Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 37

Wm Sidney Mount vs. Wm Sydney Mount, artist, and other NHL info issues

Hey, I'm going to revisit some previously reported wp:NHL info issues and report some new ones to the National Park Service. Updates on items listed, and new items, welcome.

Example item: For the William Sidney Mount House, the artist's middle name in some accounts seems to be Sidney, but the NHL website uses "Sydney" instead. The NRHP name is also William Sydney Mount House as does the NHL/NRHP nom doc. The New York Times article about the house, and the wikipedia article on the artist William Sidney Mount uses Sidney however. Some other links are inconclusive. Does it seem the NHL webpage and the NRHP should be corrected to use Sidney, or was the artist actually named Sydney? --Doncram

Maps

NRHPs by county across US

Hey all, I have (finally) completed my maps showing the NRHP per 100 square miles for each state, and for the entire US file:NRHP USA Map.svg. Don't know if or where ths US map could be inserted though. If you have any questions, let me know. 25or6to4 (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Added Us-wide map to List of RHPs, to wp:NRHP, and here. :) Thanks! doncram (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DYKs

The bot that's used to include recognized content on the main page has just run on the DYK subpage of this project. This page now includes a full list of DYK articles covered by this project. This list isn't dated or anything like our current system, so I didn't want to remove the full list of DYKs dating all the way back to 2007 and get rid of all that information. What do you think we should do with it? I'm kind of partial to letting the bot control the list because it automatically updates, and there's no upkeep needed. What do you guys think? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Can a bot access the DYK date for each article on that page and then sort the list? Seems like a conceptually simple task, and should result in a nicely ordered complete list. Then the original bot can do automatic updates every so often. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Could the abbreviated list on the main project page also be sorted by date? Right now, the list will always be biased toward articles that appear early in the alphabet. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 17:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, some people have asked about the date thing over at User talk:JL-Bot, but I'm not sure it's been addressed yet. The way the bot works is just getting articles out of a category, so dates aren't really used. I looked into the coding of the template used to put the articles in this category, and it doesn't seem to specify dates, so I think just bot-side, it's not possible. You may want to raise some questions over at that talk page about it though. If enough demand is present, there may be something that can be done to other templates that make it easier. What's currently there is the best possible right now, though..--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"Address restricted" sites

In my wanderings around Nebraska, I found and photographed a building listed on the NRHS as "address restricted".

The building is not in current use; in particular, it's not an occupied residence. There is a relatively recent photo of it already online, at the Nebraska State Historical Society website. There are no mailboxes or road signs in my photos to give a clue to the place's location.

All of these incline me to post my pictures to WM Commons, and to use one of them to illustrate National Register of Historic Places listings in Nebraska. However, before I do, I'd like to know if it'd be a violation of any kind of Wikipolicy, and to hear any strong arguments anyone might have to make against publicizing the pictures.

--Ammodramus (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think as long as you took the picture from a public street or area (i.e. you didn't trespass onto private property), it has been determined that the picture can be uploaded because anyone wandering through the area could see the same thing. I don't think the NRHP is too strict on keeping addresses restricted anymore, now that technologies such as GPS, Google Maps, and even Streetview are mainstream... it's nearly impossible to keep the information secret. I'm not an expert on the matter, however, so I would probably wait for someone else to comment. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We have nothing against doing this; as long as it's fine for you to have gone to the site (including going on private property, if you have permission), there's nothing wrong with uploading and using the photo. Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ammodramus, thank you for being concerned and asking. I do have general concern about our posting information such as coordinates and photos which identify, or would help to identify, sites that were meant to be kept confidential. "Address restricted" in the National Register's NRIS database usually will mean that the owners/nominators/archeologists/others involved in a site's listing were promised and expected that the location of a site would not be made public. NRHP listing plus a couple hundred wikipedian editors, however, plus millions of readers, can undermine that, so in general I would not wish to have "address restricted" sites exposed. The NRIS database, however, is not kept completely current, so sometimes there are sites which once were private which are no longer, as when a state opens an archeological museum on a now-well-secured site. In the case you refer to, I have no idea what is actual status. I would prefer that the state SHPO (state historic preservation office) be contacted about whether identifying the site is okay. Also in that contact you could request a copy of the NRHP application documents, which should be provided to you (however maybe only with redaction of location information). You should share to them what you have found already about what is publicly known about the site. I would hope there is no rush, no urgency to posting the photos you have taken. Hopefully a checking process would work out okay and you would still be interested and able to contribute your photos.

P.S. We do have a process going, to identify NRIS errors / updates needed, via a slow but hopefully sure process of correspondence. I personally am interested in the "address restricted" issue and would be happy/willing to fast-track through the National Register offices, using the few contacts I have made there, any specific inquiry for you on this case. Please feel free to contact me directly by email (I have email enabled in my wikipedia account, there is an "email me" button on my userpage).

About whether you were given permission to go on private property or not, I don't think that is exactly relevant. I believe that in general you should not go onto private property to take photos, but that all an owner or anyone can do is ask you to leave and/or prosecute you for trespassing. I believe that, copyright-law-wise, the illegally obtained photo is still fully yours, it does not matter whether the photo was taken illegally. That's a general copyright question, not specific to archeological sites. I am sure there are archeological sites on public lands and on private land, posted or not, whose locations should not be revealed. doncram (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of interesting issues here. 1) Posting the coordinates of an "Address Restricted" (AR) archeological site could definitely result in major damage, so I think that should be ruled out, unless you've checked that its location has been PUBLICLY disclosed (e.g. not just to a bunch of grad students). 2) Photos of AR sites may be less damaging than posting the coordinates - my experience with these is that they are mostly big empty-looking fields that are probably unidentifiable to most people (exceptions of course) 3) The NHS is really terrible about putting the label AR on some sites where there is no purpose in so labeling. Example this week -File:Copes Bridge.JPG - is a big bridge built in 1807 on a fairly busy state highway that has been a fairly busy state highway forever. You can't miss it. The bridge is accessible to the public, the road is public, the stream beneath is public. But it is labeled AR - what were they thinking? Obviously I have no problem photographing these sites or giving the coords. 4) Trespassing is illegal of course - but it would be a mistake to label the photos of a trespasser as illegal. Going on private property is not trespassing unless it is posted, or you are asked to leave. (laws differ by state) How far to go to get a photo? That's a personal decision. For myself, I'd say it's about the same as for a newspaper photographer from a respectable newspaper: e.g. I'll walk past a "private property" sign - at least a little bit - if there is not a no trespassing sign, or evidence of how a photo might be an intrusion of privacy, or a big dog! 5) Most folks who have registered a property on the NRHP have bought a "piece of history" but they really can't deny the rest of us some access to our history - they really can't own our joint history. They get some benefits (if only bragging rights with their neighbors), and they should expect some downside as well. Smallbones (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I ran across several instances where a site is "Adress Restricted" probably because it is not a house or other location where mail is delivered, so does not have an adress. For example, Kahaluu Bay is a body of water, presumably the historic district is not inundated, but there is a very popular park there, so is hardy a secret. It is in all the guidebooks and busloads of toursists from cruise ships go there. Makes no sense to "restrict" it when it really means "general area, not a specific address". The reason I do not like this status, is that it means the nomination forms are not available. Maybe we could propose that they make these forms availble, perhaps in a redacted form with the coordinates removed (although those are so far off in Hawaii they only proide a general hint). W Nowicki (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes absolutely the NRHP nomination forms should be requested. There are redacted forms available on-line for some, and the National Register should be able to provide redacted versions for any one requested, I believe. About "Kahaluu Historic District", which is 7,000 acres, without the nom form I don't know if that is some or all of the bay itself, which would be very unusual. I know of only a few marine areas, often just a single shipwreck, that are NRHP listed. I expect the full nom form would show location of specific sites within it, such as the "Ruins of 1860 Helani Church" which are publicly known and mentioned in the article, but also perhaps other sites not publicly known. doncram (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I should've been a little less mysterious about the specific site. It's the Daniel School in Hayes County, Nebraska; it's right next to the Daniel house, which is also address-restricted. I assume that the restriction was not to protect an archaeological site from pot-hunters, but because the house was occupied and the occupants didn't want people knocking on their door and asking for a tour. There are somewhat recent (color) photos of both the school and the house at the Nebraska State Historical Society website, which leads me to think that it'd be OK to post my own pictures. (I shot the school but not the house; I was somewhat unwilling to violate the privacy of an occupied house with an address-restricted designation. My principles might not have been so strong had the light not been bad for shooting the house...)

My photos were all shot from the public road. I'll double-check them for anything that might give the location away, then post them.

--Ammodramus (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Make sure the EXIF data is free from coordinate information, and explain on the image description page that the image should not be geotagged (as Commons likes to have all of its pictures geotagged when possible). Powers ^T 02:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the following sites in Hayes county have any benefit from AR, or any expectations of privacy. J.M. Daniel School-District No. 3 (May 30, 1985), Address Restricted. 3 St. John's Evangelical Lutheran German Church and Cemetery (May 16, 1985), Address Restricted. If there was some problem with securing the site, they've had 20 years to take care of it. My guess is that a bureaucrat didn't know what the AR box on the form was all about, so took the "conservative approach." Smallbones (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I inquired to the National Register and received back this response today from the NPS Archivist:

Hello, thanks for your concern on this issue. Right now the Nebraska files are out of the office being scanned - I believe that they will be back in a week or two. However, the St. John's Evangelical Lutheran German Church and Cemetery had been previously scanned - so it is still in our building.

The form has the "not for publication" box checked. However, the form and correspondence do not give any reason why. (Unfortunately, most of the files do not contain the rationale for why a property has been restricted.) I browsed through the file and did not see any particular reason for it being withheld - it was a church, and it seems that it is still used for religious purposes. But it could be the owner's wishes, and with the box being checked, we have to redact it.
Without the other 2 files actually in hand I can't tell you definitively that they have the box checked for "not for publication".

You may want to contact the Nebraska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to see if they agree that they are address restricted, and possibly why. Or as you stated, they may want to lift that classification.

We have noticed some examples of address restricted properties that don't make sense. (At least one is an address restricted property AND a tourist site.) Right now our plan is to finish digitizing everything, redact everything that is address restricted. Then when the digitizing project is done we want to tell the SHPOs what properties are address restricted and how we redacted them, and let them comment, expand or lift the restriction status on properties etc. We are going to wait until after the digitizing is done because we don't want to hold up the progress we are currently making on the scanning.

Send me an email and I will return email the attachment (the redacted NRHP document) and the Nebraska contact person's info. doncram (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad you followed up with the National Register folks, Doncram. The answer you got is unusually candid for a bureaucratic agency.
BTW, I saw a press release recently (I forget where) to the effect that the Keeper of the National Register retired recently, and the new Keeper is a long-time National Register employee who has been the main person pushing for getting all of their nom forms online. :-) --Orlady (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Loading speed for long lists. Please check if the fix works.

At Template_talk:Coord#WikiMiniAtlas_override.3F there has been a long discussion about speeding up loading times on long lists. User:Dschwen seems to have come up with a solution, with List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania being used as a test case (it has about 400 coords on it). It's working much faster for me, but I'd like to make sure that it is working for everybody, that the fix didn't introduce new problems, and that all issues have been addressed. Could you check out the loading and editing times on your favorite long lists?

This should reduce the pressure to divide up long lists - where there aren't any other compelling reasons to divide the lists.

And if this works as well as it seems to, we all owe a big vote of thanks to User:Dschwen.

Smallbones (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like good news. But what is changed about the List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania article? I don't see a specific edit there putting in anything different. Could it be tried also on List of RHPs in Detroit? Is it possible to have a link to the article in one version vs. in the new version, so we can experience some difference or does it not work like that. doncram (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The change is in the programming of the coord template - so it should already be working, without changing anything in the articles themselves. He said to clear your cache (but isn't this just a short-term requirement?) To notice a change try to load the List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania, which used to take 30 seconds to a minute+ to load. My question is whether it works on other articles as well, and does it work for all computer setups? Now that we have the attention of the technical guys, it seems to me that we should make sure that all the problems that we have with coord should be checked out. Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Bypass your cache, it does help. Smallbones (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool! The National Register of Historic Places listings in Detroit, Michigan page (235 listings) takes roughly 6-7 seconds to load now, v. what was 30 seconds to a minute. The National Register of Historic Places listings in Wayne County, Michigan page (71 listings) now takes 4-5 seconds, v. about 15-20 seconds previously. Marked improvement. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Noticeable, but not dramatic on National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston, Massachusetts. It took 16-17 seconds when I benchmarked it in November (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_34#Loading_speed_of_our_longer_lists). It now takes twelve. Firefox 3.5.7 on a fast cable. Note that with all coords eliminated during the benchmark it took four. Since my results are different from those above, perhaps conditions have changed since November, or there's something about my Firefox installation that gets less benefit than those above? I'd sure like to figure that out. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It takes me about 6 seconds to load the Boston page in IE8; about the same as it takes the Detroit page to load. (Although by comparison, the no-coord page in your sandbox loads in a lightning-fast 2sec.) Andrew Jameson (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My results (Firefox 3.5.7) have been inconsistent -- and they appear to be affected by how recently I accessed a page (among other things, I suspect that my ISP may be doing some caching). The Pennsylvania bridges list was well over 30 seconds the first time I tried it, but only 8 seconds about an hour later. Detroit was 36 seconds the first time I tried it, but only 9 seconds an hour later. Boston took 34 seconds. National Register of Historic Places listings in Tennessee (95.7Kb) and National Register of Historic Places listings in Knox County, Tennessee (42.4Kb, with 98 listings and a lot of text, but relatively few images) both took 22 seconds each. For comparison, a couple of more typical pages that I had not accessed recently (Airplane Service Station, with 3.1Kb, no images, and just one set of coordinates; Paris, Tennessee, with 9.9Kb, 2 images, and a couple of coordinates; and University of Phoenix, with 41.2Kb, 4 images, and no map coordinates) took 2 seconds, 4 seconds, and 4 seconds, respectively. List of bow tie wearers (65.3Kb) loaded in less than 8 seconds. I have a hunch that the NRHP list-loading situation might not be fully resolved. --Orlady (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearing the cache before loading a file - even if you cleared it yesterday - seems to help. I wouldn't have thought that would be the case, but it's worked a couple of times with major differences. Smallbones (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio opinions, please

I've just discovered Nicholson-Rand House, which (in my opinion) looks like it was copied and pasted from a nomination form. Most telling to me is (1) the header at the top of the page, and (2) the argument that it qualifies under Criterion C, found at the end of the page. Many of you have seen lots of nomination forms; what do you think? Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicholson-Rand House pic by add925

From the style only, we can conclude that the text is taken from the nomination form. Nevertheless - is that a copyright violation? Plagiarism certainly, but are the words on the form copyrighted? I know we've discussed this re: photos - and I've very reluctantly agreed that a reasonable person could in good faith think that the photos on these government forms were copyrighted. But the words are different - they are certainly part of a government edict that can't be copyrighted. We should tell him nicely to clean up the plagiarism, that Wikipedia readers don't care about criteria C, but I don't think it's a copyvio. BTW, the photo here might be - quite artistic in a Thomas Kincaid type of way. (yuk) Smallbones (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry; I like the photo. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

from our Kinkaide article Smallbones (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Essayist Joan Didion is a representative critic of Kinkade's style:

A Kinkade painting was typically rendered in slightly surreal pastels. It typically featured a cottage or a house of such insistent coziness as to seem actually sinister, suggestive of a trap designed to attract Hansel and Gretel. Every window was lit, to lurid effect, as if the interior of the structure might be on fire.

From the forms I've seen it sounds like a cut and paste from one. I don't think it is a copyright violation since the nomination forms fall under public domain from a US Federal agency, but it is certainly plagiarism, which we really should be equally as vigilant about stopping if we want Wikipedia to have any scholarly value. It also violates WP:NOTMIRROR in my opinion. The nomination form should certainly be referenced, but simply pasting its contents here just makes this a mirror of the document rather than a unique article. Lastly, the nomination forms are written in a way to persuade the committee to approve the listing ("Narrative statement of significance"), so this isn't exactly written in a neutral or encylcopedic way anyway. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC) P.S. I don't mind the photo either, though I'd rather see a daytime image that shows more detail.

I love the pic (and inserted it to right above here). I think our status on NRHP document text is that it is not public domain, unless written by a Federal employee or released explicitly into the public domain by a state agency or other writer. That is a somewhat conservative view, legally, which I believe works well for Wikipedia and for NRHP article development. No one has to my knowledge asked any state office to release docs they've written, though perhaps many would be happy to. I wouldn't particularly want to. However, it is reasonable for a new NRHP editor to assume that the document is public domain, and to be unclear on what constitutes good writing and good sourcing that gives due credit to the authors of work (in this case presumably the author whose name should appear in Section 11 of the nom form). It works out badly, usually, in interacting with a new editor to use the P word. Guidelines at wp:plagiarism used to give some advice along those lines. Instead advise that we seek to give adequate credit for content by using in-line footnotes which include author name and date, and we seek to give adequate credit for original wording by use of quotation marks (or we rewrite to avoid using the original words). doncram (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is a copyvio, but I would be gentle with the P word -- this seems more "inexperienced editor" than a sincere attempt to make the reader believe that Add925 wrote it. After all, if Add925 had removed a few of the more obvious clues, none of us would have blinked an eye.

What to do? Start with an intro line along the lines of "The following is from the NRHP nomination form of the Nicholson-Rand House, written by xx:" and block quote the whole thing. While I agree that it is a copyvio, as a practical matter it's a very low risk one. We might ask Add925 to do a rewrite.

I, too, like the photo, although I agree that for a house that is rich in exterior ornament, I'd like to see a tack sharp sunlight image at much higher resolution as the lead photo.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

While I like the photo, too, (and it may seem like I'm assuming bad faith, here), but if the text was copied from the nom form, what are the chances of the photo being copied as well? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 13:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

While it lacks any EXIF information, the quality of the image looks rather like a scan of a traditional film-based photograph, which seems to lend creedence to the idea it could have been copied from a form. Shereth 14:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't hurt to ask Add925 about it. Powers ^T 14:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. He says he's the founder of a non-profit, so it's possible he prepared the nom form. In any case, the article needs to be wikified. Bms4880 (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I re-did the lede and cut some other material in a fairly mechanical fashion. More should be done, but at least now it doesn't scream out "plagiarism." Smallbones (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A little naming help

I'm nearly finished an article on the American Security and Trust Company building. Here's the problem: American Security and Trust Company is exactly how it's listed, but that's in reality the name of the corporation (predecessor to American Security Bank, now after several mergers part of Bank of America). My inclination is to put the building itself at American Security and Trust Company building and redirect American Security and Trust Company into a section about corporate history, so that if someone ever gets around to writing an article about the bank itself there will be a ready-made place for it. The reason I don't want to use the listing name literally is because inevitably someone will find all the other corporate mentions and point them at the building article. Am I off base in this approach, or should I adjsut the name, or what? Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Has the name of the building changed in the years after it was listed or is it known by some other moniker? If not, I'd go with "American Security and Trust Company Building". ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 17:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The building isn't named per se except in the nomination; after a succession of mergers it is now a Bank of America branch and is so labelled on the exterior. Thus I'm not inclined to capitalize "building" but if you think I should I could go that route. Mangoe (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

From a quick Google search, it appears to still be known as the "American Security and Trust Company Building", so that seems like the best bet. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's analogous to our usual treatment of any building built as a corporate headquarters:

• Chrysler Building
• General Motors Building
• Pan Am Building

that is, "Building" is part of the name. So, I'd title the article American Security and Trust Company Building, with the NRHP infobox reading American Security and Trust Company, and a redirect as you suggest at American Security and Trust Company.

And, BTW, while you mention that it's north of the Treasury Building, don't you want to add that it's more or less across the street from the White House? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why people think this, since it is a block away from the NE corner of the White House grounds. If you can even see the White House from the south entrance it's because the Treasury building is set back almost half a block. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do understand that it's at the far end of the block -- but

• the address is 1501 Pennsylvania, the White House is 1500
• Madison Place and Executive Avenue aren't really streets, so it seems to me that it's on the other side of the street in the same block
• even if the Treasury were built right to its property line, you could probably see the White House from the front door of ASTCB, except for trees

therefore, more or less across the street.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• • The White House is 1600 Pennsylvania. Powers ^T 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

AVR 661

I got the nomination form for the AVR 661 - an air-sea rescue boat used by the Army Air Corps (and Air Force). At the time of nomination, it was one of the last and best preserved of the "crash boats". It was to have been put on display at Wright-Petterson AFB but that fell through. The US Navy Sea Cadets then bought it for restoration and then either to be used or donated. After that, I can't find any record of it. I Googled a bunch of stuff. I found a crash boat veterans association.

Related to the discussion above, I can't figure out a justification for the "address restricted" especially since it's not a wreck and was intended to be used (even as a museum display).

I don't know if it is still in Chicago, if it was restored, if it is in a museum somewhere.

Anyone in Chicago that can find out?

I can write the article based on this sparse 30 year old nomination but it'll end up being just a longer stub.

Any suggestions?

Thanks Einbierbitte (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I tracked down the Chicago Sea Cadets and sent an email. Einbierbitte (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I expanded what I could - still don't know its current status Einbierbitte (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the nom and developing the nice short article now in place. I like it. The AVR 661 was an aggravation when several editors were working on List of RHPs in Chicago to bring it to DYK; it seemed impossible to find any good info in a short amount of time. I posted at wp:SHIPS seeking help, too. Sounds great that you found the Chicago Sea Cadets. Hope that works to find your way to someone who knows about this. Keep up the good work! doncram (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Emails proved fruitless. I wrote a letter to Sea Cadet HQ in Arlington, VA. Maybe they got rid of it, or renamed it? 206.194.127.112 (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Washington Park (Chicago park)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the aticle which you can see at Talk:Washington Park (Chicago park)/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Paul's School (Garden City, New York) likely to be demolished

Is part of an HD on Long Island and it's under imminent threat of demolition. The NY times had a pretty good article on the subject. Thought some here would find it interesting. dm (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you ever wanted to photograph this building, now is the time to do it. Smallbones (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If I were still on Long Island when this message was posted, I would've considered snapping a picture of this. There are a lot of other pics of buildings around the Mineola/Garden City area that should be taken and posted. ----DanTD (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate issue

I'm not going to bother looking through every archive, but is there any known reason why the coordinates of 99% of the buildings are off? I just ran across one on Google Earth and the house was "located" in a railyard, almost three quarters of a mile west of where it actually was. I'm all for going through and correcting these issues on a state by state basis, but to one looking at Google Earth, it can be quite confusing when the coordinates to a house land in a strip mall or something more odd. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide#Coordinates.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now should I bother drumming up support to fix the Massachusetts articles, as they are specifically mentioned as being off? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Um well I don't think there's really a "drive" per se necessary to fix them, but by all means if you'd like to, go ahead. I think coords are usually fixed just on an article-by-article basis if someone has local knowledge of the site. If you can find enough Massachusetts locals to work on them, though, that's cool. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're off any more here than elsewhere. I will admit to a certain laziness however -- when I work on an article, adding a photo or whatever, I almost always adjust the coords. I do not, however, always adjust the coords in the matching NRHP list. Bringing the lists up to date would be a useful project for someone with time and judgment.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to create a taskforce for this stuff. There are around 200 in the state at least, and my attention span doesn't run that long. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

More like 4,000. I should note that I fix bad coords when I come across them, but that's not my main focus. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I find the coordinates extremely useful in planning photography expeditions, I put a good deal of effort into correcting coordinates whenever I work on one of the state/county/city/town lists. I've made it a habit of updating the lists after the NPS announces new listings at the end of each week and when I do so, I usually try to fill in coordinates for sites that are missing them and also check for coordinates that fall outside the geographic area covered by the list. But the latter check only catches particularly egregious errors. It's a pretty tedious and mind-numbing task to check all the coordinates in a table, but it's well worth the effort if you're interested in visiting the sites. As far as I'm aware, largely thanks to the hard work of Wikipedians on this project, WP is the only resource that is able to easily generate up-to-the-minute maps of NRHP sites in any given geographic area. --sanfranman59 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Please consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cathcart. --doncram (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Mystery Plaque in Wilmington, Delaware

Hello,

Smallbones took a picture of a building at 806 N. West St. near downtown Wilmington, Delaware that has a NRHP plaque. Is there anyway to tell if this site was recently added or deleted at some point? (The other option would be that the sign is invalid.) The picture is here: Talk:Wilmington, Delaware#806 West Street on National Register of Historic Places?Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there not a date on the plaque? Bms4880 (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If it was listed after March 13, 2009, you can look through the weekly lists] since then and look for the site (using Ctrl+F on a PC or Cmd+F on a Mac is faster)... I would look for you, but I'm pressed for time right now. Delistings show up in those lists as well. Elkman's tool can search for delisted properties, but it's usually required to at least have a name.. I'll look into it later.. as for now, I have to go to class! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you certain that the plaque says "National Register of Historic Places" on it? Also, it looks like the plaque may be next to the doorway to the right of the 806 address in the photo. Could the address be 804?. Since other project members and I have been diligent about adding new listings since last March, I doubt that this building has been listed individually since then. I just checked the complete NRIS database that's available from the NPS (i.e. the one that's presumably complete through March 13, 2009), including sites that were once listed but have been removed, and there is no building with that address anywhere in the database. Although it may be a contributing property to a district, I don't think any of the boundaries of existing historic districts contain that address. I suggest contacting the state Historic Preservation Officer (21 The Green, Dover, DE; 302-736-7400; timothy.slavin at state.de.us) or perhaps the Wilmington Preservation Planning Office (800 French Street, Wilmington; 302-576-3107; dmartin at ci.wilmington.de.us). --sanfranman59 (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was once considerably confused by seeing NRHP plaques on several houses near to a NRHP-listed one that I was going to photograph. It turned out that they were all included in a large historic district area, and they were contributing properties (probably) in the district. --doncram (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I went to the trouble of looking up the above contact information, I decided to follow through with an email to Debbie Martin of the Wilmington Preservation Planning Office. She was very prompt with her reply:

It is the northernmost property within the Quaker Hill National Register District (and QH City Historic District). Quaker Hill district has a rather odd shape. So, it means that it is eligible for the fed, state tax credits and the city tax abatement, grants from the Delaware Preservation Fund....don't know the nature of your inquiry so I'm throwing this all out there.... The City District is an overlay zoning classification that controls changes to the exterior. Applications for those go through the Department of Planning, and then on to the Design Review and Planning Commission.

There's our answer. --sanfranman59 (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I made the mistake of not checking back for 21 hours. Thanks everybody for the clarification.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. "Ask and ye shall receive" - Wikipedians are wonderful! Smallbones (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Castle at Casa Basso?

Can somebody get me some solid evidence that The Castle at Casa Basso, in Westhampton, New York is listed on NRHP? I saw it on National Register of Historic Places listings in Southampton (town), New York but I can't find a single reference to it on either NRHP.gov or NRHP.com. ----DanTD (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Elkman's NRIS-based generator shows nothing, even when checking for delisted properties, too. Going back to scanned Weekly Listings document, this PDF for 1966-78 (which is linked from the Weekly Listings page, click on year 1976, and checking in New York - Suffolk County (see p. 128 of PDF). My guess is that this one is a contributing property in the Montauk Association Historic District, which was NRHP-listed on Sept. 22, 1976, which appears there. The Casa Basso article says it was NRHP-listed on September 12, 1976, and that it is on Montauk Hwy. Or, does any other possibility in the big PDF seem appropriate? Also, check who added the item to the NRHP list-article, and contact them, or see if it suggests anything. The item was probably added back when the Southampton town NRHP list was part of big Suffolk county list. Should the Montauk HD be included on the Southampton town NRHP list, and/or other town lists that it may overlap into. Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked the page you recommended. All it has was the Jagger House, which was added on December 12, 1978. Plus, the only place I see the Montauk Association Historic District is in Montauk on National Register of Historic Places listings in East Hampton (town), New York, which is way too far east. ----DanTD (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I also see you made a separate article for Montauk Association Historic District, but I still can't figure out what this has to do with Casa Basso. ----DanTD (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, i see from clicking on the coords in the two articles that they are very far apart. My guess was wrong. Going to plan B. The item was added in this edit by an editor who has only ever written about Casa Basso. So I assume the editor was mis-informed. Perhaps it was listed on a local historic register or something on that date; i'll leave a note at the editor's Talk. The item should be removed from the Southampton list, IMO. --doncram (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the structure in question isn't actually on the register, as it seems to have been unilaterally added to the Southampton list by the same person who wrote the Casa Basso article. AGF, it looks like the structure (aka the Theophilus Brouwer House) is historically significant, just not on the Register. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A positive side to this

Well, thanks to Doncram's creation of the Montauk Association Historic District article, I was finally motivated to create the Pantigo Road Historic District article. Of course, I was planning something like this earlier, but still, at least something good came out of this. ----DanTD (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Steam Locomotive #1385

NHRP Steam Locomotive #1385 is C&NW 1385. I usually create a redirect from the NRHP name when it is not the same as the article name, but the pound sign is not permitted in article names, so I can't create the redirect. Any thoughts?

As I went back to clean up the last week, I note the same problem with Elk River Coal and Lumber Company #10 Steam Locomotive which is Elk River Coal and Lumber Company No.10. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Preserved steam locomotives of the United States one can see that the convention is "line number" with no # or "No." or any such prefix, so the first case has the right article name at any rate, but the second case the article is at the wrong name. Don't know what you can do about the # sign though. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you miss the point of the question. The question is not the article names (but see below), but that we usually create a redirect from the NRIS name to the article. So, what to do when the NRIS name has a pound sign? Simply omit the redirect? Or something else?

As for Elk River Coal and Lumber Company No.10, I generally follow the XY&Z 73 format you suggest. In the case of Elk River, though, it's not at all obvious that it's a railroad, so I put in the "No." to make it a little clearer. We could change that, though -- I don't feel strongly.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

When I format a previously-unformatted list, if I find any listing names that include a #, I'll change them to a "No.", since technical restrictions prevent us from following the NRIS. I'd say it's best to create a redirect with "No.", therefore. Nyttend (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)