This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Ohio Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This redirect is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Mid-importance). National Register of Historic Places Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

There's been some back-and-forth editing about mention in description column of Samuel Hannaford connection. Let's discuss here please. I happen to think that mentioning why an item is NRHP-listed, i.e. in these cases because the property is associated with Samuel Hannaford and sons, is highly appropriate. I'll wait for others to comment. -- do ncr am 12:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, I'll add that i noticed brief notes at two user talk pages. In one of those notes or in an edit summary, I saw it asserted that the Hannaford mention in a description item here in the list-article is inappropriate if it is not in the corresponding article. I think the corresponding article should be updated to mention Hannaford and include the TR document, if it is missing. The real reason why each of these places is NRHP-listed, is because someone went through the bother of identifying and registering them together. Without a Hannaford connection, some other Queen Anne house in the same neighborhood would not be NRHP-listed, I bet. So let's just expand the articles, if anyone is bothered by a lack of correspondence. -- do ncr am 15:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply

An editor removed the mentions; i've restored them. In my edit some other useful small changes were lost, could/should be remade. However, no editor owns this page. The MPS mentions should be retained and not summarily removed by one editor. -- do ncr am 13:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply

"other useful small changes" -- hardly a fair description of the detailed info Nyttend added. Reverted your destructive edit -- if you want to put the Hannaford info back in, do it correctly. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Umm, well thanks for commenting in this Talk page at leat. But if editor Nyttend wants to refine the Hannaford treatment in the list-article, which was fine to begin with, he can do so without deleting it all. There was discussion about a specific approach using less salient notes, still showing at wt:NRHP, which Nyttend participated in and is fully well aware of. It seems wp:POINTY or wp:OWN or similar to proceed by simply deleting it all and then making further edits to make restoration more costly to implement. I'll restore the previous Hannaford treatment now and continue re-incorporating other useful changes. SarekOfVulcan, if you would help in either further adding useful edits of Nyttend's or in implementing a different treatment of the Hannaford MPS info, that would be helpful. -- do ncr am 19:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply