Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 27

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

Proposed merger: Brown Building of Science and Triangle Shirtwaist Factory

The Brown Building of Science is the same exact building as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. The Brown Building article provides no new information other than the University banner at the bottom. I propose this article be redirected to Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire.--Marcbela (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that Brown Building could be expanded to include details that don't relate to the fire. Plus the factory only occupied the top three floors. Surely there is more about this building than the fire. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that the building should be separate from the incident, with each linking to each other. The listings should direct to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, which is how it's listed on the NRHP. Brown Building of Science = Triangle Shirtwaist Factory though.--Marcbela (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's an example: Texas School Book Depository (building) does not link to JFK Assassination (event).--Marcbela (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not following. What's the point of the example? And, i just added a link to the JFK assassination to its lede, so may not be an example for you any longer. doncram (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
My point is that the Brown Building of Science is a redundant, useless article that provides no additional information. There should be one article for Triangle Shirtwaist Factory (which is now the NRHP listing is noted), and a separate article for the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, which has far reaching implications and information beyond that of the building (labor laws, etc.).--Marcbela (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
What about redirecting Triangle Shirtwaist Factory to Brown Building of Science and move anything that doesn't relate to the fire (like the infobox) over to Brown Building, as well add info that wouldn't make sense in an article about a fire like the building's architectural style or more about the building after the fire. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 01:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This is what I was going to suggest as well. dm (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, I edited it, see what you think dm (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger:Lost City Museum and Boulder Dam Park Museum

Same building - different names Also the NPS has scanned and uploaded the PDF of the documentation for this property. Einbierbitte (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

11 most endangered historic sites

News articles:[1] [2] [3] [4]

  1. ^ Deb Krajnak. "11 sites make new list of 'endangered historic places'". CNN.com /US.
  2. ^ Steve Vogel (April 28, 2009). "Preservation Group Lists 11 Sites in Need". Wall Street Journal.
  3. ^ Robin Pogrebin (April 27, 2009). "Preservation Group Lists Most Endangered Places". New York Times.
  4. ^ Tom Wharton (April 27, 2009). "A piece of atomic history: Building housed the bomber that dropped first atomic bomb". The Salt Lake Tribune.

The 11 sites:

Perhaps these could be identified / fixed up a bit now. doncram (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NRHP listings in Arkansas

If anyone's looking for a task to take on, the Arkansas articles could really use some attention. NRHP listings in Arkansas, counties A–C & NRHP listings in Arkansas, counties D–J are both around 175k. They take forever to open (at least on my DSL connection) and they time-out whenever I try to save even a simple dab edit to a single listing (I assume because of their size). I'd take it on, but I'm trying to work my way through North Carolina right now. --sanfranman59 (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Did a quick split, so now there are NRHP listings in Arkansas, counties C & NRHP listings in Arkansas, counties H–J. It's a stopgap, but at least the now 4 pages are each below 100k, which should help some. --Ebyabe (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

University of Oklahoma GAR

University of Oklahoma has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a bit about the Bizzell Memorial Library, a National Historic Landmark designated for its association with racial segregation at the graduate school level and a U.S. supreme court case overturning it. More help developing its treatment in the U of Oklahoma article would be appreciated, too. I would rather the U of O article address it, rather than omit it for its negative connotations about the school. doncram (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Another cool historic district name

At least in terms of HDs named after thoroughfares: Indian Brook Road Historic District. I doubt there's any other one in the US. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The best Florida ones, imho, are Dixie Highway-Hastings, Espanola and Bunnell Road, First American Road in Florida, Florida State Road No. 1 and the Overseas Highway. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sites that have moved

What should we do with the county/state lists when a site changes locations? The USS Hoga is listed in the NRIS as in Oakland. But it was transferred to the Arkansas Inland Maritime Museum in 2005 and was physically moved to North Little Rock from California in either 2007 or 2008. In fact, it wasn't even located in Oakland when it was moved to Arkansas. It had been up in Suisun Bay off of Benicia, CA (Solano County) as part of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet for a number of years. It seems to me that it should be removed from the main Alameda County, CA list and added to the Pulaski County, AR list. Some of us have taken to adding a separate table to the county/state list articles for sites that have been removed from the Register. I've also seen tables with sites grayed out if they've been removed from the NRHP. We could do the same type of thing for sites that have moved and include some details about the move in the description column (but I think we should standardize this ... either have a separate table (my personal preference) or gray out sites in the main table). I know we had a discussion about this topic a while back, but I just spent about 15 minutes combing through our archives and couldn't find it (is there a way to do a text search of the archives?). Thoughts? --sanfranman59 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered that the MV Santa Rosa is also no longer in Oakland. It's moored at Pier 3 here in San Francisco. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone out there? --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll bite. If a site is physically moved, I think that it should be left in list for where it was originally listed (with a note that it was moved) unless the NPS formally delists it and relists it at its new location. If the site was formally delisted, then a separate table for the delisting would be warranted (also with a note pointing towards the new location). Among other things, there is a rather odd example of a site that was moved in Pennsylvania, an electric locomotive was listed in Strasburg in Lancaster County but was phsyically moved to Harrisburg in Dauphin County and relisted, so now it is listed twice (two names, two ref numbers, one locomotive). --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 04:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, my slightly different take is that if a ship or other NRHP has been moved, we move its main NRHP-list table coverage immediately (not waiting for NPS to catch up), but we still leave it covered in a former listings table at the bottom of the NRHP list-article. There are one or two ship ones covered this way in List of NHLs in NY, including for one ship that AFAIK never arrived in NY although it still shows as being in NY in its NPS NHL webpage. And there are other NHL ship pages covered this way, including for a steamboat moved from Illinois to Michigan, i think. It would be good to record these at wp:NRIS info issues and/or wp:NHL info issues and report them to the NPS. doncram (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
What doncram suggests is what I did for the Hoga and the Santa Rosa. I put them both in a separate table below the main list on the NRHP listings in Alameda County page and added them to the Arkansas and San Francisco lists. This is contrary to what DB suggests. Other opinions? --sanfranman59 (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
My rationale is that by moving a listing to a different list based on its current location, regardless of any action or inaction on the part of the NPS, would potentially be a form of WP:OR. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 23:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Finding newspaper articles or other sources that indicate the current location of a NRHP listed ship or locomotive is not Original Research. We are always balancing contradictory information and that can be reflected in the article without running afoul of OR. dm (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and we are allowed to use photographic evidence, which is an explicit exception to the prohibition of OR in wikipedia. OR in the form of a photo we take of a ship being in another place is allowed, like Sanfranman59's photos. By the way, I was rather convinced that USCGC Fir (WLM-212) was not in New York City when a) a California resident who first edited its location in its article explained that he drove by it on his commute every day, b) he provide a Google Map satellite view link that showed the ship in California where he said it was, and c) we found auction site info that the ship was for sale in California (with many photos including of the ship name on the side). I put references to b and c into the article. doncram (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)For both of the ships I refer to in my original message, I provide sources documenting that they were moved from Oakland. I think this should satisfy concerns about OR, no DB? I'm not sure about using the photos as evidence of a move. It's virtually impossible to identify with certainty the location of the photo or to verify when it was taken. --sanfranman59 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My concerns about OR are satisfied. However, I have been thinking about how to detail the moves in the lists. What if the site that was relocated was kept in the original list and also added to the list for its new location, with no change in color or a separate table, but with a note detailing the move and pointing to its new location. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 00:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's not moved to a separate Formerly Listed section/table, then it throws off the count for NRHP listings in the county list-article. Leaving it in would require elaborate explanations at the state-wide total. It would require a new adjustment to reconcile county totals, at the state level and at the national level, akin but different than the current duplications footnotes in state and national lists. My view is that the ship is not in the county any longer, so should not be in the main table. You can/should leave the NRHP blue color for the ship, for its full entry in the Formerly Listed section, assuming it is still NRHP-listed, however. My 2 pence. doncram (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

NRHP listings in Puerto Rico

National Register of Historic Places listings in Puerto Rico is one of few remaining states/territories to be table-ized (for appearance, and in order for non-experts to be able to add photos, etc.). It looks like there are roughly 300 listings in PR, currently organized by county. The only discussion, from 2006, is User:Smylere Snape's complaint that the county organization "is not used in Puerto Rico. Perhaps this is the grouping made by the Register? It makes no sense. Perhaps we can divide the list by Senatorial district: San Juan, Bayamón, Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce, Guayama, Humacao and Carolina?". Offhand, that sounds reasonable to me. But are senatorial districts the same as islands? By the way, The Hawaii NRHP list got re-organized from by-county to by-island, to respond to local editors' preferences, and that seems to have worked out well. It's wide open if anyone would like to start re-organizing it. doncram (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What about by municipality? --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 00:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, just getting tables by county or any other way, first, is not so easy. I don't think Elkman's table generator allows selection of non-state areas, or at least i can't figure out how to get a table for PR. It's not impossible to hand-build a table, but it sure is nice to have the table-generator output to work with. :) doncram (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The NPS uses municipality for Puerto Rico. See the weekly update for October 3, 2008 for an example. Einbierbitte (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps clarify that counties are not involved. I think the list-article should group the 78 municipalities together into the 8 districts named at Senate of Puerto Rico#Rules and arrangements, rather than presenting in alphabetical order of the municipalities. That would allow the list-article to be split into a couple pages of geographical chunks. But the districts listed there seem to wikilink to municipalities having the same name, not to articles defining the districts.... doncram (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I find the definitions of the 8 districts in the Puerto Rico constitution PDF document linked from top of the Puerto Rico Senate webpage (and this is a direct link to the PDF ). But, it's not so simple, some of the municipalities are split across districts. Perhaps further complications should be considered, if anyone is interested, at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Puerto Rico. Thanks! doncram (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Organization by municipality settling out okay. Interesting places, including several Prairie School buildings from 1918-1920 such as Casa Roig. For PR, it seems to me to be best to create stubs for all places, up front, due to naming questions for places. In some cases wikipedia editors have over-ridden NRHP names in English in favor of Spanish; in others wikipedia editors have over-ridden Spanish names in NRHP listing in favor of English. Help creating stub articles needed. :) doncram (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Help at NRHP New Mexico Page?

National Register of Historic Places listings in New Mexico has a batch of "Expression error: Unexpected < operator" messages. Could a knowledgeable person fix these? I haven't a clue :-[ TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem appears to be multiple cases of badly formed coordinates, e.g. {{coord|35||14|N|104|26|17|W|name=Abandoned Route 66-Cuervo to NM 156}} which is missing the "minutes" value for latitude out of degrees-minutes-seconds format. I'm not immediately seeing in which edit(s) the coordinates values were changed, but it was fairly recently, before AlanS's edit, and after Marcbela's last edit....hmm, it was a search-and-replace operation, replacing "|0" by "|" to improve date presentation appearance so May 2 rather than May 02 will show, etc., but accidentally affecting coordinates, too. It implemented in this diff. Hey, Nyttend, can u go back and fix the coords u messed up by that otherwise good change? :) Or, Tillman, you can just go and fix those. Hope this is helpful. doncram (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I have noticed a need for an Infobox for State Parks. I know not all State Parks are NRHP but I couldn't find any project which dealt with State Parks exclusively. I did find Template:Infobox_Park which is a good start but could use some expansion to cover pertinent State Park fields, such as admission, hours/days/months of operation, website etc... Can someone here direct me to the best methodology to tackle this? Thanks EraserGirl (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

State parks can be covered by WikiProject Protected areas (shortcut wp:PAREAS). Its protected areas infobox: {{Infobox Protected area}} is a good option probably. doncram (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks I looked them over but decided that was overkill, but i will toss it at them. EraserGirl (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Stubs to Start Class

I am filling in data on some of the NRHP as I go, and when i get more data on each I will expand them. Once I flesh them out can i change them from Stub to Start Class myself or do I need to request an evaluation as I would with a higher classification? Seems moving from Stub to Start shouldn't be that big of a deal, since it's not a substantive change, just making it better than nothing. Cases in point Henry C. Nevins Home for Aged and Incurables, Tenney Castle Gatehouse, Double-arch Sandstone Bridge. EraserGirl (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally self-evaluate stubs and starts, but nothing higher. The criteria for the two lowest categories are reasonably obvious: a stub speaks for itself, while a start has a couple of references and more than a couple of paragraphs. Beyond that, it's best to leave evaluation to another party. I've been going back and fleshing out stubs I started last year myself with the aim of making them at least starts. Acroterion (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

contributing properties

Changes afoot to improve NRHP infobox treatment of contributing properties. I am hoping Dudemanfellabra's programming will allow for clear separation in the infobox between characteristics of a contributing property vs. characteristics of its parent NRHP-listed property or district. Some questions coming up could use wider input and examples are needed. Please give input, examples here or at Template talk:infobox nrhp#contributing property presentation change needed. Thanks! doncram (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

St. Philip's Church in the Highlands

That article features a lengthy history of the parish and the church, but actually there is almost nothing about the buildings' architecture. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing linkage from settlement articles

Lately I have translated some articles concerning NHRPs in Poughkeepsie into the German Wikipedia. Hence I realized the issue that NRHPs and NHL are rather not mentioned in articles. In the case of Poughkeepsie (city), New York it are f.ex. the Poughkeepsie Journal Building and Morse's Locust Grove mentioned but not linked. Without checking further I guess that maybe some more propertys are mentioned but not linked as well. (And here the city article isn't a stub or some of these bot-created articles which lack any information outside census data.) Even the National Register of Historic Places listings in Poughkeepsie, New York isn't linked. It seems to be rather common than an exception as I looked into some other DYK articles I translated recently and realized that very seldom an article is linked from the settlement's article the property is located in. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I had trouble for a moment understanding what you mean. Funny, the Missing Link fossil in Germany is in the world-wide news now. But, yes, the NRHP articles are often not wikilinked from articles about the cities, towns, hamlets or other settlements. Also the county-level NRHP list-articles (or their sections in a state-wide list) are usually not linked from the county articles. Going through and setting up such links could be a good topic for a big cleanup drive. Or, I've been wondering, perhaps we could set up a local coordinators system, with or without elections like wp:MILHIST runs, and have this be one responsibility for the coordinators in each state. doncram (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. Before this project started and I was creating the Florida NRHP stubs, I'd often get "warnings" b/c they were orphan articles. So I started adding them to some of the appropriate town/city articles, which seemed to help. Apopka, Eustis and Quincy are examples. The address restricted ones could be added to the counties, perhaps. The cities with large numbers of NRHP would be more problematic, but I'm sure we can figure something out. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:IHS color

Template:IHS color has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. doncram (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's me nominating it for deletion. Also, I further suggest deleting (to be implemented by redirecting) 3 other color templates among the types of NRHP sites listed with colors at wp:NRHP colors legend: NBP color, NBS color, NHR color. To be discussed at the TFD, specifically at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 21#Template:IHS color. doncram (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Just visiting from the German WP time to time I wonder: Why don't you use a one template fits all concept like de:Vorlage:NRHP does? --Matthiasb (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
(Ha.. looks like a bunch of people support the idea of one central template, huh? ) --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I meant the TFD proposal to be about eliminating 4 colors and their usage everywhere, and hence eliminating the 4 separate color templates. If we had just one template handling them all, then the TFD would be about dropping 4 items from that one template. Hmm, the coding that you used there in the German wikipedia looks like a model for what User:Dudemanfellabra is trying to do now to make a universal historic sites infobox, under active development and discussion at wt:HSITES. I personally still see a role for keeping the short, simple-to-use, and simple-to-understand {{NRHP color}} and similar templates, although a combination template like yours could also be created (which I think is what Dudemanfellabra is doing). Dudemanfellabra, you should certainly take a look at Matthiasb's mediawiki code, too, as perhaps his way of doing it has some advantages. Yes, seems like several great minds are running in the same channels. Too bad my mind shut off with contemplation of the now somewhat complex programming. :) doncram (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually I am even trying to use that German template for the infobox we don't have there, but still have some trouble. There is a infobox sandbox-version as well as this experimental ground. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal review

I put in a request to review our portal, to possibly get it to Featured status. The discussion starts here. Thanks, all! --Ebyabe (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Biographies?

Does this project focus on NRHP-related biograhies? I just saw the project tag on Talk:Hart Wood and I thought to replace it with a biography tag instead. But, I thought I would ask first. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't think it's a bad thing. There is a tendency to focus on the listings themselves, but people significantly involved in their creation qualify for inclusion in our project, imho. --Ebyabe (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Frank Lloyd Wright, for example. --Ebyabe (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought that might be the case. I'm glad I didn't remove it! :) Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

NRHP maps

Hey all,

I have been tooling around with the NRHP state count numbers, and have put together a trial map that may be useful. file:NRHP Alabama Map.svg. If you all think maps like these would be useful, let me know, and I'll work on other states as well. Also taking comments or adjustment suggestions. I have already put one up on the Texas page, but that map needs retooling. Enjoy! 25or6to4 (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it but there is an awful lot of white space around the state boundaries. I think it would also help to give the color key somewhere (in the map or text). Finally I would add as date for the data used and the data source. Thanks for doing this, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed the Texas map goes from yellow to blue, which just look odd and makes me think of a voting democrats v. republicans map. Maybe you could go white-yellow-orange-red-purplish red instead? Circeus (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the Texas map was my first try, and wouldn't cooperate too well. I personally like the yellow to red color scheme. Maybe white for counties with zero sites? I will add the date and data source into the accompanying text. Have completed an Alaska one with key for interest. file:NRHP Alaska Map.svg 25or6to4 (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, are you using an existing map as a base and just modifying the colors or are you drawing each map from scratch? --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 17:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Map is GIS data from U.S. Census bureau, with county counts manually entered. Then use GIS to add colors. 25or6to4 (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, the AL and AK examples are both very interesting. In terms of honesty in visual presentation of data, though, wouldn't it be better for the color shades to convey density of NRHP listings. E.g., use color to indicate number of NRHP listings per square mile of area in the given county. The actual number of NRHP sites could be stated, as already done. That way, you'd see that the big Alaska area colored a relatively dark shade because it has a high number of sites, would more properly display as a very low-density area, and you'd still be able to read how many sites are in that big area. I am very much influenced by having read Edward Tufte's books on display of visual information, by the way. doncram (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Alabama map showing density when linked here

(undent)I agree with the density map. I wasn't sure how to accomplish this in ArcGIS, but was able to work through it. I have uploaded a new version of the Alabama map using density per square mile. I left the key on the map for now but can be rearranged. 25or6to4 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, very good, the Alabama map looks great. Since the densities are such small fractions when expressed in per mile basis, perhaps reporting as # of NRHPs per 1000 sq miles would be more understandable? To get, say, 7.2 NRHPs per 1000 sq mi, rather than .0072 per sq mile, which is hard for a reader to interpret. Actually, perhaps best would be to report per 100 sq miles, because 100 sq. miles is easy to understand as a 10x10 area. So .72 per 100 sq miles, i can understand that as .72 NRHPs in a 10x10 area, and i think that is better. Anyhow, revised further or not, the density map is really great. Glad you went to the extra trouble to get and combine in the county area information! doncram (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Hey, i think the switch to density did change colorings. I recall the bottom 2 left counties, Mobile and Baldwin, were the most darkly colored before, and i was thinking, hmm, yes of course being on the coast means lots of historic sites. But now it is clear that Mobile is more historic than Baldwin, and I am interpreting yes of course we all know that Mobile was important historically but Baldwin is probably a sprawling suburb that was relatively unpopulated before....
Hmm, note also that Mobile Bay is colored in solidly, not visible, comparing to map at List of counties in Alabama. This would be extra work, but is it possible to put in a dotted line or something to show the bay? Just for this one state. Not important. doncram (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the census county maps include the county portions that are over water as well. I added a water shapefile for the 2 coastal counties, but the map will still compute density including the marine regions as well. I also adjusted the scale. I will go ahead and create for the rest of the states now, following these guidelines. Thanks for the input! 25or6to4 (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Great. The water area can include NRHP-listed lighthouses and shipwrecks, too. Or sunken forts, like the National Historic Landmark ones subsiding into the water in Louisiana's Mississippi delta. So the water area is definitely relevant in computing NRHP densities. doncram (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

small county list-articles

There are several states with every county broken out into a separate list-article, now including List of RHPs in OK and List of RHPs in SD (thanks, Ebyabe, for table-izing those!). This includes separate list-articles for counties with very few NRHP listings, even just one listing. I expect that other editors will get around to wanting to merge/redirect them into articles about the counties instead, and it would be hard to argue against that. Also it is just hard to monitor all those, and the Google or LiveSearch map links are pretty uninteresting.

I assume those should be merged into larger geographical area list-articles, with area names and boundaries established by consultation with state wikiprojects. That process worked out well in sorting out how to divide up Puerto Rico recently. List of RHPs in PR is divided into six regional areas, actually in three wikipedia articles with two areas in each one. The six regional areas correspond fairly closely to a division of PR into tourist regions by some private website; that turned out to be the best-seeming option. A guideline should be to keep the number of NRHPs in one article below 200, because the LiveSearch maps only display the first 200. That's not obvious, there is no notice of a 200 limit. But the LiveSearch maps are generated on the fly and hence are always available, while the Google maps often do not display unless access to them has been tried multiple times in previous days. doncram (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Another concern is that local editors may want to take over NRHP list-articles and broaden them to include other local historic sites. Some discussion about Historic places in Framingham, Massachusetts brings this to mind for me. If an NRHP list-article is really short, it is hard to argue against the article getting other stuff added. In such cases, I'd rather recombine the NRHPs into bigger area list articles of groups of counties. And sure, let locals make a historic sites list-article covering all types of historic sites in any smaller area, including NRHPs and non-NRHPs. doncram (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
There should be considerably less than 200 in an article. Mostly for article size, the color templates and photos can make the pages go way over 100k. I'd recommend looking at that factor, maybe try not to exceed 50k. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Lubbock High School

Lubbock High School has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Nikki♥311 21:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Boundary increase across a state line?

Last February, the Jesse Whitesell House in Fulton County, Kentucky had a boundary increase, called the "Jesse Whitesell Farm (Boundary Increase)", listed in Obion County, Tennessee. This isn't as odd as it may sound, because the house lies along a road that straddles the state line: it's on the northern side, and the "Farm" is on the southern side. My question: as we generally don't count boundary increases as separate listings in the tables, should we include this in the duplicates line at List of RHPs? Or because they have different names, and because without the words "Boundary Increase" we wouldn't think it an increase, should we just treat them as separate historic districts for the purposes of the duplicates line? Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds better to me to just have one Jesse Whitesell House article. Its infobox's location info and date fields should be edited to cover the boundary increase. And both the Kentucky and Tennessee county-list-article entries should be edited so their locations and date fields cover the original + boundary increase information. In state list-articles that i've been working on, I've been addressing boundary increases that way. It's rather laborious to do but I think it is best to fully describe the location and relevant dates for any historic district that has been increased that way. The fact this one grows to cross state lines doesn't change anything signficant, to my mind. doncram (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
That's what I'm doing. The Obion County list now links the boundary increase to the house, and I'm adding the house to the duplicates section of the nationwide NRHP list. Thanks for advice! Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Windmills

There are quite a few windmill articles that fall under this WP. Would it be beneficial to add {{Infobox Windmill}} to these articles or not? Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Boyd's Windmill
If there's enough info for an NRHP-listed windmill to fill out a good {{Infobox Windmill}}, by all means you or any other editor should go ahead. The places were windmills first and have been only secondarily given NRHP status. You could just add a windmill infobox, inserted before an NRHP infobox if there is one. It would be good then, later, to combine the two infoboxes, i.e. to add into the windmill infobox, a section for the NRHP information. This has been done in combo infoboxes for ships, lighthouses and railroad stations which are also NRHPs. Examples at Template:Infobox nrhp/testcases and general documentation at {{Infobox nrhp}}. I don't know of any example combo windmill-NRHP infobox yet though, and don't know if there'd be any difficulty in making one. Is there a list of NRHP-listed windmills around, by the way? I think i helped develop one once. doncram (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A combined infobox would be a good idea. Call it Infobox NRHP Windmill. All parameters form the Infobox Windmill would need to be included, plus those desired from the NRHP template. BTW, I just use {{Coord}} to insert coordinates. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the NRHP infobox was refined to be very easily "embedded" into other infoboxes, so actually probably no revisions to either infobox will be necessary. When the NRHP infobox is embedded into a windmill one, it will just make sense not to fill out many of the NRHP fields that would otherwise be duplicative. Mjroots, can you create a windmill infobox for any one of the NRHP-listed ones, and then I or someone else here would be glad to make a combo example? Most of the U.S. windmills within List of windmills are probably NRHP-listed. There's not much info to work with in many of those articles in order to make a windmill infobox, but I'll add a NRHP application document as a reference to Beebe Windmill soon so that it would be a candidate for you. doncram (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added the infobox to Boyd's Windmill. The date of 1995 in the infobox is the date it was last moved. Windmills were often moved and this date is consistent with many other windmill articles where the mill has been moved. Its original location and building date are in the text. I've not filled in the winding details as I'm not sure how this mill was winded. I suspect an internal winch was used but am not certain. The details can be filled in once they can be verified. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, i am v. concerned about how the winching is done. Hope we can get that cleared up soon. :) About the combo infobox for Boyd's Windmill:  Done Mjroots, if you don't care for the Rhode Island map in the NRHP section, its display can be cancelled by blanking the locmapin= field. It was easy to follow the Lighthouses example in the sandbox for the NRHP infobox. Windmill example added there now too. Thanks to User:Dudemanfellabra for setting up the embedding to work so well, and for doing the extensive documentation!
Also, i found and added a long Historic American Engineering Record report on the Beebe Windmill, so perhaps that can be developed now too. Not sure what is "decorative" about this windmill vs. others, but it is apparently the only Long Island one of the decorative style, and is significant in other ways relating to its internal workings. The article was the shortest of stubs, and now there is plenty of info to write a decent article, perhaps we could do a DYK for it now? doncram (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The Beebe windmill is way too short for DYK atm. Although the 5x text expansion may have been met. Mjroots (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've had a go at expanding it, so it should qualify now. I couldn't get the infobox to embed, so have left them separate. Will let you decide on the hook if you nom it. Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
{{Windmills in the United States}} has been created and added to all articles in Category:Windmills in the United States. Mjroots (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Place listings in Syracuse peer review

I have put this list that I am working on up for peer review in preparation for trying for Featured List status. I'd appreciate some input, especially regarding referencing each summary. Two people whose views I very much respect (Doncram and Daniel Case) have differing views on the subject, and I'd like to see what other people think. Please check it out if you can. Lvklock (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Temporary category added to NRHP infobox

I've added a hidden category, Category:NRHP temporary tracking category, to the NRHP infobox, in order to be able to perform some CatScan tricks as part of my geocoordinate activities, in order to remove {{coord missing}} tags from protected-address entries. I will delete this category from the infobox when I've finished. -- The Anome (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Chestnut Lodge

Sad news. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 03:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Merchant Street Historic District

Joel Bradshaw has done some fine work on this article and is currently preparing a DYK. I'm a bit curious though, if this project considers the article a list or not, and where you draw the line between a list and a non-list. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this article a list. See Lyceum-The Circle Historic District for a similar article. Naming and describing the buildings in the district doesn't really constitute a list in my opinion.. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Likewise. List of RHPs in Oahu or any other list of separate NRHPs is a list-article, but a historic district is just one NRHP listing, by my view from this wikiproject. doncram (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Understood, although there is a fine line between the two. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's that fine of a line. From a purely bureaucratic point of view, a single Historic District is in a different category than a list of NHLs because the Historic District is a single listing on the NRHP. Moreover, a Historic District, even one consisting of disparate structures, ought to have a some cohesive historical theme. A good HD article will spend some ink describing the events or usages that unify the district, which, I think, is a key distinction between a Historic District and just a list. There is, of course, a fine line between whether or not the article successfully describes the unifying features of a district, but articles are grouped by attributes of the subject, not attributes of the article itself. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed completely. Viriditas (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

courthouses disambiguation using (City, State) vs. (State)

Map of the changing boundaries of the court Districts of Illinois

The disambiguation of courthouses is one of few areas within NRHP where disambiguation by (State) has often been used, while (City, State) is used more generally. These include Marshall County Courthouse, Jackson County Courthouse, and many others. The theory has been, I think, that there can be only one county courthouse in a county. That theory is disproved abundantly by many cases where there is an old, previous courthouse. It is also disproved by many cases where there are two official county seats in one county, which applies to about 10 counties in Missouri or Georgia or another southern state, and for counties in some other states.

Also, I personally think that the (City, State) format is better even when there is just one, because in the disambiguating parenthetical expression it tells you where the courthouse is, usually well enough. (There may be a few more cases (St. Louis?) where using the street address in (Street, City, State) format is needed.) Also, I dislike using just (City) or just (State) disambiguation for U.S. places, because it is "fragile" rather than robust; many persons have to go around changing a bunch of other wikipedia articles and everything linking to them, when a new courthouse or other place in the same state gains a wikipedia article. And then disambiguation pages are themselves messy, showing no clear pattern, being a mix of (State) and (City, State) type disambiguation.

So while i have been doing a lot of NRHP disambiguation, I have gradually come around to mostly making new courthouse disambiguation with (City, State) format names. There are now only about 15 courthouse disambiguation pages left to be created; there are probably 60-100 already created, covering 300-500 redlinks or bluelinks for courthouse articles.

To make a specific proposal, I guess I'd like to go back through all the courthouse names and move all existing articles from (State) to (City, State) format naming. Comments? doncram (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I cross-posted notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. doncram (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think that using (State) is fine for county courthouses because the ones that don't conform are the exception rather than the rule. Although, if we wanted to be really specific, why not "Marshall County Courthouse (Vander Horck Avenue, Britton, South Dakota, United States, North America, Earth)" or "Marshall County Courthouse (45°47'56.86"N, 97°45'15.15"W) and never have to worry about a similarly named article being created ever. Kidding of course, but couldn't resist the oppurtunty to use Reductio ad absurdum ;-) --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 00:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
My two cents is that it doesn't hurt to include the city name so long as the state-only name redirects there (if that's the only courthouse by that name in the state). bd2412 T 00:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've always supported using simply (State) because, as noted, it's very unusual for there to be more than one. In many cases where there are more than one, Washington County, Utah is a good example: the old one is (rather unimaginatively) "Old Washington County Courthouse". What's more, a large number of counties with multiple courthouses have both courthouses in the same community, so (City, State) wouldn't itself help. Dtbohrer's point is rather useful: we never include the address in the title of any NRHP listing unless it's part of the listing name or unless there are multiple places with the same name in a community, so why would we need to include the name of the community when there are almost no cases when it's possible for there to be multiple places of this name in a state? Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I stated a couple reasons above. Another reason is for consistency. Note there are only about 15 NRHP places named Smith House, with multiples in just two states, and only about 2 places named exactly "First Presbyterian Church and Manse", with no multiples in the same state, and so on, and we've chosen to use (City, State) disambiguation for them and pretty much all other NRHPs. I don't want to roll back our decisions everywhere else and I don't see why courthouses should be different. My guess is that about 10 percent of courthouse NRHPs or other wikipedia articles are in within-state pairs, which is a significant fraction, perhaps higher than the percentage of same-state NRHPs having name of format Lastname House. Honestly i don't really care too much about this, as no one probably should, but it happens that i have been spending a lot of time building up the disambiguation of NRHP places and overall it is my general feeling that (City, State) is better for courthouses. I don't care if there are some left at (State), except I think that it sets an example which helps other editors decide to go on change campaigns and causing more work (either to reverse what they do or to more fully consistently implement what they do, like by updating the disambiguation pages). Another reason is for simplicity in explaining to other dab page editors how U.S. places are disambiguated. Note that it is wp:MOSDAB policy that disambiguation pages should show the actual name of wikipedia articles, so changing (State) to (City, State) or the other way around would require changes in disambiguation pages. People even sometimes argue for (City) disambiguation, as one editor did for Saenger Theater, because each theatre in the list to disambiguate was in a different city but there were multiples in each of a couple states. It just seems simpler, for places in the U.S., to use (City, State), which generally works well. And, I am willing to do a change campaign on courthouses to achieve a wider, consistent, and easy-to-explain rule that will provide more stability and less maintenance. doncram (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
To further complicate, there are instances when multiple county courthouses still exist in the same city. They might be known by different names, or not. For example, Miami, Florida has three: Dade County Courthouse (Florida), Old U.S. Post Office and Courthouse (Miami, Florida) and U.S. Post Office and Courthouse (Miami, Florida), all listed on the Register. Otherwise, I agree, having city and state is probably a good idea, as indeed county seats can move over time. --Ebyabe (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm..., one, possibly two of those are federal courthouses, not county. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 03:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The cases where there are multiple courthouses in the same city don't bother me, because it is relevant within their articles to mention the other ones, at least in a See also section. The information required to make an exception in naming is very knowable and will usually be recorded and kept readily available. The general rule can be to use (City, State) disambiguation always, with exception only for these cases where adding "Street" also is needed. It is reasonable for an editor to know, and for all readers to be told about, the other ones in the same city especially when those would be mentioned in each article, but I think it is unreasonable for editors to be expected to know about all other places throughout the state or nation, when deciding how a place should be named. I think correct naming should be determinable based on knowing just about the one city in which a place is located. If (State) disambiguation is used, you would require everyone to always know more, to decide between (City, State) vs (State). (I grant that this problem is less for places named Some County Courthouse than for places named Lastname House, because the other candidate courthouses would usually be in just the county area, while the correctness of Lastname House (State) would require an editor to know about the wikipedia-notability of every possible other Lastname House candidate state-wide, which is harder.) doncram (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Is the newer one the "David W. Dyer Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse" (and if so shouldn't it be at that name)? In my experience, the popular fashion now is to name courthouses (federal, state, and county) after people. bd2412 T 00:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The last one of the three Ebyabe mentions are NRHP-listed in Dade County, Florida (Dade County Courthouse (Florida), Old U.S. Post Office and Courthouse (Miami, Florida) and U.S. Post Office and Courthouse (Miami, Florida), does indeed seem also to be named David W. Dyer Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse which is a redlink when I test but which I will make into a redirect right now. There is no problem confusing among these. The question I wanted input about was whether I could rename "Dade County Courthouse (Florida)" to "Dade County Courthouse (Miami, Florida)" and likewise change the other places named exactly "Dade County Courthouse" plus some disambiguating (City) or (State) parenthetical phrase extensions to use (City, State) consistently. Note I think all 20 or so places named exactly U.S. Post Office and Courthouse are given (City, State) disambiguating parenthetical extensions already, and (City, State) format is used with just about every other type of NRHP place covered in the now >1,250 pages covered in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles. doncram (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably in the minority here but as a general rule, I think the way to go about disambiguation is to use the simplest term as a disambiguator that will achieve uniqueness of a particular topic among other topics with the same name. In other words, to determine a good disambiguating term, look at all existing articles (or potential articles to the extend they are known but not yet created) that are most commonly known by a given name, then use the shortest term that is suficient to distinguish one from the rest in that particular list. A large number of these places (even those that are not courthouses) would probably be sufficiently disambiguated by state name alone. If a more precise disambiguating term is needed for a particular entry, then do so. Otherwise, it is overkill. Some people seem to think consistency is the goal of disambiguation. Why not just attach (street, city, state) to all titles and then you don't have to worry about anything forever? --Polaron | Talk 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but not your conclusion. The words in the title should be descriptive of the subject, right? Structures are normally associated with the city or town that they're in. For example, people think of the Sears Tower as being in Chicago, not being in Illinois. Calling it the Sears Tower (Illinois) carries the implication that it's somehow more closely associated with all of Illinois than it is with Chicago. Even more so, people associate the Podunk City Chamber of Commerce Building with Podunk City, not the state. There are some structures that would be more associated with a state than a particular city--highways, railroards, and bridges, for example--but their distributed geographic location makes them the exception, not the rule.
That being said, county courthouses are more closely associated with, well, the county they're in. Presuming that's already in the name (the Podunk County Courthouse, frex), then the city is probably unnecessary. I don't feel strongly about that, but I do think the combination of county and state is sufficient information for the title of the article. Andrew Jameson (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_27&oldid=1140166080"