Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Washington (state)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Color scheme

Was this new scheme on purpose? It looks kind of random, and definitely doesn't match the corresponding New York list. So anyone knows, I'll be working on Marmes Rockshelter for the time being. Murderbike (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick comments

A request for comments on this article was placed at Talk page of wp:NRHP. I commented there about sorting and the Bonneville item being out of place in the main table. Also:

  • "Map of all coordinates" appears twice in the article. I prefer an earlier placement, would drop from External links.
  • Some references and/or external links are presented merely as URLs. A webpage title and/or full author, date, journal etc information should be provided.
    • I don't know if it is very helpful for me to jump in again while the article is being edited actively, so sorry if this is not helpful, but: a listing titled "National Historic Landmark Nomination" or "National Historic Landmarks Program" is not specific enough, when the link is actually to the nomination PDF document for a specific site or a NHL summary webpage. I have worked out a format for footnoting specific nomination PDF docs and NHL summary webpages, that is implemented in 100s of NHL webpages, including many of the WA NHL articles indexed by this list-article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I personally think references for just one description should be in the NHL article for that site, but if u want to include the references here they need to be more complete.
  • I don't see where footnote 10 appears in the article. One description shows footnote 9, the next shows footnote 11. And the content of footnote 10 is to point you to another Wikipedia article, which is not appropriate for a footnote.

Hope these comments are helpful. doncram (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the extra coordinate map, hadn't noticed that. I'm not sure about footnote 10 though, unless it got changed since you commented, it just points to an official NHL ref on my screen. I'll take care of the form of those refs in a little bit. Murderbike (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, i found footnote 10's location in the article, about the ship Fir. The footnote links you first to the wikipedia article on the National Park Service, which is not an appropriate source, and second to the general search screen for NHLs, which is too general, when the specific NHL webpage is intended. I gather someone meant to link to the specific NHL webpage about Fir, at http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2141&ResourceType=Structure. However, even that is not a good reference, it is an erroneous webpage that states the ship is currently located in Staten Island, New York, in Solano County. But Staten Island is Richmond County. Solano County is in California. This webpage is just erroneous, it is not a source accurately describing how the ship was once located in one place, then another, it describes no moves of that sort at all. It is not an acceptable reference for anything but pointing out the National Park Service webpage for Fir does not locate it correctly (and that would be appropriate to point out to the NPS privately, it is not appropriate for a factual article about the NHLs in Washington). I just added more about this discrepancy to my list of NHL discrepancies at User:Doncram/NHLinfo#Possible errors in National Historic Landmark summaries , many of which I have reported to the National Park Service. I may have mentioned that I hate the NHL webpages as references for any material other than date of NHL designation, which is because they are often outdated or simply erroneous. Anyhow, this one in particular is a lousy reference. Cheers, :) doncram (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm done for a bit, and always check histories. That's cool you have a better format for those refs. Can you point me to one? And I'll try to take care of that Fir ref, that was one I hadn't even looked at because it was one of the few that was here before I started paying attention to the list. I'm off to the movies now, though, be back later. Murderbike (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok good. An example NHL article with format for NHL webpage link and for NPS PDF document is Yakima Park Stockade Group. The NPS document there is a "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination" form; I see the Mt. Rainier Park NPS document would be a "National Historic Landmark Nomination", which is to be handled the same but for different wording in the form name. The footnote title of the document includes the form name, plus the site names given ( Yakima Park Stockade Group / and an alternate name given too) which I consider to be part of the title for the specific document. Also, I use the author and date of the preparation of the document, which appears in section 11 of either type of form, several pages into the document. That's all from me for tonight, too. doncram (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I fixed up some of the references, though I'm having a hard time finding a better one that talks about it's time in New York. As well, those one refs link to the wikipedia article on the National Park Service not because it's reffing the article, but because the NPS is considered the author of the ref, and authors get bluelinked in refs when they have articles. I'm not sure that this is or isn't FL compatible. Murderbike (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you've done a bang-up job here! I just have a couple of comments:

  1. On my screen, the "image" column is quite a bit wider than the images themselves. The column is specified at 13%. In List of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota, the width is not specified. In List of Registered Historic Places in Dakota County, Minnesota the column is specified at 8%. In all three cases, the images are set to 100px. I'm curious to hear what people see using smaller or lower resolution screens for the three articles.
  2. I think the lead could be expanded somewhat. I don't think it needs to be as extensive as the lead in List of National Historic Landmarks in New York, but my preference would be to triple or quadruple what is there now.

Otherwise it looks great.--Appraiser (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the images are narrower in the box than my screen too. In the RHPs in Washington list, I think it's set to 8%. I thought about changing this one, but couldn't decide where to throw the extra 5% leftover space, and then forgot about it. Maybe I'll just through it in the Description box, and then try to expand the lead a bit. I have an idea or two for stuff to put in there. Murderbike (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cover the 6 other historic areas under NPS administration in Washington?

The NPS PDF document listing National Historic Landmarks also makes a point to list the historical areas in the National Park system that the NPS administers which are not also designated NHLs. In Washington, there are just 6 (as listed on page 116):

I think it would be good to include all 6 in a separate table below the main NHL table, and to have them described. Many/all of these may be of equivalent/higher national importance than the NHLs, and would get NHL designation if they were not already so highly protected. They are comparable / similar. Then the intro overview is to be adapted to describe the article as covering historic landmarks that have been recognized to have national importance, so including NHLs and other national historic landmarks. As an example, I have been developing the NY NHL list to include a similar table of 14 areas that are not NHLs, and adapting its intro correspondingly. It is harder there as there are space issues in the list-article. Here, you could easily add the second table, spacewise, and I think it would add to the comprehensiveness of the list-article. doncram (talk) 07:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as it hasn't brought up objections over at the NY list, I'll go ahead and work out a new table for these ones, though it may be a couple days before I get to it. thanks for doing the research. Could you link to the PDF that lists them? Murderbike (talk) 08:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The short version of NPS list of NHLs for Washington alone is available by clicking on Washington here; the longer version listing all states (and better for referencing because it includes title page) is footnote reference #2 in your article here. Who can predict, there might be objections in Featured List review, but it is the right thing to do, to include coverage of all the NHL and NHL-equivalents in one list-article for the state. :) doncram (talk) 09:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The San Juan NHP is already linked as the American and English Camps, should I bother including it a second time? Murderbike (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, if the American and English Camps NHL does not cover the same area as the NHP covers. The article implies that it could be the same, but gives no source. What area the American and English Camps cover is not clear to me; the basic NRHP text and photo documents would make that clear but as yet needs to be added to the American and English Camps article. It seems the list-article description has information not included in the article it indexes. doncram (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, because the Am-Eng link was just a redirect to the SJNHP, I just came up with my own summary of the NHL. and I BELIEVE, that the camps are just part of the the SJNHP. Several of non-NHL historic parks are made up of several sites lumped together under one name. I suppose ideally, the camps would either have their own article, or at least their own section in the larger park's article. This project just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Murderbike (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, so the park is made up of the two camps, and seemingly nothing else. so I just added the (slightly reworded) summary from the list to the park article. Now it seems redundant to have the park listed a second time, since the two listings are one and the same thing. Murderbike (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the park listed a second time. I am beginning to think that you are working on a draft second table of the 5 items somewhere else, instead of just drafting it in this list-article below the NHL table, and showing the references that you are collecting there. If so that makes it awkward for me to try to comment/contribute to your work-in-progress. I do agree that if Am-Eng is the same as San Juan, then it should just be listed in the NHL table. I just added color and text to indicate, in the Am-Eng entry, that it is the San Juan NMP, which I take it is borne out by the invisible-to-me references. :) doncram (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I've been working on the table in my sandbox, I usually don't like having drafts of stuff in regular article space. I'll go ahead and pull SJNHP out of that table. I'll probably have time to finish up the table this evening, though I'm curious about the columns in it, last time I looked at the NY one, it seemed like it wasn't in a finished state, and that maybe there was some indecision about what to put in the columns? Murderbike (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the section on NPS national historic landmarks in NY, besides the National Historic Landmarks, is in progress. It was just a list, not a table, until a few days ago. I think the date of whatever type of national designation is appropriate to add to the table, but am not sure yet if that is available for every one, like it is available for NHLs. And I am bothered by inability to put that date into NRHP infobox for each one (a point/question I raised on the WP:NRHP talk page). So indeed it is unclear how some aspects are going to get sorted out. Me, i rarely do sandboxes, i have been building my drafts out there in each of the many state NHL lists that I have contributed to. Either way of working is fine in general, except if you want to allow comments/contributions. :) doncram (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
So, I added the table in. I changed the date column to "date established", though I'm not sure what to do with Fort Vancouver, as it has two diff designation dates. I also don't know what to do with the first columns color for Ebey's Landing, since it's the only National Historic Reserve, and there's no color template for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murderbike (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems odd that Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks isn't in that list. And thanks for doing the Chinook Point article, I was having a hard time finding any decent info. Murderbike (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinook Point, and Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks

I just developed a Chinook Point article to cover the Chinook Park NHL, which previously linked to Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks. The article, and I, am unclear on whether Chinook Point is part or all of Fort Columbia State Park, a park which is part of the Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks. The Chinook Point article is needed to cover the NHL, separately, but needs research/development. The Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks needs clarification too, perhaps, is there a National Historical Park that ought to be listed in the new NPS areas section of this NHLs in WA list-article. doncram (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I see we had the same concern at the same moment. weird. I'll see what I can dig up. Murderbike (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking at a map, the point isn't even that much of a point. And Fort Columbia State Park is covered in military stuff, so includes much more of an article than just the point itself. Murderbike (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

USCGC Fir appears to be in CA, not in WA

See USCGC Fir article, it now appears to be in California, and for sale! For just $95,000, you can buy a National Historic Landmark. For sale webpage linked. Anyhow, that means this is a former NHL of WA, not a current NHL, ssuming it was a NHL while it was in WA. Seems like that was the case, it was decommissioned in WA in 1991, became NHL in 1992, stayed several years in WA. doncram (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's really weird. I wonder if I could convert it into a living space. So, is it pretty well consensed upon that boats are only listed in the states where they actually are? What a pain to have to change it every time one moves. Murderbike (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey count me in on the conversion project! Check out Frying Pan (lightship), which is basically a party rental space now in New York City, was a historic lightship, very comparable I would expect. A couple people bought it, had to pull it out of mud in Delaware where it had sunk, and renovated it to be a living space / party space. My article on it does not give the story justice, but the links must be there. Seriously, count me in! cheers, doncram (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"Consensed"? Nice word. Anyhow, the NPS moves boats from state to state in their listings, so we probably ought to as well. (Granted NPS is sometimes up to several years behind....) Fir sure has bounced around a lot. You say it was decommissioned in WA. The NPS NHL program sources (the PDF list and the database) report it to be in NY, formerly in CA. The NRIS puts it in WA. Now it's apparently back in CA. Tricky bugger. The conversion idea is intriguing. Hey, gather another 92 or so Wikipedians, and for 'bout $2K each we can buy it and convert it into the Wiki-NHL HQ! Dock it in Astoria next to the Lightship Columbia-nice symmetry since the Fir is a lighthouse tender. --Ipoellet (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Item of coincidental interest: The currently-active USCGC Fir made the front page of The Oregonian today. Story had to do with replacement of a couple of weather buoys that were trashed by a storm last year. Ipoellet (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's cool about the Frying Pan. Kinda funny too, my band was supposed to play a show on a squatted boat in NY last year, but something feel through, I forget what. And "consensed", is that not a word? I know I'm prone to making up words, but I didn't think I made that one up. And I would for sure move to Astoria to move into a former military vessel, the $2,000 might force me to get a job, and then I wouldn't have time to spend here. Murderbike (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Weird and interesting that the Fir is active in Oregon, as well as being for sale in California.  :) Thanks for the heads-up. I printed a copy of the Oregonian article to PDF, just now. Of course as one might surmise, now it is becoming clear that there are at least 2 Firs in existence, the current 225 foot cutter in the Oregonian article today, and the 174 foot NHL one in CA, and I just put that into the article though not too well. The NHL name is not specific enough, perhaps, but the article name is clearly about the one ship, USCGC Fir (WLM-212). At least the existence of another Fir explains the September 2007 edit to the article, by User:Jmabel, stating that the ship is located in Seattle (I am assuming the current ship is located in Seattle). By the way it was User:Check-Six just now who pointed out that Fir (the NHL one) is located in Rio Vista, CA, and with that info I found my way to the "for sale" sign. I think "consensed" is a word, albeit a relatively recent / not too common one. Keep in mind that few Americans know anything about consensus processes; we are incited (perhaps unduly) to be individualists. :) I dunno about living in Astoria, why not San Francisco or Sacramento, moving around just a few times a year? The ship becomes a museum tour, i.e. a touring museum.... I am not much of a seafaring type of boat-part-owner, I think i am more of a sit-back-and-write wikipedia articles kind of crew member. Am not brave in storms at sea.  :) doncram (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The currently active Fir is hull number WLB-213, against WLM-212 for the NHL vessel. But it isn't just the confusion between the two ships that put WLM-212 in Washington, since the NRIS supported that too. (WLB-213 is homeported in Astoria, Oregon in any event.) And if we're going to do a travelling museum, I don't see why we can't carry the history exhibits to, I dunno, Bora Bora or Mauritius. I'd be all for that....
I don't mean to pick on the word "consensed" - I've just never come across it before. But it's a perfectly useful word, so it certainly needed to exist if it didn't already. Ipoellet (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

upgrading article and the NHL articles it covers

Overall the article is looking very very good, and I know that many, perhaps nearly all, of the 23 NHL and 5 NPS area articles that it indexes could be rated START by now. So by the proposed standard for quality rating of List-Type-Articles of NRHP sites, that would mean this article should just about be rated B-CLASS now. It would be great to do the rest and have this join the NY and MN NHL lists, the only others rated B-Class. I would like to change to from orange to yellow the color of one more cell in the NHLs-by-state tabulation at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/ProgressOnNHLsByState  :) And/or nominate this for Featured List, before or together with the NY NHL list.

Would it help to list out here the articles that have to be worked on, and check them off as they reach Start rating themselves? I would be motivated to help, anyhow. doncram (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me, but be forewarned that I have almost no time to work on this as I'm leaving to go traveling for two months in a couple days. Murderbike (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I may do a little then, or more probably will work on other states' lists instead. Have a nice trip! doncram (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, feel free. I'll checking in once in awhile when I can, so I'll try to pay close attention to the talk page here, and of course my own. Murderbike (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Adventuress pic available

The current pic with Adventuress is just of a dinghy, it does not show the ship. But, there's a public domain US Coast Guard pic available right now, showing the ship tilted, aground, today. here is the pic. A non-logged in, anonymous poster added a news story link to the Adventuress (schooner) article today.

And, the ship needs to be moved to NHLs formerly in Washington, right? doncram (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm PRETTY SURE that it is still based in Port Townsend. The other day a buddy got a ride back up there from Seattle on it. It's going to be at the Tall Ships Festival in Tacoma in about two weeks, and I can get a PD photo of it then as well, I haven't looked at the available one though. Murderbike (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, i inexplicably interpreted the news as if it was in Maine, which it is not. Perhaps the 2 salient mentions of Maine, including once with an unnecessary wikilink for emphasis, got the wrong idea in my head, and/or i thot the pics looked like Maine.... The Coast Guard pic is good, i think it could be used twice (once in full view, once in high-def cropped, closeup of the ship alone). Additional pics showing more of the ship would be great. doncram (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't care too much, but it seems that if the article is gonna have one picture, it should be a more detailed one. but the CG one would be cool as an additional image, especially if the article can be filled out a bit more to make the layout more pleasing with extra images. That isn't anything I'll be spending time on in the near future though. Too much to do outside! Murderbike (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2017)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of National Historic Landmarks in Washington (state). 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:

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) 16:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (December 2017)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of National Historic Landmarks in Washington (state). 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:

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) 14:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Harv errors

I am midway through fixing the harv errors. Will continue tomorrow. —¿philoserf? (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. I also replaced a permanently dead link with an equivalent from the same time and paper by the same author. There is still a mix of citation styles. All book citations are Harv. All others are direct. —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Notes/references

left todo, inre references; split notes and references—¿philoserf? (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I see now that some of these notes that are refs are coming from templates built for this page.
  • I propose I update the templates and the notes using refs in the page to use {{efn}}.
  • I also propose I update the references away from Harv. We will have one notes section and one reference section. I would use the method described at Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: page numbers.
I suppose I could clean up with four reference sections Notes/References/Footnotes/Sources but I'd rather have two.
What say you? —¿philoserf? (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, scrub that. After looking into the template(s), I see they are all part of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. That is bigger than I want to chew on. —¿philoserf? (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_National_Historic_Landmarks_in_Washington_(state)/Archive_1&oldid=1043658726"