Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 1

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

Welcome[edit]

A big thanks also to all who've chosen to participate in this project. I'm looking forward to much productiveness, but also fun. I think it's neat to learn about all this historical stuff, and am glad to find others so inclined.

And so y'all don't get sick of me thanking you all the time, consider a 'thank you' as understood just about anytime that I respond. Ok?  :) -Ebyabe 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed help text[edit]

Proposed: Some text added to the talk pages to answer questions about what to do with all the redlinks and DABs on the lists. Text could be added to {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places list}}, or on the Wikiproject page, etc. Refer to: Kentucky and South Carolina. P.S. There are "related Wikiprojects" for several States —Dogears (talk · contribs) 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and cross-referencing for the state lists[edit]

In the process of cleaning up and cross-referencing stuff on the Minnesota list, I've found a few things:

Also, here are a couple Web resources for doing research:

--Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put those links on the main page. And funny you should mention the articles being under the wrong states, as I noticed that a lot whilst doing the Florida entries. Checking that blue links go to the right articles should definitely be one of our highest priorities. Also creating disambiguation pages for the multi entries (like some of the churches and post offices, for example).
Good, some things to add to the 'to-do' list. -Ebyabe 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. I think I've managed to disambiguate the List of Registered Historic Places in Oregon but one creeps in once in a while, so it's good to check out all the blue links occasionally. (Unfortunately Oregon is still mostly redlinks, so it's fairly easy). Besides all of Dogears' and Elkman's excellent advice above, I'd also like to add that the way the NRHP refers to a site is quite often not the way everyone else refers to it, so there may already be an article you can link to. I've been leaving the name according to NRHP on the list and making a piped link to the existing article. And thanks for the infobox. Happy editing! Katr67 13:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran across the TOC at List of Registered Historic Places in California. Looks like a good way to do it. Katr67 14:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Naming conventions can be quite squirrelly with the NRHP. I usually go with how it's listed, or the original name of the place, when it can be found. I also include other names with (also known as other name) It does pay to search, though. Why create a new article if you can just link to (and update a bit) a pre-existing one.
Example: The former Delray Beach Schools are now part of Old School Square, for which there was an article.
And let's not even get into the Register getting the addresses wrong sometimes. -Ebyabe 14:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to add that the Oregon list had some duplications and cities put into the wrong counties. I discovered that some of these things are fire lookout towers and such that are located in one county, but the closest town is in another county. For now I put "City Name (vicinity)" next to those but that's only a stopgap measure. Katr67 14:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are also the occasional complete misspellings of cities. Like Tavarcs instead of Tavares, Dayton Beach instead of Daytona Beach, Islamoranda instead of Islamorada. And that's just here in Florida. Those I totally correct, to make it, you know, accurate. --Ebyabe 15:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone into several of the lists over the past year trying to disambiguate all the "First National Banks" and "Post Offices" as well as remove the redlinks where there is an existing article under a different name. I have also found several misspellings in city names, and alternate spellings (in the California list there is a listing under St. Helena as well as a listing under Saint Helena.) that we should be aware of - these came from the NRHP office and were faithfully reproduced in the lists here. Einbierbitte 18:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC) s[reply]

Project infobox[edit]

Well...this project came together quickly. I suggest removing the map for the infobox and allowing an image to be used instead. I believe that for this project, a locator map is less useful than an image since we are dealing with specific points less related to geography and more related to history...so images work best. I might also suggest using parser functions only for the infobox as that will make it a lot easier to transclude...example at Template:Infobox Glacier and the usage is demonstrated on the template talk page...the parameters can be easily adjusted and one can even pick a color for the banner at List of colors.--MONGO 06:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As another thought, perhaps incorporating the date the site was listed along with the structure or district number in the infobox would be helpful...as shown here.--MONGO 06:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I "borrowed" bits from that template; quite useful.
I'd prefer images be used instead of maps as well. But for so many of them, there aren't pictures. I'm thinking that we can use the map as a default, but if a picture becomes available, the map can always be replaced with it.
I put in 'Built/Founded' for the a Historic Place's initial construction or discovery, and 'Added' for when it got put on the Register. Yep, that should be on the talk page as part of the 'how-to'
There's part of me that would really like the map (when one's being used) to be of the state, rather than the whole U.S., but don't know if that would work. Anyone having more info in that regard? -Ebyabe 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tried both ways, and looks workable in either version:

Open to adding other fields to the infobox, but at least the basics are there. -Ebyabe 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other fields (some can remain blank for particular articles) might include Site, District, Building and Structure, with the NRHP numerical listing number in the right side of the field, but I wouldn't say that this is mandatory. It looks really nice as it stands now. Good work.--MONGO 20:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I've put Austin, Texas locator maps on the ones I've created (without pictures) so far. Did this project really just start yesterday? The question I have about the infobox is what the governing body field should contain. ~ BigrTex 04:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about that. I used the Protected Areas infobox and tweaked it to create the NRHP one. I'd say that governing body should be the actual "owner" of the place. You know, U.S., state, county, city, or private. Sometimes it's confusing as to the ownership. In that case, I'd leave it blank, and maybe put a note on the talk page of the article, or the project here, or both.
Yes, we did start yesterday. All input (politely phrased, natch) is welcome. Nothing's set in stone yet. As if anything is on Wikipedia, right?  :) --Ebyabe 13:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the infobox also include the Criteria (A,B,C,D) and Criteria Exceptions (a,b,c,d,e,f,g) under which the property was listed? How about its NR Reference Number? Or whether it is part of a district or separate property? Should it also mention whether or not it's part of a Multiple Property Submission or Thematic Resource? Einbierbitte 20:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Need to find out more about those criteria letters, to see what they mean. More response to come, and happy holidays, all! --Ebyabe 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at National Register Bulletin 15 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (also available as a PDF) for an explanation of the criteria and the letters. Also look in 36 CFR Part 60, the regulations implementing the NRHP available at Government Printing Office Section 60.4 goes into the criteria. Einbierbitte 18:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add Microsoft Excel files somewhere?[edit]

I have some spreadsheets I use to help me when making NRHP info, disambig pages and such. I was wondering if there's somewhere on Wikipedia I can upload them to, for general availability. --Ebyabe 16:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure...see Help:Table--MONGO 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes[edit]

Hi guys! I made some changes. First, I created a userbox. Secondly, I changed the outline of the page, making the title and scope it's own sections. I moved some stuff around to fit better in the outline. Lastly, I also created a naming standard for the articles. However, this should be polled on this talk page. As a temporary measure, I placed as the standard, Name (city[, state if necessary]).

Any suggestions on the article names?

--myselfalso 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, our own userbox already! I was gonna try creating one, but yours looks fine to me.  :) Article naming conventions are definitely a major topic for discussion. I've got some ideas, and I'll cogitate on that for a while, and all you lovermous folks can chime in as you so wish.  :) --Ebyabe 21:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub and category creation, please pause[edit]

I do appreciate the creation of the new ones. However, it may have to be changed. I proposed these at the stub proposals area, and they're in the process of doing so. So let's hold off a bit before adding more of the new stub. If it were just me, it'd be fine, but I want to make sure that TPTB are appropriately appeased.  :) --Ebyabe 01:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To see the history and progress on this, check here. --Ebyabe 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we shouldn't need the {{NRHP-stub}} once we start assessing the pages. Then we'll know which NRHP articles are stubs by looking at which ones are assessed as stubs. I think that the stuff you are talking about in FL is a better way to organize stubs. Most of the ones that I've marked so far are already marked as {{Texas-struct-stub}} or US-level (which I resort down to TX when I find). People working on stubs at a state/local level are more likely to have information to add to the articles than the folks in this group will (and we'll have a different entry point to the articles through the assessment banners). ~ BigrTex 16:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize it could work that way. Nice to know!  :) Since some folks have been busy tagging articles, I've gone ahead and created an assessment section. Have at! --Ebyabe 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not stubs, but stub-class articles... (If anyone ever works out the precise distinction, I'd love to know.) At any rate, there remains the issue of the huge population in the Florida-protected-area-stubs. I've uploaded a list of candidate stubs, excluding those that are State Parks and otherwise actual protected areas (I hope, at least), and divided into the "Districts" and everything else. Could anyone interested have a look, and let me know if the contents look sane? (If not, feel free to edits the lists, or else to re-tag the stubs.) If all is well, I'll re-tag the "districts" into a "geography" type of some sort, and split the non-districts, which seem to be mainly buildings, up by county, as discussed on the /P page. (Ships and other non-buildings, and non-districts I probably won't do anything with for the moment, so if you notice those, feel free to remove them from the list(s).) Alai 22:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's a done deal (more or less; there's some possible structures I've still to move into the "parent" category). Please check the contents of Category:Florida Registered Historic Places district stubs and Category:Florida Registered Historic Places building and structure stubs to make sure they're all in the right category. (There may be some "misc" that aren't either, of course.) Alai 02:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article naming conventions for the project[edit]

  1. [Name (city)] - [city, state] if necessary
  2. [Name (state)] - [city, state] if necessary
  3. [Name (county/parish/etc., state)]
  4. [Name (city, state)]

There are so many city names that exist in multiple states. Miami, Florida and Miami, Ohio is only one example. That's why I'm not enamoured of option 1. Option 2, well, there could be multiple places with the same name in a state. Again, post offices and churches spring to mind. As far as option 3, it's a possibility, but there can be more than one same name place in a county.

I think the last option is the best. My philosophy has been not to only fix problems, but to circumvent future potential problems. [Name (city, state)], to me, would serve that purpose best. I'm not fond of "sometimes it's city, sometimes it's state, sometimes it's both." It's a little bit too fizzbiny, to my mind. Option 4 would be more generally consistent, overall. Less Sisyphus potential.

But that's just me. What do I know? ;) --Ebyabe 01:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to take that in consideration for some of the NRHP articles I have written; First Baptist Church of Salem is a perfect example of what you were discussing. I wrote an article originally under Tunnel Mill, and then made that link a redirect to a better named article. However, there is at least one other Tunnel Mill that is NRHP so that will have to be a disambigation page eventually.--Bedford 02:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've been using option 4, but so far I think it only applies to redlinks on the Oregon list so it's kinda moot. Katr67 02:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In New York City, you'll find the "name" moves between addresses, so the "Tiffany Building" is in different parts of town in different years. In these cases, I've been using the Address of the Building, disambiguating when required, and redirecting where possible. dm 15:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a followup, the McGraw-Hill Building (disambiguation) is another good example. There are two buildings known as the McGraw hill building in NYC plus one in Chicago. Using the address avoids the ambiguity. Of course at least in NY, there are buildings listed in the wrong county, so how accurate do you expect them to be? dm 05:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas that may or not be helpful for other states[edit]

I'm thinking a number of the Oregon sites can be redirects to the corresponding community articles. Often the community in which the historic place is located only has a stub article (with little hope of being expanded), and the blurb about the historic place could end up being an equally stubby stub (for example, a lot of these places are virtual ghost towns that happen to be the site of one historic covered bridge), so it seems like a section in the community article would be better. (See Whitney, Oregon, location of the Antlers Guard Station.) Also, a number of the Oregon RHPs are numbered archaeological sites and these could probably be combined in one article per community, if indeed there is any info on these, since I think the locations are generally kept secret to discourage illegal digging. And as an aside, if any other Oregonians wander this way, since Oregon's list is in the top 50 for most red links (beaten only by OH, NC, VA, AR, IA, and TN--so get busy!), I'm going to concentrate on the 51 (!) redlinked communities on the list first. Katr67 02:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple other ideas: Speaking of covered bridges, perhaps these could be combined into single articles, such as "List of Registered Historic covered bridges in Lane County, Oregon" or something. Also, if you check out the Oregon architect Ellis F. Lawrence and the giant list of NRHP buildings I put on there, I'm thinking that could be another candidate for a combined article. These are beautiful houses, but most of them are only notable because Lawrence designed them, not because anyone famous lived there, as far as I can tell. Katr67 03:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, some of those archaeological sites fall under "Native American Archeological Sites of the Oregon Coast MPS" (Multiple Property Submission), so be sure to look for those MPSs. Also, some of NHPs may fall into Category:Works Progress Administration, which was a fine source of buildings so be sure to add it. Happy editing! Katr67 04:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did much the same in Florida, because red-links are red-links, whether they're the Places or the towns. But didn't think about using the town stubs for the Places too.
And multiple listings... darn, I wish I'd thought of that. All those houses in Miami that could have been in one article. And the ones in Jacksonville. Ohhh, poop! :) -Ebyabe 13:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal[edit]

I propose that we add this <ref> to the infobox template next to the date added to NRHP.

<ref>[http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrloc1.htm NRIS Database], National Register of Historic Places, retrieved Oct. 2006.</ref>

It is the NRIS Database, the National Park Service lists every RHP here, all you have to do is search for it, it is reliable confirmation on the date added to registry stat for every entry. Reliable and accuarate. A mcmurray 01:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One down, forty-nine and some odd to go...[edit]

The Florida list is done, hurrah. Stubbed at least, I mean. No red-links anyway, and that's a good thing. On to the rest!  :) --Ebyabe 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project directory[edit]

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. Also, I note that yours is a comparatively new project. You may be interested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which has a lot of information regarding project organization from several of the most successful WikiProjects. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Badbilltucker 19:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan list format[edit]

The list at List of Registered Historic Places in Michigan could use some standardization. Each county is listed on a separate page, which I guess is OK, but it doesn't have the standard navigation at the top listing the counties with italics for each separate page. If anyone wants to take on that list, feel free. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does look better. Done. --Ebyabe 13:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short note[edit]

I just wanted to point out that three articles I started directly because of this project have been featured on the front page's Did You Know? Just so you know. A mcmurray 18:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Very pretty articles too. Have you been nominating them yourself or are people outside our project also into neat old buildings? Katr67 18:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Mill Museum[edit]

Only marginally about improving NRHP articles, but I'm going to start training to volunteer at the NRHP Mission Mill Museum (which is actually five NRHP structures in one), so I should be able to add a bunch of interesting info to that article. As it stands now, the article does not do justice at all to how cool this place is. There is even a bookbinder who works there who I discovered is a Wikipedia enthusiast! If I get ambitious maybe I'll see about an FA push. Katr67 18:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really cool about the volunteer thing. A mcmurray 02:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Illinois Observatory[edit]

This article is up for peer review, please improve it in any way possible. Thanks. A mcmurray 02:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kintner-Withers House[edit]

My Kintner-Withers House article got a DYK today. Now if only I could get a picture of the house for the article (it's private property, and the house is suppoed to not be visible from the road).--Bedford 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Historic Landmarks?[edit]

Should have some way of noting, other than in the article text, that an RHP is also a National Historic Landmark? I'm working on one such, Dutch Reformed Church (Newburgh, New York) right now, and I wonder if we could add a line to the infobox or something. At least it should be a category. Daniel Case 07:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds, it seems... :) Check out the talk page for the template about some suggestions. --Ebyabe 13:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a category for it: Category:National Historic Landmarks of the United States. As far as the infobox goes, I think it would be a good idea to indicate that a historic place is also a National Historic Landmark -- perhaps by including the text "National Historic Landmark: 12/19/60" (in the case of Fort Snelling). I've noticed that there are some articles in Category:National Historic Landmarks of the United States that aren't added to the corresponding "Registered Historic Places in x" category, so I've gone back and added them when appropriate.
There are other National Park System units that are also included in the National Register:
These categories should probably be added to Template:Registered Historic Places as well. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the article to the cat! "National Historic Landmarks of the United States" ... dummy me, I should have thought not to be so US-centric.
BTW, I have proposed this for DYK. Hopefully it will make it. Daniel Case 14:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome, but please see my new reconsiderations on the template talk page. --Ebyabe 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Did you know?" section added to talk page template[edit]

Since we've already had facts from several articles appear on the Main Page, I decided to add a section for that to the {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places}} template. Until a 'how-to' can be added to the template, check McLean County Courthouse and Square for an example of how it may be used. --Ebyabe 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming: popular vs. official names[edit]

Do we have to use the name the NHRP does, or what the site is more commonly known as (even "officially" in some cases)?

Two examples where the latter has been chosen:

  • Erie Depot: The data base refers to this as "Erie Railroad Station", but the historical marker in front of it, as well as most people in Port Jervis, call it the Erie Depot. So that's what I named the article. But I used the official name in the infobox.
  • Reeves-Reed Arboretum: I grew in Summit and the article reflects its common and official name. However, the data base calls it "The Clearing".

It seems, from most of the articles I've been editing, that common names are used (especially where the article predates this project). Can we have some sort of official statement to this effect on the project page? Daniel Case 15:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a similar problem with some of articles I wrote. The three houses in Harrison County I just did related to the Kintners seem to be known by different names. Of course, one of the articles I wrote originally had its modern name, but after the Scouting WP swore to vandalize the page to remove all mention of its history and merge it into a single sentence or two on another page, so I named the article by its NRHP name.--Bedford 15:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I've usually included something like (also known as blah-de-blah) after the name I use in the article's text. Sometimes it is hard to figure what to name an article, especially the older places/objects that have been around a while and had several different names. To me, common sense should be a major element in creating the NRHP articles anyway, what with the misspellings and such in the National database. *sigh* --Ebyabe 18:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that you can create redirects under other names under which a structure is known, and use that to alleviate some of the problem. I've done that for a couple of them.
By the by, I note a number of light stations on the Register, which fall under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses, of which I'm a member. We had a discussion regarding naming conventions there, the upshot of which was the decision to use the term "Light" in article titles (i.e.: "Jones Point Light" instead of "Jones Point Lighthouse" or "Jones Point Light Station"). The register uses the term "light station", but I believe the USCG light list uses "Light", and that seems to be the generally accepted orthography in popular literature on the subject.
Apologies for muddying the waters even further. I'd love to help out on this, but unfortunately I've just discovered that I won't be around hardly at all this next week, and it's going to be a really bad time to get involved in a new project. Hopefully I can revisit the issue sometime later in the month. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some other situations in which it isn't necessary to create new articles[edit]

Two situations that have come to my attention:

  • Train stations: Most of these have existing articles thanks to the stations project. If the structure in question is still part of an active train station, I wouldn't bother to create a new article, even if the building isn't really used much for its original purpose. Nor should the NRHP infobox be added, as the goal is to create separate infoboxes for the stations (as has already been done for Amtrak) for each railroad. The template at bottom should be enough (see Tuxedo Railroad Station for an example where I chose to do this).

    However, if the station building is no longer active, whether vacant or just being reused for something else having nothing to do with rail transport, I'd justify a separate article (Erie Depot, again).

  • Forest fire lookout towers. All five remaining in the Catskills are on the Register. I have decided, where one coincides with the article on the mountain it's on that I've already written, that the short section there is enough (Hunter Mountain (New York)). Daniel Case 15:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The House at or Building at ones are another. Usually they're part of an historic district, whether national or local. I did a 'list' page, for example, for List of Registered Historic Buildings in Miami Shores, Florida, since each house wasn't specifically historic, per se. --Ebyabe 18:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance ... I read what you wrote higher up. I think what I'll ultimately do is create a separate article on the Catskill fire towers. There's an excellent book I've used a source on other articles. Daniel Case 05:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New infobox sub-headers, please to read[edit]

I've added sub-header banners for all the major sub-types. More info on the Infobox nrhp talk page. It also helps with the 'governing body' field, at least where one isn't sure what it is. --Ebyabe 14:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My additions got reverted--a cautionary tale[edit]

May I direct you to this discussion. Just a heads up if anyone is planning to add newly listed places that are still redlinks to their state lists. Apparently some people frown on that. Katr67 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement[edit]

USS Missouri (BB-63) is currently undergoing a Peer Review as part of the ongoing effort by the Military history WikiProject to update older, FA status articles. Anyone wishing to leave a comment of suggestion is invited to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards[edit]

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No unassessed articles[edit]

All the project-related articles have been rated. Enjoy it while it lasts...  ;) --Ebyabe 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "project-related" article? Has this one been rated: Phelps County Jail? Rklawton 19:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have said, "any talk-page tagged articles". Now it's a matter of putting the project banners on all the rest of the (existing) articles, like the one you mentioned. And the bajillion others. But, for the moment, any article with the NRHP project banner on its talk page has been assessed. Which is a good thing.  :) --Ebyabe 20:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you were clear to everone else. I'm just new to the project. Thanks for the explanation. I'll be creating a few NRHP articles over the next couple of weeks, and I'll be sure to tag them the same way. Rklawton 22:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, actually I wasn't as clear as I thought. It was one of my "I know exactly what I mean, so of course everyone else will" moments. Rare, but they happen.  :) And I've started tagging again articles already. I just wanted to get things to a clean slate and clear the assessment backlog before going on. Now it should be more easy to manage for all.
Also should mention that the articles I assessed some may consider under-rated. If I'm unsure, say, about an article being a start or a B class, I'll probably rate it a start. The assessments can always be upgraded. And a couple have been already, which is cool beans. --Ebyabe 03:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I noticed that. I felt my county jail article might have rated higher. But then I figured improving the article would be a good thing whatever the rating. Good work clearing the backlog. I'll do my best to add to your work :0-)Rklawton 03:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Register Database query tools[edit]

I downloaded a copy of the National Register Information System database (from their download center) and copied it into a MySQL database on my Web server. Like all US Government works, I'm assuming that this is not copyrighted, but like any good Wikipedia source, it should be credited to the National Register Information System. (Not to me, of course.)

I've built some tools to query this data in a format that would be useful for Wikipedia editors:

Some of these queries can be pretty exacting as far as the proper name for a resource is considered (e.g. James J. Hill House is actually in the National Register as "Hill, James J., House".) You can use a percent sign (%) in queries as a wildcard.

I'm still trying to polish off everything I've done, so there may be bugs in there or output that isn't quite accurate. I'd recommend double-checking anything that you use from the infobox generator to make sure that it's accurate. That said, I think these tools will make it easier to view the data from the National Register database. Let me know if there are any other queries you'd find useful -- it shouldn't be a big deal to create queries where I have the data present. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is relevant or not but you can just click the export icon on the NRIS database and save the file as a spreadsheet with some god awful extension but it opens with Excel. Then you can have a whole state or whatever on your computer. I saved Illinois and now I don't have to worry about it when the database is down, which is almost always. A mcmurray 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elkman, you've been a busy bee, aintcha? Goodie, more tools with which to play. Danke!
A mcmurray, thanks for mentioning that feature. I've been using it quite a bit actually (as I am a total Excel ho'; I'd marry it if it was legal, I love it that much), but didn't think to say so here. Gracias for spreading the word. --Ebyabe 00:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New infobox fields[edit]

For those that mightn't already know, a few new fields have been added. Check it at {{Infobox nrhp}}. --Ebyabe 00:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Shouldn't that be "WikiProject US National Register of Historic Places"? Simply south 10:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone[edit]

Anyone with time, check this article, Koster Site, it needs major cleanup and I am not even sure if it redirects correctly. It reads like an ad and I removed contact info that included an address and phone number. So if you have time check it out. Meanwhile I have been stubbing the heck out of Illinois. So woo hoo.A mcmurray 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge Route FAR[edit]

Ridge Route has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County Courthouse photo collection[edit]

I found a County Courthouse Photo Set at the U.S. Department of Agriculture site. I saw no copyright notice, as they were taken by USDA employee Calvin Beale during the line of duty with the USDA, I assume they are public domain but thought I would post it here first in case I am mistaken. Check it, there are over 200 photographs of county courthouses nationwide.A mcmurray 02:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. Looks PD to me, but whoever adds them to the Commons should be sure to credit Beale. These must be only some of his collection--perhaps he would be interested in putting his photos in the commons with some details himself. (Do we have a diplomatic corps for stuff like that?) The USDA pages are good, but they may not stay up for more than a few years.--Hjal 16:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! The picture he took of the old Wakulla County courthouse here in Florida is better than I could possibly get. I tried to get one of it back in November on one of my picture-taking roadtrips, but it was too dark by the time I got there. And even then, there are so many trees around it that I doubt I could get a decent shot anyway. His is nice and clear; I think they may have moved the entire building since he took that picture.
From what I can tell under their Digital Rights and Copyright here, they do appear to be PD. I dropped an e-mail off to them, though, to inquire about those pictures. I'll let y'all know what I find out. --Ebyabe 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whew! I thought I was the only one who took picture taking road trips. Nice. In fact I have one tomorrow, in Ogle County, Illinois, which is, by the way, already stubbed (hold your applause--I know, it's hard to) so check those when I put 'em up in the new pictures section. And also, I will head up diplomatic relations and try to get in touch with Mr. Beale, if you folks think it's a good idea and aren't opposed to me utilizing my diplomatic skills for our WikiProject outreach.A mcmurray 01:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The response from the government, hurrah! The relevant parts, that is:

All of Calvin’s courthouse photos are in the public domain and you are welcome to use them. Calvin Beale has thousands of photos of courthouses and historic buildings. If you’re interested in a particular photo you can always ask him ... <snip> ... I have 15 more of Calvin’s courthouse slides I plan to scan this weekend.

--Ebyabe 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-hoo!A mcmurray 10:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I think he's provided us a valuable resource. Did you tell them why we're looking for them? I think Mr. Beale might be interested to see the articles we're writing about the courthouses, given that he was interested enough to take the photos in the first place. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois database[edit]

For anyone who is working on Illinois. The Illinois Historical Preservation Agency has a wealth of information about Illinois National Register of Historic Places sites. Their online database includes historical survey information as well as, in many cases, substantial background information, often including the original NRHP nomination forms. There are photos but they are not public domain that I am aware of, copyrighted by IHPA, 2002. Either way, it will give you an idea what your subject looks like. The information section is invaluabe and the database is fully searchable through numerous different parameters, including a point and click map. I think it has the potential to eventually allow every single article in the Illinois category to be greatly expanded from stubs. A mcmurray 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and since I am here, a shameless self promo would probably be in order. I have finally got WikiProject Ghost towns up and running full fledged. There is quite a bit of cross over from this project so if anyone here is interested check it out, we're really just getting started and you'd have the chance to actually help decide some important open questions within the project. Sorry, for the tangent and the shameless plug. A mcmurray 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A peer review[edit]

Though it's not project related I am trying to get an article I wrote up to GA status. Executive Order 9835 is up for a peer review right now, if anyone could help I would greatly appreciate it. After this it will be submitted for a GA review. A mcmurray 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


New Illinois cats[edit]

To alleviate what was becoming a massive (and sure to become more massive) category in Category:Registered Historic Places in Illinois I created some sub cats.

1. Multiple Property Submissions--There is Category:NRHP Multiple Property Submissions in Illinois, I figured on making sub cats for each MPS, see Category:Metal Highway Bridges of Fulton County MPS or Category:Illinois State Park Lodges and Cabins MPS, those exist in the parent category Category:NRHP Multiple Property Submissions in Illinois, of couse in turn in the cat Category:NRHP Multiple Property Submissions. Hopefull the other states will want to follow suit?? Maybe? I know it sounds confusing but I really think it will trim down the main cat and make things a bit more organized.

2. What I thought would contribute to reducing the overall clutter of the main NRHP Illinois cat was new cats for Cook County and Chicago, so I went ahead. If everyone would use them that would be great. See the cats: Category:Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois and Category:Registered Historic Places in Chicago, Illinois.

If everyone would use them I think it would really pare down the Illinois cat. Any thoughts?A mcmurray 07:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also went ahead and pulled the historic districts into their own category, Category:Registered Historic Districts in Illinois.A mcmurray 09:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzgerald Theater[edit]

Yes, the home of A Prairie Home Companion. An employee of the theater said on the talk page that this isn't on the National Register. I did some investigating, and am rather more confused. If anyone knows more about the specifics, could you let us know? --Ebyabe 16:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it is listed after all. The anonymous employee was mistaken. See my comment on the theatre's talk page. Whyaduck 05:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article's now updated with the corrected info. Mucho danke. :) --Ebyabe 13:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brief update[edit]

My stub rate for Illinois has fallen off a bit, instead I have been extending my foray into barns and getting the basic barn coverage up to par. I made Category:Barns into a real category, with more than the one article it had before. The Round barn entry is especially useful to the project, so note it, you can now link to an overview on round barns. I have developed these three historic district articles into something to brag about, with photography and offshoot articles on the first two, check Sycamore Historic District, Oregon Commercial Historic District and University of Illinois Experimental Dairy Farm Historic District. In addition I have been penning entry on Illinois Multiple Property Submissions, a main article for some the offshoot articles and yet, another way to clean up the Category:Registered Historic Places in Illinois. Check it, change it, dig it, let me know what's up.A mcmurray 07:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also tweaked the infobox a bit. For those of you who didn't know the nrhp_type= parameter can be altered based upon templates. The default is of course National Register of Historic Places, it appears linked under the name of the site. You could already input "nhl" and get it to output National Historic Landmark. Now you can input "hd" and get Registered Historic District, which I started a stub on, without refs right now but I will expand it to give an overview of the idea behind districts and such. Though I am not sure it is relevant you can input "nhs" and get National Historic Site.A mcmurray 16:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I kick myself b/c I shoulda thought of that. There are other values that can be entered for nrhp_type, but since they overlap with the Protected Areas WikiProject, I removed them so as not to mash toes. But districts are a distinct enough subset that having a subheading for them makes sense. Good show, old bean! :) --Ebyabe 21:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I knew there were but I knew the Protected Areas project was all over that as well.A mcmurray 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request[edit]

A request has been made for Joseph F. Glidden House to undergo a peer review. Please help out at the article's peer review page. Thanks.A mcmurray 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I archived the peer review request above after an automated review and no activity. There is still an active peer review over at WikiProject Architecture. If you would like to chime in go right ahead, I'll leave it open for a bit longer. After that it goes to GA candidates, so please help if you can.A mcmurray 18:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Archives Catalog url[edit]

doncram, I was just cleaning up the Michigan section. My Foxfire browser with NoScipt blocks the National Archives url: catalog.archives.gov and tells me it's an attack site. This catalog URL is scattered through this project instruction page. I think we should delete the catalog url everyplace it appears here. What do you think? All I know, is I'm not trying a different browser if my Foxfire already tells me it's an attack site. — Maile (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This is the current National archives catalog, which is fine by itself. But if you input that NAID 20812803 in the search box, just search for "National Register of Historic Places, and click ... on my browser it goes to an attack site. — Maile (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for developing the Michigan section and other sections. This is about the link to National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks Program Records: Michigan (NAID 20812803), in just the Michigan section. Maybe your own computer has a virus? I don't encounter any problem, using Chrome, and I don't get how there could be one from including a link to there, but that could be because I don't know anything about viruses and so on. Go ahead and edit the section any way you want, to avoid the problem, if you like. If anyone else chimes in with any better insight, the link could be restored perhaps, but it is really not important. The main thing to be emphasized is that if you have the NRHP refnum, which you almost always do, you can search directly on that, and few editors will need to go search within a state index file. Maybe the main section on the National Archives catalog needs to be edited to emphasize that, and perhaps put lesser stuff in small letters or highly indented. --doncram 19:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my computer. I just now finished a virus scan. Please see NoScript. In the upper right hand corner, do you see that thing that looks like a blue snake with fangs? With it's an attack site, that blue snake appears in the url blank of the browser, and blocks the url from loading. I could over-ride it, but I won't. Some of what NoScript describes as attacks are: web-based attacks such as XSS, CSRF, clickjacking, man-in-the-middle attacks, and DNS rebinding. So, you might not know you got caught on an attack script, but somewhere down the line your browsing is affected. I'll leave the instruction page as is, but I'll also trust what NoScript told me about it, and I'm not going there myself. — Maile (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to archive this talk thread now, so as not to confuse users. In looking at the issue with a browser I don't normally use, there is no issue. It's not my computer, but recent upgrades by Wikimedia indicates Firefox has some quirky issues . Going by a different browser, nothing wrong with NRHP. It had to have been Firefox. Sorry for bringing this up. — Maile (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_1&oldid=1078966601"