Talk:National Register Information System

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 March 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was procedural close.

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fact tags on article[edit]

I removed a couple citation needed tags in the article, in combination with revising this new article in ways which may have addressed the questioning editor's concerns. Please discuss here. Factual, noncontroversial statements do not always need a specific citation. --do ncr am 01:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the citation-needed tag for the statement that the NRIS database is in the public domain. It's probably true, but it's a strong enough claim that it needs a source. As written, the statement sounds somewhat argumentive—to paraphrase, "It was compiled by federal government workers on duty, therefore it must be in the public domain". The source should be specific to NRIS, or list it as a specific example; sourcing to a general statement on federally-produced works would smack of WP:SYN. Ammodramus (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting, and clarifying I guess that you question the assertion why it is in the public domain. Indeed I'll offer that it is in the public domain for more reasons than the fact it is a work of Federal employees. It is also in the public domain because it is a non-creative list, not deserving of copyright. Also we know it is in the public domain partly because we have asserted it so many times publicly and no one has ever challenged the idea. We rely upon it to use location phrases and other text directly in 30,000 or more Wikipedia articles already.

So, I edited the phrasing down to say just that it is in the public domain, and removed the citation needed tag. Surely the PD status is an objective fact. And it is not controversial. If you disbelieve that it is PD, or think that the PDness is controversial, then we have a much bigger problem. --do ncr am 12:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I can't agree, and I've again restored the citation-needed tag.

Per WP:V, "Even if you're sure something's true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". The statement that a work is in the public domain is a strong one, asserting that anyone who wishes can copy, alter, or distribute the work without restriction. Although it's not at all improbable that it's true in this case, such a strong assertion demands verification.

The arguments given for the truth of the assertion don't necessarily prove it:

The "non-creative list" argument could be applied with equal force to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. The facts aren't covered by copyright, but their organization, expression, and formatting might well be.
I strongly doubt the validity of "we have asserted it so many times publicly and no one has ever challenged the idea"; first, because I'd like to see some evidence of these many public assertions; second, because I doubt that the legal argument would hold much water—even if I've made multiple posts on my blog over the course of years declaring that the Harry Potter books are public domain, I suspect that the copyright holders will come down on my like a ton of bricks when I start posting the actual text of the novels.
The "location phrases and other text" are probably very short, and covered by the merger doctrine, whereunder expressions of ideas that can only be reasonably phrased in a few ways (e.g. "12 miles southwest of Omaha" or "built in 1937") receive reduced copyright protection. This doesn't mean that an entire work consisting largely of such phrases is necessarily public-domain.

The critical thing is the verifiability policy. To quote WP:V again, "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". The claim of public-domain status is strong enough, and there's enough room for doubt, that a citation seems necessary. Ammodramus (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ammodramus, you are confusing the NRIS database with the NPS website system. As you know a reference of PD-ness was provided in the article, namely a link to the "disclaimer" page that includes: "Information created or owned by the NPS and presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by applicable law." That applies to the NRIS database that is provided within the webpages. You are misdirected by other mention there that "Not all information on this website has been created or is owned by the NPS...." which applies to photographs and PDFs of many NRHP registration documents, and other materials within the websystem. I am sorry, but you seem not to understand what NRIS is. It is just the database. You could download it and read it in MS-ACCESS, for example. --do ncr am 02:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's quite so clear. The NRIS database contains information and photographs in the submissions that were not created by the NPS. I haven't looked yet, but unless the nominating forms include explicit notice that the submitted information becomes the property of the NPS, it is likely that copyright remains with the person(s) who created the materials. The third paragraph, which you dismiss, appears to be the NPS claiming to be able to use that information in whatever way it sees fit on the web site. older ≠ wiser 03:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sheez. The database is a database. You don't understand. There's no reason you have to be familiar with it, but please don't go off the tracks entirely. The NRHP WikiProject in general are quite conversant about what NPS materials are copyrighted: photos and NRHP nomination documents that are not produced by Federal staff. The database is a listing, like one big spreadsheet, except it is a relational database meaning consisting of several files that can be merged by index fields such as the NRHP reference number, an 8 digit number. The database is downloadable at a link in the article. Try downloading it, it will come in a MS access format file or zip file. That is NOT the NPS website, or the NPS Focus system, which has a search screen and brings you to various photos and documents and shows a few fields of information from the NRIS database too. --do ncr am 03:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the "Disclaimer" source too hastily. Upon a more careful re-reading, I see that it doesn't say anything at all about the PD status of NRIS specifically.

As of this writing, the article reads, "It is a relational database that was created by the National Park Service (NPS) and it is in the public domain", with the "Disclaimer" source given as a citation. Unfortunately, the source supports neither clause of this sentence. It doesn't say anything about NRIS's being a relational database, and it doesn't state specifically that NRIS is in public domain. I'm therefore removing the citation to "Disclaimer" and restoring the citation-needed tag. Please note that the tag covers both clauses of the sentence; we need to source both if we're to keep the sentence as written.

Doncram, your comments seem to have been directed toward proving the truth of the statement re. PD. Per WP:V's verifiability-not-truth formulation, we need a citation that explicitly supports the statement in the article, not an argument, however strong and well-reasoned, for why it must be true. If we can't come up with a citation, I for one see no problem with leaving out any mention of the database's PD status. Ammodramus (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do hear what you are saying. But, can you be clear, please, on whether or not you know that NRIS is PD? Seriously, do you doubt that it is PD? Do you think it is merely likely, but not a sure thing?

I am pretty sure that there are past communications with National Park Service staff about the copyright status of photos and NRHP documents, where their status has been contrasted with the NRIS database. No offense meant at all, but I am not really motivated to search for such old correspondence reflected in some Talk or copyright pages here in Wikipedia, to nail for you the fact of PDness. And it would be kinda embarassing to contact the NPS, asking someone there to provide a letter or something, because one or a few persons have started to doubt whether NRIS is PD. It is. If it is not PD, then we have 2,500 list-articles and perhaps 40,000 others articles to strip down, by the way. And I think putting a "citation needed" tag on a simple claim of PDness, is a bit not helpful. A source on an obvious, known point, can be overkill, can be a detriment to an article. --do ncr am 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's likely that it's PD, but not certain. Since its being PD would allow people so much freedom to copy, alter, and redistribute it, I think it's a statement that we need to confirm before we incorporate it into an article. We'd be doing our readers a serious disservice if we told them "Such-and-such is legal" when it wasn't.

I can't see why we have to overhaul our articles if it's not PD. Could you elaborate on that? In particular, could you point to some examples of passages that we'd have to change to get back on the right side of the law if the database turns out to be copyright-protected? Ammodramus (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try this: for a tangible example, consider this diff of many edits in February and March 2009 by Marcbela and others adding NRIS information to National Register of Historic Places listings in Nebraska, a list article that you have yourself contributed to. That was during a big NRHP table-izing campaign that built out tables in all U.S. states, in a drive that finished July 4, 2009. In the Nebraska list-article, the edits added, among other material, location phrases directly from NRIS, such as "Closed county road over the South Fork of the Big Nemaha River, 1 mile south and 0.2 miles east of Du Bois". Those edits building out tables were accomplished by copying info from a list-table generator provided at an off-wiki personal website, which serves up NRIS data in county tables, or alternatively in infoboxes ready for copying into wikipedia. If you think NRIS is copyrighted, then www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com and other private websites are bigtime violators for copying it and serving it up freely. Every NRHP list-table was created or updated to use NRIS data, directly copied. Also most NRHP infoboxes in individual NRHP articles would also be copyright violations, as they include text copied from NRIS. --do ncr am 17:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that you do not completely believe the NRIS is PD. This is too big a gap to discuss across. I've now asked at wt:NRHP for others to comment, and I hope you will consider what others have to say. --do ncr am 13:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NRIS database is a work of the federal government (specifically the National Park Service). Most works of the federal government are public domain (see commons:Template:PD-USGov for citation). If anyone wishes to argue that NRIS is not public domain, please pick one (or both) of these to attack. I don't think either is particularly controversial, and the statement "NRIS is a public domain work of the federal government" follows directly from them. This should be no different than, say, USGS topographic databases, NOAA weather data, and NASA data and photographs, all of which are public domain for the same reason. The NPS standard disclaimer clearly states that information on the website is NPS-owned unless otherwise marked; this is IMHO sufficient to assert the PD-ness of the database (if not its other properties), since it is part of the information on the website. IMHO, IANAL, etc. Magic♪piano 15:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A side discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it, unless you feel u absolutely must.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Doncram: Do NOT bring my infobox generator and my download of the NRIS database into this discussion. If you wish to directly accuse me of violating copyright and of serving up data improperly, then you should notify me directly at my talk page, or start a discussion at WP:ANI. If you need to try to figure out whether NRIS is copyrighted or not, then discuss that WITHOUT USING MY NAME IN A DISCUSSION. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone else, Elkman understands fully that I understand fully that NRIS is PD, and I am making no accusation like what Elkman suggests.

But okay, Elkman, don't follow me and please try to avoid any appearance of harassing me, and I will try to avoid using your name. I don't promise absolutely, because it could be difficult to avoid using your name for clarity in some administrative circumstances, and it is simply a fact that your generators have been used by me and others in creating more than 2,000 list-article tables and in many thousands of individual NRHP articles. But i will try to avoid you and to avoid mentioning you, if you will do the same. Please note, I don't follow you to your edits in farflung places, and criticise. In this edit I am hatting this discussion and also editing my previous comment to avoid mentioning you. This is my try to comply with your wishes, kapeech? --do ncr am 21:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just re-added mention of the public domain status, and PD category too as used by Geographic Names Information System article mentioned in the AFD as being similar to NRIS. I won't re-add again if it is removed, without further support, but if someone wants to remove it please explain yourself. If someone seriously questions the basic fact of PDness of this database, please consider calling or emailing the National Register directly and consulting someone there. Contact info for the National Register is provided at wp:NRHPhelp. Hopefully this can just end? --do ncr am 23:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to seem difficult, but my concerns really haven't been answered.

Note that in the time since Doncram posted a note at Talk:NRHP, asking "Does anyone have a citable reference that could be included in the article?", there's been only one response: Magicpiano's, above. Unfortunately, I think MP is misreading the text of the cited "Disclaimer" page. The relevant sentence reads in full: "Information created or owned by the NPS and presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain." My reading of this is: "IF ((information is created or owned by NPS) AND (information is presented on this website) AND (not otherwise indicated)) THEN (information is in public domain)." Magicpiano's reading appears to be "IF ((information is on this website) AND (not otherwise indicated)) THEN (information is owned by NPS and therefore in public domain)." I think my reading's more consistent with the sentence quoted.

There've been no other responses arguing for NRIS's PD status, although WikiProject NRHP is one of the more active ones. It's probably unwise to argue from silence, but doesn't this suggest that the other members of the WikiProject either can't come up with a citation to support the statement, or don't believe that its inclusion in the article is sufficiently important to justify searching for a citation?

While I hate to sound Wikilawyerish, let me call attention to the second paragraph of WP:V, which states "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." The phrasing isn't "any material whose truth has been challenged"; the word they use is "verifiability", which refers to the existence of published sources supporting a statement. If we can't find these, I think that we need to leave the statement out; and I don't believe that its omission detracts significantly from the article. Ammodramus (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a few things:

The rationale for the NRIS being PD is pretty straightforward, and Magicpiano stated it succinctly and clearly. I don't think you can really read anything into the lack of additional replies; it may be a lack of interest, or it may simply be an acknowledgement that the argument's already been made.
The heart of what Magicpiano said is this: The NRIS database is a work of the federal government (specifically the National Park Service). Most works of the federal government are public domain (see commons:Template:PD-USGov for citation). If anyone wishes to argue that NRIS is not public domain, please pick one (or both) of these to attack. It's not clear to me which of these you're arguing against, as you don't really seem to have "picked" either. The further argument about the exact wording of the Disclaimer is kind of moot, because whatever the disclaimer says, works created by the federal government are public domain.
Despite the mootness of the Disclaimer, the only difference between your stated interpretation of the Disclaimer an your interpretation of Magicpiano's reading is the inclusion of whether the "information is created or owned by NPS." So, is it your position that the NRIS is not owned by the NPS? Who owns it then?
And, despite all that, I don't really have a strong opinion on what the article itself should say. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article to be linked 40,000 times[edit]

The intention for this article is for it to be linked from the standard NRIS reference, at template:NRISref which is generally agreed to be indequate. So this article will almost immediately receive about 40,000 in-bound links. I would appreciate if someone watching here could note this in the ongoing AFD about this article, where one argument for its deletion seems to be that it doesn't have many inbound links. --do ncr am 16:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Register Information System. 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/20130215203651/http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/17-2/17-2-6.pdf to http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/17-2/17-2-6.pdf

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) 04:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]