Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 19

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

Deletion discussion

The Thomas J. Walker House is currently up for deletion here: apparently not because someone denies its notability, but because it's been delisted, and someone seems to think that delisted places aren't notable anymore. Does this project endorse such opinion, or is it held that former properties are also notable? Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think it would depend on the reason for deletion. If it was destroyed, it's still notable. If it turned out that the building wasn't what they thought it was, I would say it needs some notability independent of NR listing. Murderbike (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The article was kept. Apparently the house was torn down and the land is up for sale as a site to build apartments. That's the way things go in west Knoxville. --Orlady (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments in that AfD discussion suggest, to me, a need for an explanation of the very notability of delisting, which is an unusual event. Perhaps there are a couple hundred NRHP delistings that have ever happened. Here's a starter list, with some cut and pasting and then editing of some NHL delistings that i know of: List of delisted National Register of Historic Places properties. It's rough, please feel free to add. doncram (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a good initiative. What is the significance of the italicized property names in the tables? --Orlady (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The italicizing was in one or more of the source NHL tables of former NHLs, in state NHL list-articles. I think it conveys a ghostly character, of these no longer really there places....  :) doncram (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Delisted question...

Is there somewhere that lists or can be searched to find sites that have been delisted (other than looking through each weekly list back to 1996)? I was looking through Waseca County, MN, and noted that on the county's web site [1], they also list 3 sites not in the NRHP listings. When I look at the nationalregisterofhistoricpalces.com site, it does list the 3 sites, complete with listing numbers. Any ideas where I could find more info on these? Ref #s 82005055, 82005054, and 82000564. 25or6to4 (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a possibility that the properties never were listed to begin with. When a nomination comes into the NPS, it is given its reference number ("refnum") for internal tracking. The nomination can be denied (the paperwork was incomplete, the justification was not strong enough, the boundaries are wrong, etc.) Note even though it was denied, it still it has its "refnum". Somehow NRHP.com picks these up and lists them. One example is Weir Canyon Archaeological District in California - it was nominated, went to the NPS and given a "refnum" and subsequently denied (the boundaries were not justified, and the author did not do enough research into the local Native Americans) yet, it is on NRHP.com! The only way to find out for sure is to contact the NPS and find out (nr_reference(at)nps.gov). Einbierbitte (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I checked the semi-famous infobox generator, using the reference numbers you provided. 82005055 (Eaco Mill) and 82005054 (Duluth, St. Cloud, Glencoe and Mankato Railroad Depot) have a status of "DO", meaning that they were determined eligible for the National Register, but the owners objected to their listing, so they weren't listed. 82000564 (Seth S. Phelps Farmhouse) has a status of "RN", meaning it was removed from the National Register. I have a book about the National Register of Historic Places in Minnesota, and it says that the farmhouse was moved in 1992. That's apparently why it got delisted, although there might be more to the story than that. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat related

Does the Register keep track of when listed buildings are destroyed? For example, Whitehill-Gleason Motors on the east side of Pittsburgh is now a parking lot — see my picture of the site. I know it's the correct site because (1) of the address, and (2) the historic marker on the streetside, just right of my bicycle, explains the significance of the site (I can email anyone the text of the marker, posted by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission), but as the building commemorated was the first drive-in filling station in the country, it doesn't look like the building at the site is the same one. I guess my question is this: although it's still listed, it's apparently destroyed, so do we know if/how/where such destroyed places are tracked? Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont really know the answer to your question, but I do know we've been keeping track of erroneous/demolished/moved listings at wp:NRIS info issues. There are eight or nine ten demolished structures (plus an eleventh currently being demolished, plus significant portions of two districts :( in Detroit which are apparently still listed, so your experience isn't unique. Unfortunately. Andrew Jameson (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Many local and state historic preservation groups keep scorecards on the status of historic properties (not all of which were ever listed on the NRHP) that are "endangered" for various reasons. These scorecards (for example, this statewide one for Tennessee) are good sources for information on the fate of some properties. State, local, and county government heritage commissions also may keep track of the status of NRHP listings. For example, this Tennessee Historic Commission newsletter lists 3 properties removed from the NRHP "because they no longer exist". --Orlady (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

New template

Hi I've created a template for NRHP listings for each US county and the listing itself. If people can help create them it would be great, there are some already created for Oklahoma. Thanks--CPacker talk to me 18:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Dakota County, Minnesota topics}} includes a separate section for NRHP sites (I don't know when it was updated or if it is up to date at all), which is impressive as all sites have pictures but one and all have articles; and {{Gibson County, Indiana Points of Interest}} may include NRHP sites, but I don't know. One thing, however: I'm moving the templates to "NRHP in [countyname] County, [statename]", as many counties nationwide share names (for example, see Cherokee County), so we need to have state names if this is going to be carried outside of Oklahoma, and it's good to have all of them including the state name for the sake of being consistent. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't get a photo of Good Templars Hall because they moved the damn thing before I got there.--Appraiser (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
By the way, it's good to include the county category in the template: see what I did for the Tulsa County template for example. Almost all basic county templates are already in their county categories, so it won't be odd to have these templates in the county's category. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice

So, I'm working on the article for an archaeologic site, listed as "Address Restricted", and I've figured out where it is, from public documents, easy google searches, and some info I'm finding refers to the location, but not the NRHP name of the site. So, is it OK to use those sources, in effect revealing the location of the site, and also making the citation weird, since you kind of have to know that it's talking about what it's talking about, to get that it is talking about the site concerned? Murderbike (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a big issue. There are scads of NRHP archeological sites listed as "Address restricted", for which there are publicly available documents identifying where they are. I'm not sure what we should do with them. doncram (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
If a site is known by more than one name this should be noted in the article's intro, with a redirect as well. If there are reliable sources documenting the location of an "address restricted" site, that, by all means, should be included in the article. Without question. The address restricted status seems to just be arbitrary, the sensitivity of the site doesn't seem to play into it, just what type of site it is. I have been to many of these so-called restricted sites, some in public parks. --IvoShandor (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course, some of these are restricted for good reason, and may be near impossible to document a location or find. I have found a lot of places myself, sometimes, only after several hours at a library, pouring over old newspaper articles.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I had the same thing cross my mind recently when I wrote about the Liddell Archeological Site. I know exactly where it is, but I didn't include any info due to a real problem in this state with rural archeological sites (usually Native American) being looted for artifacts. I personally wouldn't want to make it any easier for our archeological heritage to be destroyed. Altairisfartalk 22:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that if the info is readily available elsewhere then this kind of thing falls under Wikipedia not being censored. If you don't add it, and it can be found in a reliable source, then someone else will, eventually. Of course, no sources, no addition. --IvoShandor (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Since there are good reasons for the NPS to not disclose the locations of archaeological sites, but the locations of features like Indian mounds often are widely known, I would think that the best approach would be to describe them and indicate their general location (for example "in Boxtop County Park") if the location is documented somewhere, but avoid pinpointing their location with lat-long coordinates or similar details. --Orlady (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Last night I realized this would be a good question for WikiProject Archaeology, but don't have time to do it right now, gotta hit the road. Murderbike (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this myself since for some of the officially Address Restricted sites (Montgomery Place), the restriction is rather pointless as it's a tourist attraction and everyone knows where it is. Similarly, Fishkill Depot Supply Site is the area around Van Wyck Homestead (and I really am beginning to think that the former should just be a redirect to the latter even if they are separate listings). However, for things like Fort Massapeag Archeological Site if the NPS (and, in that case, the NYSOPRHP as well), take care to keep the location a secret, we should respect that even if we do have independent knowledge of where the site is. I noticed that since the NYS site was down over Columbus Day weekend, the Sylvan Lake Rock Shelter application materials are no longer available. Fine. They have taken affirmative measures to protect the integrity of the site; I respect that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically agree with everything Daniel said. --IvoShandor (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be a slew of articles for which the NYSOPRHP record lists "Address Restricted", but the full Nomination Form is right there online, with photos and coordinates and detailed maps. Many of the ones I deal with are definitely not well known-- I've run into plenty of people who live nearby who have never heard of the properties. But they're not remote archeological sites, ripe for looting-- they're houses in a village, with folks living in them. I assume no one is suggesting that we should withhold coords, photos, etc., on such places? -- Mwanner | Talk 13:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Good lord, I hope not. It basically comes to down to availability of sources, if there are sources confirming the locale, then it's fine, no matter what the NRHP says about it. --IvoShandor (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Maryland NRHPs new wikipedia user feedback and fixups needed

A new wikipedia editor has apparently hand-created a table for the Prince George's County listings within National Register of Historic Places listings in Maryland, and there are some problems within that. The new editor has also moved/renamed a bunch of articles, and has created/developed some, in at least one case by cutting and pasting from a copyrighted website. I started discussing some of these issues with the editor, who is talking although potentially offended, and I tagged one article for copyvio and followed up on that. But more help is needed. I imagine the user might not want too much more specific feedback from me alone, and I don't have more time now. Can some others take a look and address/fix some of the issues, please? For example, it may be helpful if someone could just create a new table for the county, and explain about that. I do think the new editor was/is well-meaning, but is not aware of some of policies/guidelines and some tools we have available. I noticed something was up only because List of NHLs in MD is still on my watchlist; I am not able to do more watching/developing of the NRHP list in MD anytime soon. doncram (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I went to go and replace the table, but the Elkman county generator appears to not like the apostrophe in "Prince George's County" and will spit out an error message. Any ideas? --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 14:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The apostrophe problem is addressed by inserting a backslash before the apostrophe: "Prince George\'s" in MD will generate the page. The same backslash treatment works for getting disambig pages for St. Anne's Church, etc. out of Elkman's disambig page generator, etc. doncram (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a bug in the county list generator. I'll try to fix that tonight, assuming I remember to do it. In the meantime, the backslash trick works, as Doncram mentioned. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Got it to work, the table has been taken care of. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 20:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the bug, so any more counties with apostrophes will be taken care of. That includes Manu'a, Queen Anne's County, Maryland, and St. Mary's County, Maryland. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone point to an example from another state? Mangoe (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that the California counties are examples of the format that Doncram would like to see. As for the Prince George's table, it generally conforms with the format used for other counties, but differs in that (1) default sorting of properties is by city/town rather than name, (2) the "location" field is populated with street addresses and not also longitude-latitude, and (3) date format is nonstandard. IMO, these are entirely reasonable choices; the main "problem" with them is that they are different from the choices that have been made elsewhere. However, I would like to see a change in the format for the dates. --Orlady (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping. Sure the List of RHPs in CA is an example. Also the manual tabulation simply accepts that all the previously listed places are NRHP sites, often not the case. The Elkman-generated table is more reliable, although it needs to be updated with recent listings since April 2008. Any differences between old list and Elkman table need to be examined carefully. doncram (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy if the National Register database was updated more frequently, so I could get the freshly listed properties for list generation and infobox lookups. They aren't exactly timely with updates, though. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Need for a guideline

Hi all. As an issue that has come up a number of times, most recently here, I'm thinking it may be time to work on a guideline, or something to point users to. I think general consensus is that these buildings are notable not just for the news coverage around their listing, but also the circumstances that warrant their being listed in the first place. I'd love to work on this, but my on-wiki time is not great at the moment and I think this probably needs some resolution in the form of a guideline, or something along those lines. Anyone want to help with this? I'll point DGG and the original commentor to this discussion. TravellingCari 02:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Halloween DYKs

I recently saw that someone else had nominated Elting Memorial Library, which I had created a long time ago, for our special Halloween-themed DYK due to the incident last year where an alleged ghost was caught on the security cam in the wee hours of the morning. If we have any RHPs with an associated haunting or some past Halloween-relevant (witchcraft, maybe?), feel free to list them (the 5-day rule are suspended for these; any articles can be nominated) or create or expand them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Would Neely Mansion count? Einbierbitte (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
If you can expand it in time, I think you could do it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. On October 29th I had expanded the Octagon House (Fond du Lac, Wisconsin) to near 5x expansion, so I added some more content on its "haunting" nature and had it featured on the Halloween DYK. I wouldn't have added this content without this comment, as I usually stay away from "haunting" as I feel it is normally non-encyclopedic. Royalbroil 04:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Montpelier (James Madison)

Montpelier (James Madison), the present name of this article, doesn't follow the general pattern for disambiguation names. A preferable name which would follow conventions would be Montpelier (Orange, Virginia). I would propose moving it to that name. Comments please. clariosophic (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Change made today. clariosophic (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Octagon Building (Santa Cruz, California)

Based on your interpretation of MOS:BOLD, bolding should be used more in the first paragraph of articles. I don't think this is a good interpretation. Have a look around Wikipedia. We use the bold sparingly especially on small articles of one or two paragraphs. It's distracting.

In such a small article items don't really get lost easily. But lets say you did have a need to emphasize something - maybe something in a really big article - then follow the advice there at MOS:BOLD and "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text". E_dog95' Hi ' 21:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a National Register of Historic Places article in which alternate names are commonly emboldened in the lead. clariosophic (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it could go either way. At Intercity Bridge, for example, I bolded "Ford Parkway Bridge" and "46th Street Bridge" because they're pretty much synonyms. The same applies for Washburn "A" Mill, now known as the Mill City Museum. On the other hand, at Farmers and Mechanics Savings Bank (1891), I didn't bold its current name of Schiek's Palace Royale, because the article is about the building, not the strip club (er, "gentlemen's club") located inside. Maybe there's a distinction to be made between alternative names of a building or structure, versus the names of the business(es) operating in the buildings in question. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I use bolding for alternate names that are used in redirects, so that when readers arrive at the article via the redirect, they won't have too hard a time figuring out how they ended up there. An especially good example is the Adirondack Correctional Facility, which started life as the Ray Brook Sanatorium, and spent several years as Camp Adirondack. It has redirects from these latter names, and definitely needs bolding for the benefit of readers looking for those place names. I would think that reasoning would apply even if it were a much shorter article. -- Mwanner | Talk 12:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

County list generator fixes

I forget who was asking me about this, but I've looked into the problem where an independent city has the same name as a county within the same state. (For example, Baltimore, Maryland versus Baltimore County, Maryland and St. Louis, Missouri versus St. Louis County, Missouri. I've added a checkbox to the county list generator and to the query by county tool so you can select the county name for an independent city. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Titanic Memorial (Washington, D.C.)

I was wondering if this memorial is actually listed as being on the NRHP? When I tried to check on the offical website, it didn't show up.Shinerunner (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's listed. Check the NRHP weekly update for October 19, 2007 Einbierbitte (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I must have missed it on my initial search! Shinerunner (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD Oak cottage

The Oak cottage article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

More removals

This weeks list from the NPS has more removals from the NRHP in Biloxi and Pascagoula. Einbierbitte (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A little advice?

The Ossian H. Sweet House is on the NHRP (ref #85000696). Its significance is purely historical, as this was the house where Dr. Ossian Sweet lived, and where he killed a white man in self-defense, leading to a particularly notable civil rights/segragation trial. There's really not much more to say about the house that's not already covered in the Ossian Sweet article. So. Does the house warrant its own article, or should it just be folded into the Ossian Sweet biography? Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Properties listed under Criterion B (associated with persons important in history) can present some problems, especially with unremarkable architecture. I would describe the house, its architecture, when it was built, etc., and then go on to describe why this house was is notable, why it was listed - many times these houses are the only tangible evidences of a person's life. Take a look at some of the other properties listed under Criterion B: Elihu Root House, Clara Barton House, to a lesser extent ('cause it needs to be expanded) Zane Grey Estate. Einbierbitte (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's what I did. Results are at Ossian H. Sweet House, for those interested. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice article. Good job. Lvklock (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

California update

There is a new listing in Pasadena, California this week. I updated the list, and now I want to update the date (correct to November 21) but I can't find the original to do so. Einbierbitte (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the date, but for future reference, the place to make this update is at "Template:California NRHP date for lists". By using the template, we don't need to bother updating the date in each of the 60 county- and city-specific California lists. This and other state-specific NRHP date templates may be found in "Category:Template-Class National Register of Historic Places articles". --sanfranman59 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I found the template and saw the date changed to November 21, but some of the county lists still show the November 14 date. Einbierbitte (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm ... then they must not call the template to get the date. Which counties are showing November 14? --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Never mind ... I just checked them all and they all have the California NRHP date template. You probably need to bypass your browser's cache so it reloads the page from the site rather than from the cache. --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

AT & SF Locomotive 3759

I think this article should be moved to Santa Fe 3759 to match the Trains WikiProject manual of style - no ampersands and the most common name and operating number. I've also posted at the TWP page. Einbierbitte (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

MPS articles

Has anyone done an article on an entire MPS that they're happy with? I was considering doing one, but don't really know how I would want to structure it. Murderbike (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I did an article on the Religious Structures of Woodward Ave. TR. I was kinda winging it as far as style and structure goes, though. Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I did a couple. They aren't that great, as I did them long ago.

Speedy deletion tag

My article on Dorsey Hall just got slapped with a speedy deletion tag from User:Fatal!ty. I have responded that the site is on the National Register of Historic Places and part of this Wikiproject. Is there anything else I need to do?--Pubdog (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The tag has been removed. Thanks very much to User:WhisperToMe for taking care of it!--Pubdog (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I'm amazed by what gets nominated for speedy deletion, and sometimes it even gets deleted even with lots of independent sources. Royalbroil 13:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fatal!ty has now been banned for this behavior (it was not the first time, and I deeply regret having unleashed unblocked him). Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Stub article creation

I have an article that is a featured article candidate. I have just found that one redlink in the article could be remedied by the creation of a stub article for a location on the National Register of Historic Places. Can someone with this WikiProject help me out and create a stub article for Delaware Breakwater and Lewes Harbor? Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Dtbohrer for the quick response. Much appreciated! — Bellhalla (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I had time and was bored :-) --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 16:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Another project some of us might want to join

I recently added my name to the urban studies and planning project, since I have done quite a few urban HD articles. If you do to, you might want to consider it ... it seems to be rather anemic and could use the help. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

New Listings

I am wondering what to do with new listings as they are announced in the Weekly List, [2] ? The dates on the Maryland pages are Sept 26. Since that date, about a half dozen new entries for Maryland properties have been included in the Weekly List. Should I manually add them myself or is there an automated process that will add them to existing lists? If so, each county breakout page has an as of date of Sept 26. Will each county page need to be updated as well to bring it up to date --- now Nov 7? Any guidance on this issue is greatly appreciated. Ted--Pubdog (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as of now, you've guessed exactly right. Manually adding new sites (and the resulting renumbering of the whole list) has to be done, and if there isn't a template for the date on the Maryland list, you can make one similar to Washington's, or manually update each county list. Good luck, Murderbike (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much! --Pubdog (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

New Listings Templates

I wonder if there is a better way to keep track of the date that each state's listing was updated. Right now, with each state having a different template, its difficult to see whether or not a template even exists for the state. Also, some of the ones I managed to locate don't seem to have any type of consistent style (for example, notice the differences between New Jersey's, Pennsylvania's and Washington's).

I think merging the existing templates into one template and then specifying which state you want through a parameter would be easier than having multiple templates, but that's just me. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 21:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, I like this idea in concept. Do you know how to make it happen? It's important that the template be flexible enough to only update the date for a specific state since editors are unlikely to update all of the state lists at once. --sanfranman59 (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I should be able to do it. I've been getting good with using parser functions in templates. I figure create a NRHP date lists and redirect individual states to it. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and created the template. Check and make sure it works correctly. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 22:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I have converted all the Maryland county lists and overall state to the new date template.--Pubdog (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)California is also done. I'm in the process of converting the Virginia lists to separate county and independent city tables. While I'm at it, I'm replacing the date templates with the new one. Thanks for your work on this Dtb. It's a much better solution than having a bunch of separate templates. --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

All of New York, Vermont, and Delaware are done. Also listings that weren't split like Hawaii, Tennessee, Missouri, DC, Guam and Puerto Rico now have a template. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 00:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

NY Times series on historic preservation

In case you weren't aware of it, the NY Times completed a 4-part series today on historic preservation in NYC. I found it to be an interesting read and thought others here might as well. Here are links to the articles: Nov 26, Nov 29, Dec 1, Dec 2. --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

National Monuments as Sub-Categories of State NR Categories?

While categorizing World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument, I noticed that the National Monuments in State categories are all set up as subcategories of National Register of Historic Places in State categories. There seems to be flawed logic here, and this hierarchy needs to be reconsidered.

Under the 1966 Historic Preservation Act, only historical units of the NPS [and National Hist. Landmarks] are adminstratively listed on the Register. Although many Nat'l Monuments are historical in character and NPS administered, there are lots of examples of National Monuments that are primarily natural (therefore not historical) or are administered by other agencies besides the NPS. For example, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument is correctly listed in Category:National Monuments in Hawaii, but it is not listed on the National Register (it is a natural site, and not NPS administered). "World War II Valor" is a Nat'l Monument that [I assume] has automatically been added to the register [but probably not in the database yet]. — Eoghanacht talk 21:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

William Hood House

Can someone cleanup this article I found on Newpages? Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bridge for sale

PennDOT is selling a bridge in Crawford County, Pennsylvania. They mention it is eligible for listing on the NRHP. Does that mean that it was nominated but not yet listed or that can be nominated but hasn't? --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 18:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

More likely is that some sort of state or local historical survey assessed it against the NRHP criteria and determined it's eligible. It's also likely that this survey was/is documented somewhere. --IvoShandor (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It was probably the PennDOT Historic Bridge Survey; I posted their data at http://pastebin.com/f52a950fc. --NE2 04:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It might also have been considered for the NRHP here and not made the cut, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Unless I missed it, it's not there (SR 1002 was LR 20069 until 1987). --NE2 04:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with Large Lists

I am considering breaking up the tableized entries for National Register of Historic Places listings in Baltimore (Independent City). There are currently 270 entries. It takes an extraordinary long time for the article to load. I am wondering if there is a rule for breaking up such a long list? I was thinking of creating separate lists by "A" thrpough "F", "G" through "O", and "P" through "Y". Would this split up be acceptable?--Pubdog (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the first thing to do is to cross-check the entries in the old-style list under the table against the entries in the table. Confirm that all sites in the old list are accounted for in the table and that the wikilinks have been transferred. That will shrink the size of the article at least somewhat, but it probably does need to be split up further. I think splitting out articles alphabetically is a good idea. I prefer it to a geographical split as has been done for the New York City lists because editors need some geographical knowledge to know where to add new listings and find existing listings. Them's my two cents. --sanfranman59 (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that this would be harder with Baltimore than New York unless there are pretty much agreed-on, indisputable boundaries of the former's neighborhoods (Dundalk, downtown etc.). Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
If I weren't so afraid of crashing my PC and/or screwing up the numbers, I'd chapterize the National Register of Historic Places listings in Suffolk County, New York by townships right now. Hell, I'd say some county lists(Westchester, for example) ought to be chapterized by townships and cities. ----DanTD (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I know that other long lists have cities/towns with the most sites broken out of the main county list. I'm not aware of any other cases where townships are broken out, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea for New York. However, since the NRIS database doesn't record township (at least I don't think it does), it'll be more work to split out townships ... especially for people who don't know the geography. --sanfranman59 (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Do any Ohio county NRHP lists need to be further subdivided into townships and cities? Also, I could've swore some NRHP New Jersey county lists had separate chapters for cities, but now I can't find any evidence of them. ----DanTD (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It's always a judgement call, but I'd say it's better to keep them together geographically where possible, perhaps by neighborhood or village. The Geo maps make a lot more sense if things close together are on the same page. IMHO dm (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I just installed hidden chapters for National Register of Historic Places listings in Suffolk County, New York, but I haven't sorted them out yet. The only village that I know of that crosses town lines within Suffok is Sag Harbor, New York, so that would either get it's own chapter, or a note regarding the division within the village. In any case, the "Listings by County" chapter alone is 84k long. ----DanTD (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama

FYI: I've requested a peer review for List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama to be sure it's okay before nominating it for Featured List status. Any input appreciated. Altairisfartalk 18:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tah - Dah!

I have been amusing myself with the List of Registered Historic Places in Detroit, Michigan for quite some time now. I am happy to report that all 231 properties now have pictures, short descriptions, and blue-linked articles of at least a couple paragraphs apiece. In addition, I wrote a nice little historical intro for the article (if I do say so myself). On the downside, it's waaaaaaaay overlength, so I suspect it'll have to be chopped in two, which is unfortunate. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Great work, Andrew! ... and thanks! --sanfranman59 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow! 231 with pictures, descriptions, and articles... nice work! What are you going to do with all your spare time now? Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Good work Jameson, that page is delicious, just like the whiskey named after you . . . er . . . what?--IvoShandor (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

National Historic Landmarks

Just wanted to let everyone know that I nominated List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama for featured list (discussion). The largest remaining issue over there seems to our color coding on the tables. If anyone wants to comment or contribute, it would be appreciated. I lack the coding skills necessary to resolve some of the issues, such as centering the numbers, so help would be great. I hope this issue can be easily resolved, since we've got many other list articles that would be affected. Altairisfartalk 00:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the comments there. I am reluctant to let the list people dictate what this project does or does not include in the lists. I would prefer that we decide here whether the lists should include non-NHL sites and what type of color coding we use. That said, I can grudgingly agree to the exile of the other sites from the lists if it is the only way to gain featured list status if that's what everyone else thinks. My personal preference would be to change the title in some way to include the other sites. As far as the color coding goes, I remember that being a long, well thought out and debated process here that decided on the system we're now using. I would not be in favor of changing that.Lvklock (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that the way the colors are explained on the page has been the major issue, not that they be removed altogether. I'm not supporting an effort to remove them, but personally do not feel that they are important enough to warrant the issues arising from them. I really don't see an issue with the color not being in the header row. I don't remember that item being specifically discussed, it was just the way that we happened to do it. But, correct me if I'm wrong. I couldn't think of a good enough reason to keep it, on any account. The colors are still in the left-hand column as always. I do know that the lack of outsider understanding concerning our colors has been raised several time before now, though. Since the non-National Historic Landmarks in the article are covered in List of areas in the United States National Park System (which is a featured list), I see no reason to fight to keep them in this article, since it is currently titled List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama. I don't think that giving it the title "List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama and historic areas in the United States National Park System" would be a beneficial change. I do think we have to collaborate with outside editors if we want our articles and lists to be promoted. We are creating these for the general public, so they should be able to understand them without detailed explanations of how to interpret them. Perhaps we need to revisit some issues and formulate a written general style guide for our articles/lists, as has been suggested before.Altairisfartalk 06:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I said before I can reluctantly support removal of the other sites. However, I still think that for the general public, who we are creatting these for (as you note), it is extremely helpful to have all of the sites in one list. Without previous knowledge of how to find them, most users would not know that they needed to look at one state-specific list for the NHLs, and then go to a national list of other areas and sort through it for other areas in the state. I know that this was also an issue when Doncram nominated the list of NHLs in NY for featured list, and he chose not to remove the sites. So, Altairisfar is FOR removal, Doncram is AGAINST removal. I do remember that there were some other WP:nrhp members FOR removal during the NY list nomination. All I'm saying is that I would like more input from a greater number of people here at WP:nrhp before decisions are made that have implications for ALL of the NHL lists. If the consensus is that they be removed, then I wouldn't object. As for the colors, Doncram does have an objection to removing them, Altairisfar does not. Again, I would just like to have other people weigh in on the issue here before the change is made. Lvklock (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
My opinion's arent' very strong around here these days, but I don't see a problem with removing the color from the top sections of the tables, but think that if non-NHL sites are to be listed in these lists, the lists should be renamed to actually reflect what they are listing. Murderbike (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I have been following the discussion at the FLC, and from my point of view, I would not support the list's promotion until the the title clearly describes the scope of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_19&oldid=1140166032"