is out of my area of expertise, so maybe someone else can look at it and make more sense of it.--SPhilbrickT 13:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth alternative