Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 16

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

help on Prod deletion, moves, and deleting all red-links on NRHP disambiguation pages

Clariosophic alerted me to User:Tavix deleting all red-links to NRHP sites on Lewis House and reportedly other disambiguation pages that include NRHP sites. Also, reviewing Tavix's contributions, Tavix has started a speedy deletion on John Rogers House on reasoning "unneeded disambig, everything is redlinked". And Tavix has renamed at least two NRHP pages, moving from NRHP naming convention-consistent names to other names. I am trying to open a discussion at Tavix's Talk page, asking him to stop and/or raise policy-type questions somewhere appropriate, but some other help may be needed. doncram (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • No help needed, issue dealt with. I've spoken with Doncram and gotten things cleared up. I am just trying to help and I would like to help in anyway possible with this wikiproject. I am also working on creating a couple NRHP articles as I am interested in historic places.Tavix (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

ALERT: Current NRHP disambiguation pages up for deletion

clariosophic (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment as I said here. I'm not going to spend the day debating at AfDs. Instead I'll work on the stubs. Anyone want to help? I don't have too much time. TravellingCari 15:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, TravellingCari, for your constructive participation there. It does seem that creating one or two stub articles, to respond to an AfD like this, seems to really settle the issue for the particular case, and it provides some substantial-seeming, and perhaps face-saving, response to the person who has opened the AfD, who often is truly unaware of the value that having disambiguation for NRHP sites provides.
For the record, I wrote out a moderately lengthy explanation of the value of having disambiguation pages for NRHP sites (whether they are all red-links or not) in this version of Tavix's talk page (see the "Lewis House and other disambig pages" section discussion). This explanation could just be pasted into future similar discussions, perhaps.
Also for the record, John Rogers House version as of now, Knox County Courthouse AfD debate, version as of now, Walnut Street Historic District AfD debate, version as of now. I find User:Alansohn and User:Andrew Jameson's explanations to be very helpful in those discussions, and these could also be pasted into future discussions as needed.
It does remain an issue for disambiguation pages of NRHPs, that they should include at least one blue-link. As one participant stated, "If ... DAB pages (all) to red links are allowed, it may open a can of very disgusting worms....", which is not an unreasonable view, when considering general policy involving links other than NRHPs. Even if its wikilinks are all red-links, an NRHP disambiguation page provides value, but it also causes others who come across them to raise well-meaning objections. So it seems we should create at least one stub article for each one. I am at fault, I suppose, for having created a number of all-red-link ones (despite my consistent belief that my actions helped avoid other unnecessary work in many cases, per my explanation to Tavix's talk page).
I do not perceive Tavix to have operated in bad faith, I believe he/she simply did not understand the value of disambiguation pages for NRHP sites. In a second session of "Undo" operations on edits in Tavix's contribution history, anyhow, I believe i have caught up again in reversing the damage done. doncram (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Happy to help. I agree, it was all in good faith. I think that to people who aren't involved in these and related projects, the quasi-inherent notability of a site on the NRHP (or other country's similar list), etc. and they don't see the difference between an NRHP DAB page and a generic foo dab page, both full of red links. To be totallly honest, I think that setting up the DAB with the links has its merits, especially in terms of having the page created in the right place from the beginning, however I do see the point that a list of red links isn't very useful so it really doesn't hurt to at least create stubs when creating the DAB. I think it's a lesson for all going forward. TravellingCari 22:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What to do about Places that no longer exist?

I am wondering what should be done about NRHP listings that no longer exist (have been demolished or burned). Example: Providence Fruit and Produce Warehouse Company Building. Many listings in my area have not been updated in over 20 years, and of course, the government has not updated their databases either. Some places may be notable enough to warrant their own article without the need for NRHP, but many are just stubs. Should they be kept with the list of their county or city, or should a sub-section be created below the main list, or be deleted altogether? (I lean away from deletion, since the place was once deemed historic enough at some point). --Marcbela (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also troubled by the issue of what to do with places that have been demolished but which are still listed, apparently erroneously, according to the National Register Information System (NRIS)? For example, three buildings that formerly were on Cornell University campus, East Robert Hall, Roberts Hall, and Stone Hall, but which have reportedly all been demolished back in the 1980s, are still listed in NRIS. I have had some success corresponding with the National Register about their fixing some errors on NHL webpages, but I haven't tried corresponding about their need to delist certain ones like these. I feel that still-listed-although-demolished ones should be kept in the main sections of current lists of NRHPs, while delisted ones should be kept in a new section of former NRHPs below. But also perhaps we should create a working list on apparent errors in NRIS such as these, and correspond with the National Register? (There are other NRIS errors such as listing places in the wrong county, too.) doncram (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, geez, delisting the few Places in Tacoma that have been demolished would take a great weight off my chest for wishing I had photos of them. But I also loathe to take them out of our lists without official delisting. I like Doncram's idea. Murderbike (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Doncram and have practiced what he says. I am perplexed by ones such as Boston College Main Campus Historic District that are still in existence but not on current NPS list. I have found no evidence of deslisting. Others such as First Church of Christ, Scientist (Miami, Florida) and First Church of Christ, Scientist (West Palm Beach, Florida) I have discovered were nominated by third parties such as a county agency, but were disavowed by the property owners. These I note as eligible for listing. clariosophic (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I added your Boston College one to wp:NRIS info issues. The latter two sound like many nominated properties in New York State that meet the state's standard of eligibility and which owners cannot opt out of, so are in the state's register, but due to owners' issues are not on the National Register. All of these can be included in some other wikiproject on local and other historic sites, but seem, to me, not to be wp:NRHP issues. doncram (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay then, i opened up Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues, with semi-shortcut wp:NRIS info issues, attempting to record most of these. Please feel free to revise my statements, and add new ones. doncram (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
As for articles on them, the general principle once notable, always notable holds. though the information may not be updated after it has been demolished, whatever prior information there was remains accurate, and the reasons for notability that once existed remain. Even if they've been delisted. And I don't think we should give up on finding PD photographs of them, either. DGG (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Make that "finding photographs". Being PD is not required for use in Wikipedia. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve

Is going through a Featured Article review, so please come and help improve this article to current featured article standards :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment request

Have done number of NRHP articles--mostly places in Oregon. Put 5 articles on list for Wiki-NRHP assessment back on 5 Aug, but they haven't been reviewed yet. Does it usually take this long to get assessment or did I put request in wrong place? Would appriciate someone taking a look at them--thanks!--Orygun (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, generally ratings should be the same across all projects, so if WikiProject Oregon gives a certain rating, it should be same for WP:NRHP. If you don't like the assessment from WP:ORE, you could always go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Katr67 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean if original Wiki-project assessment doesn't mark for all the projects, I just insert same assessment on the other projects banners? Always thought it was good protocal to let someone else do assessment, but I'll do whatever is standard practice.--Orygun (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice on redirect

So, I was thinking of doing an article for the Hoko River Rockshelter Archaeological Site, but then noticed there was a small section describing it in Hoko River Archeological Site. So, I just put the Rockshelter infobox in the appropriate section, and redirected the Rockshelter the the already existing article. Does this seem like an OK thing to do? Murderbike (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

List of NHLs in NY featured list candidate in progress

The List of NHLs in NY is now under review. Since it's the first state list of NHLs up for FL, perhaps it is important for any issues about what's the best formatting, content, whatever, to come out now. I notice some variations in practice across the state NHL lists.

The review is transcluded in the list of all Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, or you can specifically visit Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. doncram (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for 2 places of the same name in a town or city

If Elkman's tool produces two places of the same name in a town or city, don't assume it's just a duplication. If they're for an historic district, one may be a boundary increase, which should be duly noted in the HD article. For regular articles, check the addresses carefully and you may find a listing that has been overlooked by others. For example, for Wake County, the NC NRHP list, had one Masonic Temple Building, while Elkman shows two. An article for one was started in March 2008. In creating an article for the second one I had to disambiguate the two using the streets they are on since they were both built in the same year. Another example, Detroit has 2 places named Temple Beth-El at different numbers on on Woodward Avenue. The articles are disambiguated by adding in parentheses the current name of each location. The congregation itself has moved on to a third temple building in Bloomfield Hills. which has its own article which tells the history of the congregation from its beginning to the present. clariosophic (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, don't look for my query tools to generate anything today. The machine crashed this morning, and I didn't have time to fix it before I had to go to work. It's complaining about some drive error that I haven't figured out yet. It's rather old hardware, so it's not in the best of shape, but I'm hoping I can fix the problem. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization consistency

I was just browsing Category:Historic sites in the United States and see that a number of different capitalization schemes are used. Should it be ...State Historic Sites or ...state historic sites?--Appraiser (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cooleemee

Hi! Can I get a couple more eyes on this article and the discussion I started on the talk page? I put what I could to save it from PROD/AfD but I'm not really sure what precedent is for existing, inhabited places. Thanks! TravellingCari 18:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Article improved and was a DYK. doncram (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Linking dates now deprecated

For those who haven't heard, new changes at MOS:NUM; linking dates are now deprecated. You may begin de-linking..although bots will be available soon to automate the task. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I really wish they had taken the effort to move everyone to dts templates, rather than just removing the dates dm (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Where were dates removed? I certainly wouldn't want to see dates actually removed, or even to see the dts formatting in our date-sortable lists lost, as then they wouldn't sort, but I haven't seen anything like that done. I did notice a bot doing a bunch of conversions from dts2 to dts, which is fine. Odd that it stopped, there are plenty more dts2 lists of NRHPs out there. doncram (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The new standard is to omit date formating. The proponents of the change prefer that dates show in black ink, so November 4, 2008 becomes November 4, 2008.
See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Where_was_this_originally_discussed and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#WP:MOSNUM for more background on this topic. It's an emotional topic for the people there, my summary would be that there are arguments against the current implementation of Date Autoformatting (abbreviated DA what most of us thought of as linking dates). There's a lot' of back and forth but it seems clear that DA will either be removed or improved. The proponents of removing DA have started making bot changes which is getting a lot of attention and more strident opposes. I'm sure it will work itself out, though I'm a bit amazed that changes to the MOS arent more closely watched/debated. the dts template will remain for sorting tables regardless, no one is arguing about that dm (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Illinois historic sites and parks in the news

Current news story about historic sites and parks *closing. Are there articles about these? Trying possible wikilinks in one list:[1] "Following are Illinois state historic sites that will be shuttered Oct. 1:"

"The following Illinois State Parks will close effective November 1:"

References

  1. ^ Web Exclusive: Governor lays off hundreds; closing many state parks, landmarks, 08/28/2008, 6:32 pm

doncram (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

List looks better not being mostly redlinks! After setting up a bunch of redirects and starting one article.... doncram (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:-( Someone will do something about this. This just isn't going to stand here. They're gonna impeach Blago if he keeps it up. This is a sad day for all of Illinois. /soapbox --IvoShandor (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

wikinews article drafted, help needed

I drafted a wikinews article, pretty much the list above with further identification of which 4 are also National Historic Landmarks. I didn't put much effort into it, but got links working and got several sources. A wikinews editor appropriately enough tagged it for "Formatting, style, expand paragraph text" before it can be "published". Help developing the wikinews draft article would be most appreciated. doncram (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit of work, but it was tagged abandoned, so hopefully my work was enough to publish it. --IvoShandor (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
THANKS, Ivo! Your editing improved the article enough so that when i changed the template in the article from "abandoned" to "review", in order to request a 3rd party editor's review, it was accepted and "published". Not exactly prominent news, but it then stays in the archives. You can find some similar articles by searching on "historic site". Now we need a category such as "History" or "Historical sites" for wikinews articles like this. doncram (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Historic district

Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that Historic district (United States) would be better at Historic district with the {{globalize}} tag added to it? Currently GA, but surely has to be demoted with that tag on it. Do others think this was a good idea? From what I can find it was done per WP:BOLD with no prior discussion. Thoughts? --IvoShandor (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Was discussed there some and was moved back. doncram (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

UNESCO World Heritage Sites

Doncram recently suggested expanding into historic sites worldwide, noting that a lot of effort is being spent drilling deep into lower level sites in some locales. I've probably been guilty of that with the List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles that doncram set up. One thought I had in terms of world sites would be to take the list format we have for NRHPs and apply it to the UNESCO World Heritage Sites. In terms of overall significance, the ones on the UNESCO list are top of the food chain. Lists by continent already exist, but they are pretty bare-bones at this points. See World Heritage Site#Lists of World Heritage Sites. Just a thought for anyone who might be interested.Cbl62 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems all those would be covered by the Protected Areas WikiProject. Murderbike (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NRHP infobox generator

After replacing a hard drive, reinstalling Linux, and copying database files over -- not to mention a good dose of trying to get Linux to un-firewall itself -- I think I finally have the NRHP infobox generator back online. Let me know if you have any problems or issues. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Red links on disambiguation pages

The above discussion started today. We need to be aware of it. clariosophic (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been settled, proposal to remove red-links withdrawn. Thanks! doncram (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

New NHL

On the Weekly List Actions for August 29, 2008, the B Reactor was designated an NHL on August 19, 2008. I went into the article and updated the Infobox, and also changed the List of National Historic Landmarks in Washington. Can someone go back and make sure all changes are OK and to see if I missed some other lists? Einbierbitte (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, nice catch. I just added the NHL nomination document to B Reactor article and further updated List of NHLs by state. It sure didn't make the news very much, I didn't see anything, though now there's an AP and a few other articles on it from 4 days ago. That's a big deal, it's the first NHL designated in more than a year. I wonder if the quiet announcement of the one, means that the other 16 nominations under consideration, per NHL July meeting agenda were all rejected? I thought the announcement of new NHLs would be prominent news. doncram (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The B Reactor announcement got a lot of press around Manhattan Project communities. I assume that the timing of the announcement was controlled by the Department of Energy (which owns the site and restricts access) and Congressmen from Washington, not by the NPS. --Orlady (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

New article page

I was wondering if the main contributors here would be opposed to adding a link any new articles you are listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/New articles. A lot of us already do it but maybe we could actively push for it with a little note on the project page, for those who don't, in that section. It definitely makes it easier to do drive-by minor edits, or to just see the new stuff the project is churning out. Thoughts? --IvoShandor (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I came off like an asshat. I didn't mean to. I just thought it would be helpful. :-(--IvoShandor (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, not at all. It's been like a community center for wp:NRHP. I for one had lapsed in my consistency about listing there, since i often to create stubs that i prejudge as not very interesting, because i am trying to solve a problem in a county-list-table. And I like getting the "drive-by" reviewing and editing on articles!  :) I was responding at first not by replying here, but rather by listing some recent articles. doncram (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Meh! All NRHP stubs can be made interesting! If I get to stop by and help, all the better. But it's not the listing I am concerned about. I just would like it if everyone would link their article in their edit summary, it saves me (and probably others) a few clicks. Daniel Case did this with his new article and I came in and attacked the lead and another section. Muhahah! I am just sayin', it helps. :-) Still trying not to be an asshat. Thanks. --IvoShandor (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
And then I went back and cleaned up a mistake you left behind :-). Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I mean, a lot of our new articles hit the Main Page in DYK. That little link in the edit summary can mean the difference between shiny and dull, ya know? Collaboration is good, anything we can do to encourage it, we should do. --IvoShandor (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Street View

It just occurred to me , but is it possible to use Google Street View for NRHP building/site/structure/object photos? Einbierbitte (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Google images are generally not PD.--Appraiser (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Google images are copyright. --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are correct. From Google: "The photographic imagery made available for display through Google Maps is provided under a nonexclusive, non-transferable license for use only by you.... By using Google Maps, you do not receive any, and Google and/or its licensors (if any) retain all ownership rights in the imagery. The imagery is copyrighted and may not be copied, even if modified or merged with other data or software." Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Well there you go. Another brilliant idea blown to bits. Thanks all. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Have an idea related to this. We may not be able to use the photos, but can we point to them? We already have the links to the "map of all coordinates", but can we link to the address where the building is and have it direct us to that street view on google maps? Or are we going to just have to click on the blue marker and turn on streetview when zoomed in? I hope I explained this reasonably well. Some of the Google StreetView images show these sites very well. 25or6to4 (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You mean like this? That's the Ponce de León Hotel, with the Hotel Alcazar across the street. If nothing else, it's a great tool for those of us who do photo roadtrips. We can know what to look for! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool historic district names

Having recently completed Snyder Estate Natural Cement Historic District, which has to be the coolest name for an HD I've worked on (I mean, you just want to know what that's all about), I was wondering if there are any other HDs, either that we've done an article on or not, that have similarly interesting names. Anyone? Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the R. W. Estes Celery Company Precooler Historic District? Sadly, the name's more interesting than the place. Guess they all can't be like the Southern Cassadaga Spiritualist Camp Historic District. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for National Register of Historic Places

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ours are here, specifically. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
All the columns are sortable, btw. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of anonymous plaque photo

I removed pics of an anonymous NRHP plaque at Reformed Presbyterian Church of Vernon and a couple other articles, but notice it appears in about more 100 articles. I think it is incorrect to include it in articles, because a) it is speculation, probably incorrect, that the type of plaque appears at a given site (rather than a customized plaque, or no plaque), b), the photo is of a particular plaque at one site and not of that plaque anywhere else. As such, the use of the photo tends to be misleading and to run down the credibility of wikipedia/NRHP photos as evidence of what appears at a given place.

Nyttend questioned me at my talk page on this: "I had assumed that plaques such as this were somewhere or another on all NRHP buildings" and "How do you know it's not there: have you visited the site?". My view: not true, and I don't know for 100% sure but it a safe bet there is no plaque like that at the given site, and it is a sure bet this particular photo was not taken at that site. Others' thoughts? doncram (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

uhhh...what?--IvoShandor (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
meh, i get ya. but don't know that it really matters. It's a good place holder image, better than that invisible face with a question mark for biography articles anyway. I'm just slow today, sorry don. :-)--IvoShandor (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think photographs that are a) NOT explicitly of the article subject but b) could be INTERPRETED by readers as being of the article subject, should be included in any article. A drawing or something would be more acceptable, (or a crazy-Photoshopped version of the pic, maybe). Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Based on my visits to site on the National Register this year, I'd guess that maybe 1/3 of them have a plaque identical or very similar to this one, maybe 1/3 have some other plaque that indicates that the site is on the National Register along with other information and about 1/3 have no plaque at all. That said, I agree with Ivo that it's a better place-holder for the photo than the default image. But I seem to recall some discussion not too long ago about whether using photos of plaques violates WP:COPYRIGHT. As I've visited sites, I've made it a habit to take photos of plaques but haven't been uploading them to Commons because I thought it wasn't kosher. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The way I look at it, a photo should give the reader information that isn't already present in the article, or that helps them understand the article better than just plain text. A generic plaque saying that the building is on the NRHP, without any additional text, doesn't really do either. A specific plaque for the site (e.g. "The Kettle River Sandstone Company Quarry has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places due to its effect on the development of the Sandstone area") would provide more context for the reader, but at that point I'd probably just take a photo of the site and cite the text of the sign within the article. If we don't have a picture of the site, I like to go with the default of the map provided by {{Infobox nrhp}}, as it at least provides some information. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sanfranman59's 1/3 estimates, except for one town I visited where there were plaques on many properties that were part of districts, but not individually listed. I found that confusing, and in my mind it devalued the plaque. I usually photograph plaques if they have info to offer, but I don't use the image in the article. I have occasionally cited an informational plaque. I also remember the copyright discussion. I'm thinking it applied to historical markers such as those towns or states erect, but I thought it applied to pretty much any plaque. I prefer the location map as a default, and think the marker doesn't really belong anywhere in the article.Lvklock (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that used to drive me crazy. I'd be yelling at plaques on buildings, "You're not on the National Register, I have the list, you aren't on it!" Well, yelling in my head. :) I can see both sides. It is nice to have a photo of some kind in the infobox, and it does look nicer than the bio article silhouette that Ivo mentioned. But I can understand the other POV. I think I know who's responsible, and they're actually a very useful contributor, and definitely doing it in a good faith manner.
I've risked certain doom, I suppose, since I've uploaded buckets of images of plaques I've photo-ed to WikiCommons. As evidenced here. Once in a blue moon, I'll use a photo of a specific plaque in the infobox, but only if I can't get a really good shot of the property itself. Fort King is an example, as the marker is the only indication of the site. Well, until very recently.
In any case, yeah, if a photo of the property isn't available yet, the map is probably the best alternative. Of course, there's the Address Restricted sites. But that's a different kettle of worms. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
When I posted earlier, I wasn't thinking about the default map provided by {{Infobox nrhp}}. Upon further thought, I agree with Elkman, Lvklock & Ebyabe that the map is preferable to the generic NRHP plaque. Since I don't plan to run for elected office, I reserve my right to be a flip-flopper. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
IMO there is no way anyone can claim copyright on that plaque, but the Commons seems to err on the side of extreme caution.--IvoShandor (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

sites that have moved

I can't remember if there was ever consensus on what to do with "sites" like boats that have moved, and so are in different places than the NRIS lists them in. I've been redoing all the tables for the Washington list, and just ran into one that is listed in the old table for Jefferson County, despite being listed in King County, because the boat is now based in Jefferson. Should the table just be corrected, or what? Murderbike (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say correct it in the table and the article. That's what I did with HA. 19 (Japanese Midget Submarine). Even though it's still listed on the Register as being in Key West, it got moved to Texas two years after, where it's been since 1991. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
What about bridges, where part of the historic quality may have been the surroundings? --NE2 00:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Same deal, imho. Where it is, is where it is. As long as there's a notation somehow of where it was. It'd be similar to whatever we do to demolished buildings and such, I guess. Like, what is being done with the Balinese Room? --Ebyabe (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I discussed this a few years back with the good folks at NPS. Their opinion was that things like ships and locomotives are meant to move, so moving from Point A to Point B is a part of their function. I agree - where they are is where they are and make notes. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well if it was discussed with them, then they could have / should have revised their records.... The National Register does update their info according to new information, at least sometimes. Anyhow I added ship moves as another type of NRIS info issue to address systematically, tallying at wp:NRIS info issues. doncram (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Table-izing the state NRHP lists

For several weeks i've been plugging along "table-izing" the List of RHPs in IN, List of RHPs in CA, and I am currently up to Orange county alphabetically within List of RHPs in NY. Other apparently completely table-ized state lists that i am aware of include List of RHPs in FL, List of RHPs in MA, and List of RHPs in OH.

This seems to me to be productive and often is very-well-appreciated work, as it enables local wikipedians such as User:Royalbroil in Indiana, User:Rosiestep in Nevada County, California, User:DanTD in Nassau County, NY to upload their photos. Rosiestep even awarded me a barnstar for creating the Nevada County table, encouraging me to go on to do the rest of California too. :) Unexpectedly, I find that i encounter new people, like User:LtPowers, who is adding pics in Monroe County, New York. It also makes apparent the cumulative long-term productive efforts of NRHPers such as, in New York State, Daniel Case, Dmadeo, Lvklock, Mwanner, and Cg-realms, who have created numerous articles and added their photos over a long time. It's fun, at least for an NRHP enthusiast, to array their pics all at once. :)

There's a fair amount of work involved in table-izing any state or county list, beyond pasting in the Elkman county-list-table generator output, which is of course essential. I add a google table link, and I usually check that and comment out any coordinates that seem to be obviously incorrect. I use a standard footnote disclaimer, now in a template, about the quality of NRIS coordinates. I make it a point to check for and indicate any National Historic Landmarks present in a county. I promote some or all photos available from articles. There are numerous wikilinks to fix. And I do not delete the previous RHP list entries in place, except where I verify that all info is incorporated in the new tables. There are occasionally RHPs listed which are valid RHPs but which are not provided in the Elkman tables.

Currently, to me, this seems more productive than stubbing new NRHP articles or almost anything else. doncram (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've table-ized all of Alabama, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ohio and Michigan and am in the process of working through the Massachusetts counties while trying to update all of the states through listings of 8/8/2008 (I'm about half-way through the latter task). As I move through the counties, I've been disambiguating as many entries as possible. One frustration for me is that when lists are table-ized, the table-izer doesn't always preserve disambiguated links from the previous lists (thus negating disambiguation work that I and others have done). When I table-ize a list, I do all of the following:
  • Add the GeoGroupTemplate
  • Make sure that disambiguations are carried forward into the table version
  • Check for misdirected links and disambiguate where necessary (Elkman's "Who has" tool is indispensible for this task)
  • Search for photos
  • Read the geocodes coordinates into Google Earth to try and spot listings that are outside the geographic borders of the list on which I'm working and adjust them as necessary
  • Renumber the lists when necessary
  • Verify that the "complete as of" date is accurate
  • Convert dates to dts2 format where necessary
  • Make other adjustments to links (e.g. change Smith, John, House to John Smith House and piping links they don't take up so much column space)
I have a fairly automated process for the tedious tasks of renumbering tables after inserting new listings or breaking out lists (e.g., city lists from counties with too many listings to fit under the 100k recommended article size limit) and converting dates to dts2 format. I'm happy to do so if folks want to point me to tables that need this work done. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
One other thing i usually do, is reorder the table to move churches named "St. Mary's" etc. to fit alphabetically at "Saint Mary's".
Otherwise, seems like Sanfranman59 has been doing a more complete job than i have. Truthfully, i have been leaving a considerable amount of work to be done in many county lists, in sections labelled "to be merged into table above". That's where i leave the prior list information that i have not yet verified is covered in the new tables. When I do try to verify all, sometimes i find entries there not covered in the table. These can derive from:
      • from NRHP listings that are covered in regular Elkman generator, but not included in table (this happens sometimes, I have noticed)
      • possibly other old, valid listings not covered in generator or table (conceivable, not sure this happens)
      • sometimes erroneous information added by locals or others
      • brand new NRHP listings that have been added since Elkman's 4/2008 last database download, by updaters such as Sanfranman59 from the weekly new listings
And i usually just leave such items in a section retitled "to be researched and/or merged into table above". It's beyond me to solve all of these. For the 4th category, it could perhaps be helpful if NRHP updaters would indicate the date added, along with the name, of new listings, to explain why those are there. However, if there is a new NRHP update for Elkman's table generator, then such extra work would prove to be unnecessary, so I am not really asking for that, just noticing the issue. doncram (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
When adding recent listings to pages that have not yet been table-ized, I haven't been including the "date added" information since none of the other listings have this information. However, I do try to include this information in my edit summaries, so you could check the page history if you want confirmation. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a lot of work to table-ize a whole state. I have recently figured out how to go through the NRHP program's new listings of NRHPs, back to 4/2008, to properly fill out the tables generated from the Elkman county-table-generator tool, which is based on a 4/2008 download of NRIS data. I first created tables for each of New York's 62 counties using the tool, and then I went back and searched the NRHP listings for all New York entries since April and added a row for each one manually in the appropriate county's table. New York State has approximately 5,000 NRHPs, by the way. I tallied up the NY counties within a table in List of RHPs in NY, and am keeping track there of the counties that i or others have finished fixing up tables in terms of capturing disambiguation info, pipelinks, other info from the previous lists.
Nv8200p is table-izing in List of RHPs in TX, by the way. TX has 247 counties i think, i think that is the most counties in any state, but i am guessing NY will still have the most individual NRHPs. doncram (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Another step in the evolving process is: Look at the Google maps and examine all outliers. In some cases, the coordinates for a given site are clearly wrong, in which case i comment out the NRIS coordinates and explain in the comment how i know they are wrong. In other cases, it is the NRIS county and/or other location descriptors (reflected in Elkman and in NRHP.COM listings) which need to be corrected, and the entry needs to be moved to the appropriate county list. For these, I now add the location error in wp:NRIS info issues for reporting to the National Register later and to document the correction.
How much of an error should we be concerned about? A few feet or a block or a 1/4 mile? Any suggestions? And BTW, TX has 254 counties, but who's counting? 25or6to4 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
But not all of them have registered historic properties in them and are not in the list of RHPs in Texas. I am guessing there are just 247 counties listed -Nv8200p talk 16:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I use the "Map of all coordinates" link with either Google Maps or Google Earth to identify locations that have coordinates that fall outside the geographic area covered by the article. If the NRIS listing has an address or an intersection, I plug that into Google and replace the coordinates from NRIS with those from Google. If there's no address, I do a little surfing to try and find information elsewhere about the location and again get the coordinates from Google Maps/Earth. For historic districts, it can be more complicated, but I figure as long as I get the coordinates in the neighborhood, it's better than having nothing at all. I'm not sure that I've answered your question, but I think tolerability is in the eye of the beholder. If I come across something that's off by a city block, I'll correct it. Much less than that and I think you start getting into a splitting of hairs type of situation. Keep up the good work on the Texas tables! --Sanfranman59 (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And another step, pointed out by Mwanner who has been fixing up several Adirondack counties' list, is to add inbound links, for example to go to the correspoonding article about the county, and add a link to the list-article. doncram (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not actually in Nassau County, New York(I grew up in Suffolk County), but I've noticed some problems with table-izing the county NRHP lists. The whole point for making separate NRHP county lists for various counties and other municipalities is to reduce the size of the state lists. The trouble is, adding some tables enlarges them, and makes loading the page a drag, espescially when you try to add photos. ----DanTD (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The next logical step would be cities, I suppose. Look at Columbia, SC in Richland County. It has 115 entries all by itself. That should merit it's own list, I'd think. Dunno how one would subdivide further than that, though there's probably places where it would help. --Ebyabe (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I suupose that would be okay, except thatSuffolk County, New York doesn't really have any cities. Nassau County, New York does have two cities; Glen Cove, and Long Beach. The Suffolk County list has a few sites listed in vague and incorrect locations. I had to correct one that was in Ridge, but was listed as being in Brookhaven, New York, and I've seen some others like that. Right now, I'm going to correct the Montauk Point Lighthouse, and remove it from it's false listing as being in East Hampton, New York. ----DanTD (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
In Suffolk County, there are 36 sites in Huntington, 17 in East Hampton and 13 each in Cold Spring Harbor and Southampton. If you break them out into separate lists, that should help some. You could also break the table into multiple pages in alphabetical groups by city/town. I don't think it's necessary to do anything with the Nassau County list (it loads pretty quickly on my system), but you could break out Oyster Bay (16 sites), Sea Cliff (15) and Roslyn (12) if you think it necessary. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The Montauk Point Lighthouse shows in the Elkman-table as being in East Hampton, because NRIS shows East Hampton as the nearest city (as is shown also in the Elkman individual NRHP infobox for it). The Elkman-table appears to use best-available location info, which in some cases is the "nearest city". I don't think there is any way to improve upon that centrally; it requires local expertise like DanTD provides to put in a more accurate location into the table, for a specific site. DanTD put in Montauk, New York, which is described as a hamlet and a Census-designated place now; perhaps it was even less than that when the lighthouse was listed on the NRHP. I think showing East Hampton in the table, although not precisely accurate, is a better start than providing no location info if NRIS gives only a "nearest city" location. doncram (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_16&oldid=1142660278"