Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 23

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

Naming convention question

National Register of Historic Places listings in X both reads and looks terrible. Is there a reason either List of National Register of Historic Places in X or National Register of Historic Places in Y isn't used? I suspect that the most common version of the title is probably National Register of Historic Places in Y, and since this is currently used as a category name, why isn't it used for the list? "Places listings" is about as bad as it gets. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The current names were the product of months of active discussion. See:
Briefly:
  1. The National Register of Historic Places is a list (the main noun in that cluster is the singular "Register," not the plural "Places"), so "List of National Register of Historic Places in X" parses to "List of list in X", which is wrong.
  2. There were strenuous objections to "National Register of Historic Places in X", primarily because of (1) a felt need to highlight the fact that these are lists of individual entities on the NRHP and not articles about the NRHP itself and (2) a desire to avoid implying that articles with names in the form of "National Register of Historic Places in Wyoming" are about state-specific historic registers. There were some similar objections to using this wording to name categories, but since the category can article a diverse variety of NRHP-related articles and categories, it was possible to justify this terminology for the category names.
  3. Much of the protracted discussion focused on the choice of a noun for the individual entities listed on the National Register. There are problems with every possible option. The word "listings" was selected as the least worse of the options, after consultation with the keepers of the National Register. --Orlady (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
To respond to Viriditas a bit more: It's a sore subject. There are several who felt strongly as Viriditas does, that "places listings" sounds horrible, and the way the discussion went, and the way a consensus was declared, was not pretty. Orlady's summary of a final argument reflects, fairly enough I think for some purposes, the perspective that "won" the discussion. I think she has stated that perspective more emphatically than all would agree with (in particular, I don't recall that any "consultation with the keepers of the National Register" figured into the declaration of a decision in any strong way). I expect that few would want to reopen this for a new decision process now, although I do think it could be appropriate to revisit at some future time. By the way, Viriditas is actively helping develop the List of RHPs in HI, which is coming along very nicely. :) doncram (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Although it would come along a bit nicelier if the server weren't having problems. It's "only" 100KB, but it won't let me post a new version that we've been discussing there. Can someone (if Doncram and Viriditas don't do it first) please see the "nowiki" version in my sandbox, here, and try to post it at the Hawaii list? My connection is slower today than normal, for a reason I don't understand; perhaps it's my connection causing the problem. Nyttend (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Forget it, the new version just appeared in the history; perhaps it just took a long time to register. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This seems about as good a place as any to mention Category:Registered Historic Places of religious function and a couple of similar ones - are they still being used? Or are they being mustered out in favor of something else? Or do they need to be renamed? Apologies if this has been dealt with before; I haven't seen it mentioned. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 22:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Those categories still exist. Scroll up to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Nomenclature changes needed where I tried to reopen discussion on new names for those categories. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, figured I'd missed something, thanks. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another merger alert

Back in January 2009 I requested that Boston and Maine Railroad Depot should be merged into Reading (MBTA station) since both stations are one in the same. Since it doesn't seem like anybody has been paying attention, I thought I'd address the issue here. I've also brought this up on WikiProject Trains. ----DanTD (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories for list-articles in various geographic area

It has been noted in the above, separate discussion about categories for NRHP list-articles, that there are gaps in the availability of categories to handle various NRHP geographical list-articles. There exist perhaps 800 such list-articles now, and the number is growing.

How about creating:

Comments welcome. I don't believe that new categories have to be considered at CfD, but it would be nice to avoid having to implement renamings, later, which would require CfD bureaucracy. If there's no comment, I'll go ahead and create those categories. Thanks! doncram (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your second proposed category already exists, except it is named Category:Lists of Registered Historic Places by state. Creation of a new redundant category would be uncalled for.
None of the category names you propose is appropriate, since all of them appear to treat "National Register of Historic Places" as a plural noun, apparently being the multiple of "National Register of Historic Place." Please do not use terminology that confuses the "National Register of Historic Places" (a singular noun, referring to the Register) with the individual entities listed in the register.
Your disdain for "CfD bureaucracy" is misdirected, IMO. For technical reasons, renaming a category is a far more cumbersome procedure than renaming an article, so it is desirable to be careful in selecting names. --Orlady (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Communication misunderstandings wise, I would appreciate if you would please make more of an effort not to make assumptions about what i mean that I could feel are unjustified and/or to label and/or to reinterpret what i say. Here, your statement suggests that i have disdain for CfD processes and/or editors or whatever. I do not.
As you yourself suggest it is "cumbersome" to rename categories and it is desirable to be careful in selecting names; that is pretty much exactly the same as what I said, that it would be nice to avoid names that would have to go through the bureaucratic process of renaming at CfD later.
About the substance of your views which would have relevance in the task at hand, would you please be more specific about what alternative names for categories covering list-articles of NRHPs in geographical areas you think would be better? doncram (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) It may be that the categories i suggested above are not the right ones. I have never really navigated by categories and i am not experienced in setting up category systems. In particular, perhaps the county-level list-articles do not need a separate category, they can just be coded to appear first within the existing state-wide categories like Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alabama. However i note that some state systems are not set up that way, and there are new state systems i have been working on that are not set up at all. I'd just like some guidance on what categories should be put into new county-level and other list-articles of NRHPs that I am frequently creating, recently for counties i have been splitting out within List of RHPs in CO.

In Alabama, for example, I observe the state-level List of RHPs in AL has:

  • "Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alabama| Listings"
  • "Category:Lists of Registered Historic Places by state|Alabama"
  • "Category:Alabama-related lists"

and one example county-level article has:

  • "Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alabama by county|Baldwin County"
  • "Category:Baldwin County, Alabama"

In Alaska, the state-level List of RHPs in AK has:

  • ":Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alaska| "
  • ":Category:Lists of Registered Historic Places by state|Alaska"
  • ":Category:Alaska-related lists|Registered Historic Places"

and one example borough/census area list-article has:

  • ":Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alaska by borough and census area|Anchorage"
  • ":Category:Anchorage, Alaska| "

These seem imperfect to me, as there are separate list-articles for only 31 of Alabama's 67 counties, and only some of Alaska's boroughs and census areas, while i would think that a category like "NRHPs in STATE by county" should include all the county NRHP tables (these omit the small tables within the state-wide main list-articles). I wonder about using just "Lists of NRHP listings within STATE" to include the county-level lists that cover much of the state along with the state list itself. Or, why not just make the county-list articles appear first within "National Register of Historic Places in STATE", an existing category? But I see that i really do not grok all the considerations that could be relevant.

Seeing how others have set up the AL and AK state systems, is that what i should do for Colorado? Specifically, what categories should be added to state-level List of RHPs in CO, city-level List of RHPs in Denver and county-level List of RHPs in Boulder, for example? doncram (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Weekly List

There is a new and improved Weekly list. I just noticed that now they have the list going all the way back to 1966. The earliest lists are just PDFs of the Federal Register with little to no information that we can't find elsewhere. The latest ones up to 1995 are PDFs of the weekly list in its present form. Einbierbitte (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Project Page Cleanup

I was just looking through the main project page for the first time in a while, and I notice it's extremely cluttered. There's tons of information all being thrown out at the same time; this is not very good for new people. I think we should undergo an effort to clean up, organize, and simplify the main project page. Anyone wanna help? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am at fault for some of the additions which have accumulated there, including many resources for editors such as state-specific information, which could well be moved to a different location. Perhaps some other material should be moved to draft wp:NRHPMOS. What do you think are other good examples of wikiprojects organized for such? I support your cleaning this up, anyhow. doncram (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If were planning on cleaning up the project page, I'd like to do something about that massive table of contents. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 16:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree, especially about the table of contents. Altairisfartalk 02:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Some of the material showing on the page is actually located in separate pages. There's a separate page on "Help for editors" that is transcluded in. Certainly there should be brief statement about help available for editors, and a "main" link to the other WikiProject page for it, instead of including it all. Perhaps there are other separate pages transcluded in, too. doncram (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Flemish Revival and help on New Rochelle area NRHP articles

There are a couple new NRHP articles, Leland Castle and Knickerbocker Building, which could use some helpful attention and development. These were started by a new user who has been checked and found not to be linked to the mass of accounts linked to Jvolklum. This account, knock on wood, should not be blocked as other New Rochelle area editors have been, fairly or unfairly. I think it is technically possible that this user, who started by re-creating these articles (at least one was created and deleted before apparently), has in fact had previous accounts and edited previously. However, the administrative check stating no connection establishes, I believe, that it is different than at least some other accounts caught up in that. Towards breaking up the long-running impasse between frustrated New Rochelle area editors, and frustrated wikipedia enforcers, I would like help supporting at least this one separated editor as a clean new account. Please take an interest if you can! :)

I've already given the editor some feedback at Talk page and in Talk pages of these 2 articles. There is other stuff which could be covered, but perhaps it should not all come from me. Like, the user seems to give some credence to Archiplanet and NRHP.com, which i didn't cover. I added the NRHP text/photos doc to the Leland Castle one and it would be nice if anyone could develop the article further using that. I'd appreciate if anyone could add the corresponding document and develop the Knickerbocker article too. The Knickerbocker one now mentions an interestingly rare "Flemish Revival" architectural style, which sounds like it may deserve a separate article. Perhaps the NRHP document provides more info for that. doncram (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Different source for NRHP data, and some registration date vs. listing date

What is this NRHP source and how do you get to the search screen that must exist, to look for other properties? Should we be using this, for historic districts and/or for all NRHPs? It seems to provide detailed structure inventory information. Maybe this is only for National Park Service-owned properties?

A question I have is that this provides a 1989 registration date for a structure, which is part of an overall historic district that was NRHP-listed on Day 1 of the NRHP, October 15, 1966, because the NHP it is in was previously existing. In a separate article about the structure, which should appear in an NRHP infobox, the 1989 or the 1966 date. What is the meaning of the registration date? This comes up in Doug Coldwell's articles on Jones Law Office and Woodson Law Office were up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodson Law Office and Jones Law Office‎. (The AfD may be resolving to a keep consensus as the articles are being developed.) doncram (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Try this. But I don't know what this is nor what a "classified structure" is? --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 21:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
First part answer is Advance Search, Virginia, Appomattox Court House Historical Park (first one) - Submit. +
Second part a little harder. Yes, I believe you have it correct as October 15, 1966. If you like I can ask the Park historian, as I am in contact with him on these articles. Should I?--Doug Coldwell talk 22:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Additional: Also in contact with a key reference librarian (Jennifer H.) at the Library of Congress on the Jones and Woodson articles as well as the other Appomattox articles I wrote up and she was not able to give anything additional (just received an e-mail from her). She commented on how well they are developing out. Should I ask the Park historian about this 1966 vs 1989 - if so, any suggested wording for the question I sould ask him (Patrick)?--Doug Coldwell talk 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I think these are lists of classified structures that are within national parks, National Battlefields, National Recreation Areas, National Monuments, or other NPS properties. I recognize a number of them from Glacier National Park, anyway. The database appears to give details about which structures are contributing properties to their National Register districts. As far as the 1989 date versus the 1966 date is concerned, I'm guessing that there was additional documentation after 1966 that brought the law offices into the historic district, or that the enumeration of contributing structures wasn't finished until 1989, or something similar. I'm not sure what that means for the infobox date, though -- it would probably need some additional research to figure out what the 1989 date really means. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me like we should adapt the NRHP infobox to allow for a new nrhp_type to describe NPS "Classified structures" like these, for use sometimes in separate articles like the Woodson and Jones ones, at least where the structure meets wikipedia notability standards (which aren't exactly clear for these). If the structure is not notable for a separate article, an infobox for it can still be used sometimes in a larger article titled something like "Minor Structures of the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park", as some were suggesting in the AfD discussion. The infobox for one of these could allow for showing the structure is within a National Historical Park, what is the NHP date, that it is within a NRHP district, what is the NRHP listing date, and that it is a Classified Structure, and what is its registration date for that, as well as other usual fields. In a list-article about all the structures in one historical park, a table format could be devised, in lieu of repetitive, separate infoboxes.
The initial search screen for the database is at http://www.hscl.cr.nps.gov/insidenps/summary.asp. It shows there that it is a database of 26,877 "Classified Structures". It shows fields for Park, Structure Number, Preferred Structure Name, Structure State, and Significance Level. For its first record, an Abe Lincoln cabin, the field values are: ABLI, ABLI-01, Traditional Lincoln Birthplace Cabin, Kentucky, National. The the Abe Lincoln cabin record shows a lot more fields. Including one which gives a short description of the importance of the structure. (Doug, by the way, that field seems highly relevant for evaluating which of the Appomattox structures are more important than others.) All of this data showing, and perhaps more, must be public domain and perhaps could be obtained and downloaded for new applications like Elkman's NRIS data ones. For the NRIS database, Elkman shows there are more fields of data than show in the NPS's own interface for the public, so perhaps there is more data not visible here, too.
Doug, for sure it would be great if you could ask what is the signficance of the 1989 date. (Is it merely the date that anyone entered this into a database, or is a kind of declaration date, approved/declared at what level by whom. What justifies getting listing. For example, National Historic Landmarks are declared upon approval of the Secretary of the Interior, and there is some kind of signing document and then press releases. NRHP listings are also announced formally, not sure what level official approves their listings. We already know for certain what is the NRHP listing date for the historical park, that is not in question. Perhaps ask also for general description about the Classified structure system and program. I haven't browsed around enough yet to look and see what is available about it online. doncram (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. I asked the Park historian the above. --Doug Coldwell talk 13:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Any reply yet? For what it's worth, I skimmed the lists for several parks, and found that they include a large number of inconsequential structures (including NPS visitor centers and restroom buildings) in addition to structures of historic interest. IMO, this could be a good resource for article-building, but it would be absurd to write a separate article for every corn crib, ruined barn, comfort station, picnic shelter, plaque, and bridge listed in this database. In several instances, the names of the "contributing" structures would be a good addition to the park or monument article. --Orlady (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Pulaski County Bridge No. 31

Pulaski County Bridge No. 31 recently got written by a new contributor and could use some cleanup work for any NRHP project members who might feel so inclined. howcheng {chat} 18:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am adding an infobox and will clean it up a bit. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It is better, but still could use some work. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice work, guys! howcheng {chat} 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Implementing NRHP infoboxes merger

Help is now needed for implementing the long-pending merger of the NRHP2 inbobox with its many features into the venerable NRHP infobox. Features and programming issues for NRHP2 were discussed above at #Update to infoboxes NRHP2 and NRHP and the NRHP2 seems awesome and stable now. I'd really appreciate if a few people could participate, so that Dudemanfellabra doesn't have to do all the rollout too, and so that more eyeballs test out the new system.

To implement the merger, help is needed first to revisit all 1500 or so articles now using the NRHP2 infobox, to revise their syntax. Specifically:

  • where the first type call like "nhl = yes" appears, replace by "nrhp_type = nhl"
  • correspondingly, replace "designated_nhl = December 5, 2004" by "designated_nrhp_type = December 5, 2004"
  • where the second type call like "nhs = yes" appears, replace by "nrhp_type2 = nhs"
  • correspondingly, replace "designated_nhs = July 2007" by "designated_nrhp_type2 = July 2007"
  • etc. See Template:Infobox nrhp2/doc for full explanation of the revised syntax.

It's probably most easily done using AutoWikiBrowser (AWB). To use AWB, if you haven't yet, you first have to request access, visit wp:AWB and put in your request.

To coordinate, I'm building a list of the articles to be checked and revised, at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP2 February 2009 merger worklist. Please mark off which ones you are addressing. Chunks of the list can be taken and used as AWB work lists (save a chunk as a text file, and in AWB under "Make list" select "Text file" and browse to your saved version of your text file. doncram (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can help, using AWB or not. Please feel free to mark off any sized chunk of the article list. AWB doesn't work on Macs and is sometimes difficult to get to work properly, anyhow. doncram (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Next step is going to be replacement of NRHP infobox template by the current NRHP2 infobox template code. If this is done sooner than later, then our revisions of the 1500 articles can also take care of dropping the "2" from the infobox call. Template:infobox nrhp is protected, however, not sure how. Can someone request that change, or do we have an administrator here who can implement it? doncram (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should wait to copy over the code until all the old code in nrhp2 is taken out (the nhl=yes code, etc). After all the old code is taken out, the new code will be much more straightforward and easier to understand than the current. I say we hold off on copying the code over, then when the code is finalized, get a bot to remove the 2's. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! to User:Dtbohrer User:Ruhrfisch and User:Ebyabe for helping! I did some, and learned more about using AWB, and dudemanfellabra got to take a break, mostly. doncram (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

date delinking

  • Please be careful to avoid delinking dates as you fix the nrhp infoboxes. Regardless of your opinion of the value of this, there's an injunction in place here dm (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up on this, dm. Just when I've finally gotten used to not linking dates ... sheesh! --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Without getting into the whole can of worms that is MOSNUM, you'll be able to delink dates if you wish to when the injunction is lifted. Whether that includes removing date autoformatting is unknown. The two issues are often mistakenly conflated. dm (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You can delink dates, just not edit with the primary purpose of delinking dates: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Question about date delinking injunction --NE2 08:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I would carefully read the "conciously" and "edit at a rate consistent with that" in that particular reply if you're using AWB or some other tool. Look, do what you want, I was just trying to help people be aware of this. Fixing the infoboxes is touching a lot of files which means its best to avoid controversy, not look for it. This has nothing to do with a position on the issue. IMHO dm (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

changeover issue: maps will appear

I forgot about the fact that replacing NRHP infobox by the NRHP2 code will cause perhaps thousands of articles to change, by displaying maps where there was an image but no map, or dropping maps where there is one. In traditional infobox, a map appears if there are coordinates and there is no photo. In NRHP2, a map appears if there are coordinates and the locmapin field is non-empty. So, some traditional ones with coordinates, no image, and no locmapin specified, which currently show a USA map, will lose that map in pending rollout. Also, traditional ones with an image, coordinates, and locmapin specified will gain a map in pending rollout. Will this be a problem? It will change the appearance of articles. I wonder if we should visit all the existing NRHP articles that have coordinates, and make more considered decisions about whether to change the appearance. Or, perhaps post a temporary notice, for a couple months after, to editors via the WikiProject NRHP template on the Talk pages. doncram (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Crap, I forgot about that. Meh, I don't think a new map appearing on articles that didn't have maps before would be a bad thing (actually might be a good thing), but losing a map wouldn't be helpful in my opinion. I haven't looked at the code, but are you sure infobox nrhp forces the USA map if locmapin isn't specified? Through a little code reworking, I can make it so that stating coordinates would cause the map to show up, regardless of locmapin (default to USA map). I don't really think this would be the best way to go, though, because all the documentation talks about using locmapin to display the map (or leaving it blank to hide it) and even specifically states that coordinates can be added without displaying the map (which was requested when I was building nrhp2) in case the editor wanted to show coordinates and image, but no map (like the traditional nrhp infobox). I think the current system makes the most sense because the parameter that controls whether the map is displayed actually has the word "map" in it; using coordinates to display the map would be less intuitive. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could go through this page much like we did "What links to infobox nrhp2" and add locmapin parameters (which I have been doing lately). There are less than 500, so it shouldn't take that long. I answered my own question above: Infobox nrhp DOES force the USA map, but I think the new method of displaying the map is much more intuitive and allows the editor more control. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, very good, there are relatively few pages that link to the USA map. Since there are so few, do let's go through those and make judgments for the NRHP ones. For each one, it is an editorial judgment if they should get a hardcoded locmapin=usa to preserve their current display of USA map, or if they should get no map by a blank locmapin, or if they should get a different map (as often the state map would be more suitable). Perhaps for some national parks and other very prominent places known outside the US, it is suitable to keep the USA map. I'll set up a worklist for AWB users (or anyone else who'd like to help) covering these, at a new section within the same worklist area linked above. And yes, the new infobox code is much more editor-friendly, allowing choice of display or not, via the locmapin parameter, which is fine. About the cases where a map will now appear, when it did not previously because there was an image, I think now that is okay. The previous editors did not have the option previously to display both a map and image, and now if they notice a change they can just see how it looks, and it will be possible for them to choose to suppress the map display if they like. doncram (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that. There are not too many pages linking to the USA map to be reviewed, if some others would help! Help is needed reviewing 300 or so of NRHP's oldest articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP2 February 2009 merger worklist#Articles linking to USA map. Many of these are old NRHP pages with NRHP infoboxes created before the locmapin= option became available or was included in Elkman's infobox generator. These usually should be changed to show locmapin=State. Some of the internationally known sites, however, should be changed to show locmapin=USA, to retain the US map. Few should be left with no locmapin set, which would cause a USA map to disappear upon implmentation of the NRHP2->NRHP conversion.
I will do some. I used Elkman's infobox generator to add lat and long to some boxes without them on the first pass through of nrhp2 infoboxes. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ruhrfisch and Dtbohrer and Dudemanfellabra for stepping up and fixing a bunch of these, each. It was noted that a couple hundred were Ohio NRHP articles created by a bot (run by User:Paultyng in July 2007), which could be revised using AWB. All done now. doncram (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

small issue to be addressed after changeover

It's been noted that use of "designated=" on many of the 2,400 NHL articles nation-wide, is inconsistent syntax altho currently still supported in NRHP2. Since it is inconsistent and could be misleading, I think it should be fixed and can do the fixing easily enough using AWB after rollout. I tested fixing it in AL, AR, AK articles. But fixing it before rollout, though, creates 3 times as much work: it requires finding the articles, changing designated= to designated_nrhp_type= and changing NRHP to NRHP2, and then requires finding the articles again after rollout and changing NRHP2 to NRHP. So let's leave this till after.

message for WikiProject NRHP Talk page template

I think putting a message in the wp:NRHP Talk page template for 2 months time, say, after the rollout, would be polite and helpful. Something like:

In February 2009, NRHP infobox programming has changed to allow editors to control map display and otherwise, and in this article the NRHP infobox may now show a new map. Blank the locmapin field to suppress map display. See _____ for all documentation.

This can be added after the infobox code is switched over. I think we're ready to switch it over. Unless someone speaks up right away, dudemenfellabra i think u should go ahead. doncram (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Code is now copied over. We can begin to change all infobox nrhp2 pages to regular infobox nrhp. Should we do as we did above and go through with AWB, or should we try to get a bot to do the work for us? I also think we need to delete Template:Infobox nrhp3, since it's no longer necessary (though we should copy its code to nrhp2, and use that as a test page for updates to nrhp). We can also probably delete many if not all of the subpages of Infobox nrhp (found here). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Great, nice job persisting with this over many months, if not yet a year. The fact that the implementation involves switching over 1500 articles already using NRHP2 is evidence that the upgrade features are valuable. Thanks, dudemanfellabra!
About a message for the WikiProject NRHP template of all Talk pages, please see draft at: Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Feb2009. Only the "February 2009 update" section is different. Any wording improvements would be appreciated. Later today I'll request it be changed over, at Template talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places.
About the bot or AWB switchover. Does anyone here know how to get a bot requested / done? That could be easier, perhaps, but i only know how to do the AWB-type changes.
About cleanup of the old nrhp2 and nrhp3 pages, I think you could go ahead and blank those, though leaving them in place for their history and for us to use in testing new revisions to the template. Next up, perhaps: new fields to allow for better treatment of contributing properties, setting off name of HD to which they contribute and otherwise. doncram (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Can an admin help update the protected page, see Template talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places? There seems to be no admin responding. doncram (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Little help, please? doncram (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This is why these templates shouldn't be protected in the first place. It means that only admins are able to do certain content-related things. --NE2 07:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons cat

I created a Commons cat for historic district contributing properties, in case ya'll want to use it for related images. APK How you durrin? 16:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fort Durham location

Please see Talk:Fort Durham and the linked citation in the founding/location section...what proof does the NRHP have that the archaeological site they've dubbed is indeed Fort Durham? By the sound of it, the fort was not in what is now Alaska, but 50 miles upriver....Skookum1 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I responded there and Skookum1 seemed happy with my response. Sometimes when people post a question or whatever here they are suitably happy to get any reasonable response. Other times people remind me of students nowadays (let me just paint a broad indictment) who get all demanding with an overblown sense of entitlement, that they should get credit or whatever. :) doncram (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wayside Inn Historic District

This one liner with infobox needs to be merged into the much older and better article on Wayside Inn. The two are really the same. The Wayside Inn article does need some expansion, though. For example, the Martha Mary Chapel deserves more attention. In my youth I attended many weddings there with receptions following in the second floor ballroom of the inn. clariosophic (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in the District of Columbia Help needed

Someone recently replaced this list with a raw table but the hard work of making necessary corrections to integrate the old list into it was not done. The old list was relegated to the talk page. I have moved it back to the main page because the table as its stands is seriously FLAWED. Help is needed to get the table up to where it should be. I can do some of it but not all of it. clariosophic (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I am that someone. I realize it needs to be split up. See Philadelphia for an example. A likely split could be in roughly 100 item subsections: A-C, D-H, I-N, O-S, and T-Z. Some items need to be shifted (2000 Block Of Eye Street, NW would move to "T" two-thousand block, etc.)--Marcbela (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The Philadelphia lists are in process of being changed from alphabetical to geographical (i.e. Northwest Philly, South Philly etc.) divisions. Baltimore was also recently split into geographical divisions. Is there a reason why DC couldn't do the same? It is official divided into 4 quadrants. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 15:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Mostly all of the listings in D.C. are in "Northwest". I don't know how the split would be done.--Marcbela (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Marcbela is correct. For instance, Southwest DC probably has 1/10th the number of NRHPs as Northwest. I have images for about 75% of the listings, but I don't think I'll add anymore until the list is split. The images will only make the 171 kb grow. APK ain't the baby daddy 15:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
What about splitting up some of NW quadrant into the neighborhoods that happen to have a large number of listings? --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 15:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
That may work, although neighborhood borders vary depending on who you ask. APK ain't the baby daddy 15:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Splitting up the list alphabetically would be easiest, but may not be particularily meaningful to someone looking for a particular property listed.--Marcbela (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The list is looking good right now, thanks to Doncram's efforts. Length is an issue, though, although removing the "description here" entries and replacing all the [[Washington, D.C.|Washington]] entries with quadrants like "NW" has greatly reduced the length.
I don't particularly like the idea of dividing it by quadrant, as some of the properties of greatest interest to users unfamiliar with the city layout (i.e., the Capitol, the National Mall, and many related landmarks) happen to lie on or very near the dividing lines between the quadrants.
One possibility for splitting it without reducing its utility for users would be to separate the federal government properties from the nonfederal properties. --Orlady (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
What about keeping quadrants for everything outside the "mall", which although not one of the quadrants, would break things up better IMHO. dm (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
A "National Mall" category has possibilities. However, its boundaries also are a bit ambiguous. For example, would you include all properties on the north side of Independence Ave. in "Mall," but ones on the south side in "SW", or would you draw the line so that all buildings facing Independence are in SW?
I think that a "Federal properties" grouping would be more effective at breaking up the article than the quadrants would be. I estimate that it would be larger than any of the groups for the NE, SE, and SW quadrants, but smaller than the NW quadrant. How about 5 categories: "Federal properties" (to include Smithsonian, federal monuments, federal government administration buildings, military properties, Rock Creek Park, and other properties managed by federal agencies) and by-quadrant categories for the non-federal listings? The "Federal" category would take big chunks out of NW and SW, with the positive effect of making NW less unwieldy and the undesirable effect of leaving SW very small (this is largely because the quadrant itself is very small). A few listings would span quadrant boundaries (such as the Capitol Hill historic district), but that kind of problem is pretty much inevitable. --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] What about going by wards? There are eight wards, and if 1-3 and 5-8 have anything as good as this Ward 4 map, we could easily divide the distrct geographically. Nyttend (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a valuable suggestion, Nyttend, but mostly because it makes the quadrant suggestion look really good by comparison. Wards are unfamiliar to anyone except the voting residents of D.C. (and recall that a large fraction of the people in D.C. are transient -- people who work there but don't live there, politicians, visitors, interns and short-term employees, etc.). The ward boundaries are drawn in order to divide populations equitably, so they may not follow well-recognized boundaries (for example, both Georgetown and DuPont Circle are split between wards), and they are redrawn every 10 years. I've rummaged around the DC government website, and that Ward 4 map is the only good map I could locate.
In contrast, quadrant boundaries are clearly defined and permanent, and most street addresses include the quadrant as part of the street address. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
So wards are strictly election districts? Sounds altogether reasonable not to use them, then; I understand that we don't classify state geography by US representative districts. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] The quadrant suggestion seems to be the best one so far. Northwest listings may need to be split up, but we'll have a better idea once the quadrant articles are completed. On a separate note, can someone tell me what DR means? The infobox generator uses that abbreviation when describing the following nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com listings:

Lastly, I thought the Postal Square Building (former City Post Office) and GPO were NRHPs? I remember reading somewhere (or else I wouldn't have put it on my NRHP photo to-do list) that the Postal Square Building was added on June 16, 1983. I don't have a date written down for the GPO. I might have been drinking Jägerbombs when adding those two building on my list. hardy-har-har APK How you durrin? 20:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, the Postal Square Building is the largest "historic building" where the General Services Administration leases space.[1] --Orlady (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI: CfD on some NRHP categories

Following up on a discussion that is now archived to Archive 22, I started CfD discussions for a few NRHP categories, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 23. (There are more discussions to be started, but I ran out of steam -- and neglected to post this notification when I should have.) Please go to the CfD page to participate. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Recently vacated building

Schenley High School is on the list for Pittsburgh. In June 2008, the high school was relocated to a different building. Therefore, the High School no longer refers to that specific building. How should this be addressed? The building is currently vacant but likely to be renovated and used for another purpose. I created Schenley High School building and redirected it for now, but could use some other thoughts? Grsz11 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The name given to the listing by NRHP should generally be kept. See B.M.C. Durfee High School in Fall River, Massachusetts. This building was replaced by a new high school of the same name in 1978, and is now used as a courthouse. Yet, the article is still what was given by the NRHP when it was first listed. The new school has been given the red link B.M.C. Durfee High School (present).--Marcbela (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Using "present" is not my favorite, as the term is relative. Can we use "former" or the street address instead, like f'instance, with apologies to The Simpsons, "High School (123 Fake Street)"? Einbierbitte (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_23&oldid=1140166059"