Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 49

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wall Street has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for May 2011

Wall Street, a page that may be within the scope of this project, has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for May 2011. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can also vote for next months article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, Beverly, NJ

Hi, I've raised a merger proposal at Talk:St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, Beverly#Merger proposal but I'm no NRHP expert. Please comment there. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising here. I merged it, do agree with your comment there that a merger was obviously needed. All done i think. --do ncr am 02:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

NRHP Connecticut Counties in the Commons

I just added county-specific NRHP commons categoies for all counties of Connecticut, if not than almost all of them. I may have to split off some historic districts in Hartford County, Conneticut. ----DanTD (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on inclusion of basic info in article text

From reading various previous discussions about NRHP listings, there appears to be a rough consensus that stating "less than one acre with only one contributing building" is unnecessary. Can we formalize that this information should not be included in NRHP articles?

Oppose inclusion, as <1 acre/1 building can be assumed as the default, unless otherwise specified. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any default understanding by readers of wikipedia articles, that no mention of area and of buildings included in an NRHP listing, is supposed to mean "less than 1 acre" and just one building.

I don't think we need a vote, off the bat. How about discussing a bit, first? At least 3 elements of basic info have come up: mentioning size of NRHP listing, mentioning how many buildings are included in the listing, mentioning architectural site numbers or state/local numbers (akin to the NRIS reference numbers, but there is no space for them in the infobox). These came up in negative fault-finding by various editors critical of the starter articles I created in Grand Forks County and a couple other batches. The issues are worth discussing though.

About area, I don't think that banning statements about the size of NRHP listed sites would be appropriate. Size of NRHP site is a field in the NRHP infobox. Some wp:SHIPS and other editors, who i think don't really like infoboxes, have argued in the past that every item in an infobox should be included in text in the article, in fact. I wouldn't go around forcing an extra statement about size in a tag-on way to well-developed NRHP articles, but I think it is factual and does add in new articles. It provides clarity about what a visitor should take pictures of, in fact. I don't know if SarekOfVulcan is aware that "less than 1 acre" is correct information, replacing previous incorrect statement of .9 acres in many articles (due to previous misunderstanding of the use of .9 code in NRIS), that I arranged to have implemented by bot recently. I am sure we would all like to say something more precise, like to know if it is .7 acres or .3 acres, and say that instead, but "less than 1 acre" is in fact some information, narrows it down. It surprises me always how many NRHP individual sites mainly about one building turn out to have 5 acres or more in the listing, and clarifying this place is not one of those is helpful in defining the listing.

About how many buildings are included in a listing, and how many are contributing or not, that is not included in the infobox. It certainly provides clarification about what the NRHP listing is for, and is not. I think there is some unfamiliarity with this, because Elkman did not report on these fields in NRIS in his system which people mostly use. In new articles I have started using batch-generation program that I wrote, I do use that information from NRIS. It is helpful to state that there is just one building, or that there is just one contributing building and one that is not contributing, or whatever. This helps guide editors who might visit and know what to take pictures of, too. We should absolutely not ban the use of sourced, descriptive info. To be clear, i support further development of article which replaces a generic-type factual statement by more precise discussion, such as a statement that the property includes the bank building and also a garage that does not contribute to the historic merit of the site.

About site numbers, I do think that revision of the NRHP infobox, to include fields for other designations like WM-1117 shown in NRIS, which refer to a state/county code, or for similar designations for architectural sites, would be helpful. I wouldn't ban mention of the same in text. But I object especially to removal of the info in articles especially if it is not covered in an infobox field. I have seen multiple such edits, which are destroying info, not building.

If we're voting, my vote would be Oppose banning factual information supported by sources. --do ncr am 15:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, I'd go with presenting the information that's useful to the reader and end user of Wikipedia, and leaving out the technical data that doesn't add anything to the reader. For instance, if I were to talk about Bridge 2440 in Minnesota, that might mean something to the Minnesota Department of Transportation when they're talking about bridge maintenance, but end users would just gloss over that. On the other hand, if I were to talk about the Third Avenue Bridge (Minneapolis), then people would recognize that it's a nice part of the Minneapolis skyline that goes over St. Anthony Falls. Now it just so happens that the infobox for the Third Avenue Bridge mentions the bridge ID anyway, but that's really just for completeness in the infobox, I think. Site numbers like "WM-1117" might mean something to the SHPOs that maintain this data, but not to a casual reader. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to put site numbers into another site number field in the NRHP infobox, like the one in the bridges infobox. I don't put the NRIS reference number into articles, though sometimes i notice newish editors doing so. I don't think we should make a policy that the NRIS reference number cannot be put into an article, or even comment upon it if a new editor includes it (let it be, it doesn't matter that much, let the new editor come to a different taste eventually, no need for confrontation). --do ncr am 19:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We should always remember that the topic of the article is the building(s) or structure(s), and not the government listing. The vast majority of buildings cover less than one acre, so for articles about one building it's not necessary to automatically say so in every article. One might as well automatically say the building is under 500 feet tall. It's usually true but it's imprecise and adds nothing important. In fact it can be misleading in that readers might infer the building is just slightly smaller, when usually it's much smaller. For unusually large buildings that cover more than one acre or for districts, acreage can be useful. Normal buildings are usually measured in square footage, and that can be appropriate to mention if known. Also, if the topic of the article is one building, it's not necessary to say the listing is for one building. If there are multiple buildings in a listing, it may be appropriate to mention that if it's germane to the topic of the article. Regarding site numbers, I agree with Elkman. They are usually technical trivia meaningless to the reader and should not be included in the main text unless they are fully explained and are important to an understanding of the topic, which is the building itself. Station1 (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

First, no one should have any hugely strong opinion about this. It doesn't matter much, okay? Please keep that clear.

The article is about the building, indeed, for some wikpedia articles about NRHP-listed places. It depends. For others the article is about an object, a structure, a district, or about what happened at the place, and in some the listing itself is noteworthy and a big part of the article. Even if the place is notable for the architecture, a main building's architecture can be reflected in other buildings and structures, and clarifying whether that applies or not has some value. For some NRHP listings, it is very unclear what is listed, when you visit the place and have just the NRHP listing title and an address to go on. This has been clarified in some past discussions about how on earth a listing is included in two counties, when obviously the building is located on one side of a dividing street (because related property extends, whether or not it includes additional structures). The listing area clarifies about what is deemed notable. For example, the listed area of Carlott Funseth Round Barn in Grand Forks County goes out just 10 feet in diameter outside, conveying to some that nearby other structures are NOT deemed notable and that viewscape is not preserved and more. The area in a NRHP listing does convey something about viewscape, about what is actually preserved by the NRHP listing (to the extent that NRHP listing provides preservation, which it does to some degree).

I think providing more basic info is better, in general, but I agree that more specific information is better. There is a natural progression in articles towards more specific information. I happen to believe that articles started with more information will be improved to be pretty good articles sooner than articles started with less and sooner than articles not started at all. --do ncr am 19:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are a few things that could have been mentioned in the Carlott Funseth Round Barn article that were available in the nomination form that would been useful and interesting for the reader. For example:

It's one of a few round barns that is still in use as a barn (as of the nomination date, 1986) and has been continuously maintained as a barn.
The previous barn was an octagonal structure, and Sven and Ole must have decided that the round(ish) barn layout worked so well for them that they built another round barn instead of going with a conventional rectangular barn.
The Funseth barn apparently influenced other farmers to build round barns, because there were four other round barns within a 15 mile radius.

Those are narrative items that can't be found in the database, but are easily available from the source which you cited ("The listing is described in its NRHP nomination document.") I know you're really detail-oriented, but you're still missing the idea that articles are there for the convenience of our readers, not as an accomplishment for us as editors. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

About how the round barn article could be developed, I certainly agree that those ideas should be developed in the article, and I basically recall reading about those points with interest. Those are good salient points to make in the article, to increase readers appreciation of the place and to further interest others into developing more. I brought up that article as one where there is an unusually-shaped NRHP listing area, a small circle around a round barn. You don't think the mention of size and shape of NRHP listing should be dropped from that article, do you? I'm not done with the grand forks articles including that one; i was hoping to complete out descriptions in the list-article and would be glad if you, Elkman, would continue to help develop their articles as you have been doing.

This is going off-topic to the question about including basic information in articles, but in a past discussion, you commented about architect Cass Gilbert-related NRHP articles that I started, that developing them more out would be better, as you have commented here. You pointed out info not yet covered in the article. I agree, then and now, and observe again that I am perfectly proud you can easily see that there are easy improvements to make. Happily, BTW, Daniel Case since found his way to develop out one Cass Gilbert works article, the Waterbury Municipal Center Complex one, from this version I started. I have no idea if he in particular got to that any sooner because of what i started then, but in general i think having some information out there greatly increases the chances of getting some editor interested in developing it further. That's the most commonly expressed theory here, that an article started is more likely to lead to more development. Surely it is more and more unpleasant for new editors at Wikipedia; it is ever more daunting to run the gauntlet of starting articles. I especially think that articles started with good sources like NRHP noms are a good contribution, and I cannot fathom why you, Elkman, do not take a few more steps to provide more, such as the NRHP nom reference in states where it is available online, in the draft articles you provide in your system. You seem to think that helping others start lower will lead to better outcomes; I think providing more, especially the NRHP nom, is better. Again I am not criticizing, i appreciate you provide what you do and you have no obligation to do more, just like I have no obligation to have done anything you would like, already. I don't understand what you mean in your last sentence. I'll choose not to take offense. But I disagree if you are suggesting that I am doing anything other than trying to build wikipedia to share information about historic places to readers, sooner and more broadly and more deeply than would happen without my contributions. Again, sorry about this being off-topic to talking about basic info in wikipedia articles. --do ncr am 00:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Do not include this cruft. In an article about a building list on the Register, it is not meaningful to say that the listing is for one building. Furthermore, the information that the listed land area is less than 1 acre is apparently important to record in the database -- for example, it's potentially important for legal purposes -- but that doesn't mean it's information that's needed in an encyclopedia. Essentially it means that the listing was limited to the building and the land it sits on. That's not the kind of detail that people want to read about. --Orlady (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, did you guys know you're a posse?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Exclude. (riding in on my white charger) It makes me laugh, which is not the primary purpose of an encyclopedia. If the size is generally significant, or there is more than one structure involved, then I can perhaps see the point of including the info in some way, preferably using non-stilted wording. However, as others say above, less than one acre is actually pretty normal. You may as well be saying that "the Daily Bugle is a newspaper. Each issue contains less than 1,000 pages and has more than one contributing journalist". I did in fact include the actual size of a building and the plot upon which it stood in a recent edit to an ND NRHP article, but this was a non-automated edit by me using detail from the survey documents and the significance was that it introduced the fact that in that particular town the normal development plot at that time was x feet by x feet. It thus clarified the silliness (IMO) of "less than one acre" and added some historical context. I wouldn't be unduly concerned if the info I had added was removed, but given the content of the infobox itself I thought it necessary to explain. - Sitush (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Exclude, with reservations. In general, I think this information is better included in an infobox than in the main article text. If you look at an article about a given chemical, for instance, there's a great deal more data tidied away in the infobox than appears in the prose of an article. Some of that information is repeated in the prose, when it's germane to a key feature of that chemical; but no one would insist on including, say, the CAS number of a given chemical in the article text. As per Sitush above, I think there are exceptions when it's justified to include that information, but it would have to contribute to some sort of meaningful point in the article. (To pontificate a bit, writing an article, even a short one, should involve the higher-order thinking of Bloom's Taxonomy: analysis, synthesis and evaluation. This dust-up seems to be, in part, a result of trying to create articles using only lower-order thinking: demonstration of knowledge. But as our policy tells us, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," and we have a policy on undue weight in part to address that. If our job were just to provide any true statement about the subject of an article, we could fill every redlink with tautologies and declare it a good day's work. But in fact, we pick and choose which facts about the subject of an article will best serve the reader.) Choess (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Exclude, as per Choess's argument above. I generally include the "Area" in the infobox, though I should point out that in the case of The Holston, I have received two emails from readers who confused the Area with the building's total square footage. Bms4880 (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Exclude. My reasons for removing this info from infoboxes: Most significant buildings take up a lot less than an acre as a matter of course; if they are on that large a lot or the listing includes more land for historical or architectural (i.e., landscape gardens) reasons, then that's of course worth noting.
However ... I suppose for a listing that's purely a site of an event, with no physical artifacts whatsoever, that information might be notable as it helps establish the contextual envelope of the site's historicity.
Another interesting potential exception from articles I've worked on is Balmville Tree. Since its 2 acres include an adjacent house that's part of the listing, it's not covered by this discussion. But were the tree and its land the only contributing resource, it has often been described (accurately, since the state's Department of Environmental Conservation jointly administers the land) as New York's smallest state forest, and therefore the square footage of the walled island with the tree is notable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Exclude from article text. Retain in infobox. I would consider including area in the body of the article for historic districts or farms / farm complexes if it added to understanding the context for them, but not for single buildings. I routinely include contributing building / site / structure / object counts for historic districts, but not for other NRHP. Retain the local numbering if it is included as part of the NRHP listing name, retain, but I see no value to including it in the article text.--Pubdog (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Another related stylistic recommendation

I would also like to have it suggested that editors using {{convert}} for areas (as we are supposed to) keep in mind that where acreage ≤ 2.4, the output value for hectares, the default unit for the metric value, will be less than 1. Since hectares are generally not used as a measure of area at that size, editors should add square meters "m2" as the output value instead. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge question

Hey all, Have a question regarding a NHP and a NRHP site. IN 2009 Resaca de la Plama Battlefield was added to the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park. Would this qualify as candidates to be merged or would they still stand as separate articles? And on another note, Resaca De La Palma Battlefield (upper case "De La") references the Battle of Resaca de la Palma (lower case "de la"). Should the battlefield be renamed with the lower casing. I'm pretty sure de and la are no normally capitalized in spanish, like the word "the". Thoughts?25or6to4 (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No opinion on the first question, but I've sure that "de" and "la" are not capitalized in Spanish. Royal broil 01:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

currently flooded NRHPs

I wonder if the historic-looking flooded old train depot in Vicksburg, Mississippi is located in the Main Street Historic District (Vicksburg, Mississippi)? Or in another district among National Register of Historic Places listings in Warren County, Mississippi? And what's happening to other landmarks there. Wonder how the flood reflects upon work of the Army Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station. --do ncr am 13:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

George F. Barber

I cannot fathom why this is in the main space. It's bad enough that Doncram didn't bother to check to see that there was already an article for this architect (not to mention a separate list of his works), but this new article contains several sections for other architects named "Barber," apparently added for no other reason than that they have the same last name. This is just getting ridiculous. Bms4880 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Doncram doesn't know what userspace is. We've tried to get him to use it for years, but he just doesn't get it.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

He GETS it. He just doesn't prefer it, as you do. Lvklock (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved the page to Doncram's article space, recreated George F. Barber as a redirect, and full-protected the new redirect. I hope this accomplishes the desired objective. --Orlady (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is cold, and Orlady, that is an unnecessary use of Administrative power to come down on me. I take it your point is to be insulting. I perceive the three of you, collectively, coming across as pretty nasty, whether you mean it or not.

What Bms4880 complains about is that I had created a more or less decent article at "George F. Barber", a name which has 13 hits in NRIS, without noticing pre-existing "George Franklin Barber" (which has just 5 hits in NRIS). My article was marked "Under Construction" and there were some unresolved issues, including that various names might or might not refer to the same person. It turns out in fact that "George W. Barber" apparently does mean "George F.", and there were other Barbers that i split out to 2 new articles (Thomas P. Barber and Charles I. Barber, now Barber & McMurry). When I eventually came across the George Franklin Barber article (which was started long ago, on 24 October 2005), I noticed it did not include most of the buildings i had identified had not fully verified, so I marked my new article for merger to it, to be done with care. At first I did not notice there was also a "List of George Franklin Barber works" article, because it was not very saliently linked there (until i more saliently linked it). And then I posted mention of the need for merger, that it was in progress, here and here. Deferring to the previous editors, I asked how they would prefer to proceed, regarding the possible addition of redlinks to the existing list-article. I started striking out material in this last version of the George F. Barber article, to mark which content was verified covered in the other article, i.e. starting on the orderly merger.

What on earth is "bad enough" about that?

A few hours later Bms4880 has replied factually enough to my comment in one place, but complained here rather than replying to my question about how previous editors would prefer for the merger to proceed. And Orlady has stepped in with use of Admin tools, and the current upshot is that Orlady has removed my work from mainspace. My goal in editing is not so much about earning credit, but my work was legitimate and she is erasing my contributions. And if it is Orlady using administrative tools to do that, as if to rub me out, to make me feel unwelcome, well I guess i don't like that at all.

Note, I fully expected and explicitly proposed was that the "George F. Barber" article should be redirected, when the work I had done was cross-checked and captured fully in the merger target article. That has not happened; there are item(s) including an NRHP-listed "Trippet-Shive House", at 209 N. Grand, Waxahachie, TX (Barber,George), which I had identified which are not in the target article. And also not captured are all the redlinks and bluelinks to NRHP-listed places, pretty much verified by me as being the names appearing in NRHP list-articles, not yet reflected in the Barber works list. I don't think that after 6 years without anything at the "George F. Barber" name, that it is imperative for a redirect to be created instantly, disrupting an orderly merger of material. And, done in a way, I perceive, to deliberately disrespect me.

To wp:NRHP editors, I don't seek out the negativity, and I am sorry that it has grown. But, really, I think editors ought to speak out against the nastiness present in, and lying behind, the above comments and Orlady's action. (To the few who might not be aware, there is long history, amounting IMO to stalking and wp:wikihounding, on the part of Orlady following my edits. Orlady has stated her strong dislike of me, yet is entering in, in probable violation of wp:INVOLVED policy for an Administrator. Some others here have differences of opinion with me about the merits of starting new articles, but others agree with me, and Wikipedia policy is clear that an article like the George F. Barber article I had started makes a valid contribution, though obviously a merger was needed). This is nothing like vandalism to be angry about; the anger on behalf of several editors is what I perceive as pretty much the entire problem. I and many editors used to like editing articles on historic places, in part because they are so obviously uncontroversial. Who knew that such nastiness and anger could grow here? --do ncr am 00:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Everyone involved with this project gets along with one another except you, and it's not for lack of effort on our part. Orlady moved your article to the userspace, where it belongs. If your only use for it is to determine which houses in your list need to be mentioned in the main list, that can easily be done from your userspace. Bms4880 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Doncram has explained over and over and over again WHY he prefers to edit in mainspace. You all just don't care. He explained several reasons for the article in his comments above, that he had used and was using it for. So, "If your only use for it is..." just makes no sense whatsoever. I'll give some of the reasons again, just off the top of my head....The links don't work properly from user space and the edit history gets separated from the article when it's later moved to mainspace. It had an under construction tag, and he was seeking input from editors of the other articles involved in the MERGERS he was starting. There are no rules against starting articles in mainspace. Did anybody bother to READ the process he described he was going through? I've often heard people complain that they'd like to see him build content rather than just start stubs. What exactly does that sound like he was doing? And now your going to find fault with that. He just can't win, unless he does it all YOUR way, which is, I imagine stilted and uncomfortable for him. Everyone has their own process. You all REALLY have nothing better to do than run around playing tattle tale and starting up stuff like this, just because he still edits the way lots of people did back when Wikipedia was still growing really fast? I don't know why I even bother to stick my nose in here any more. Sigh. Well, I had a nice little exchange with another editor who likes to take pictures, I'll just try to focus on that. I'm gonna get out of your sandbox now, cause it's no fun here. Lvklock (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Doncram: I was not trying to make a point when I moved the page -- and, even though George Franklin Barber is on my watchlist, I wasn't aware of any issues with this topic until it appeared on this NRHP talk page. Most of us have had the experience of starting an article and making the embarrassing discovery that it duplicated an existing article, but this is the first (and I hope only) time I've seen the duplicate article left in article space with a boldface instruction to other contributors saying Merger of some/much material to pre-existing article List of George Franklin Barber works will be appropriate. Please don't disrupt other temporary construction going on here, okay? Moreover, your text ("George F. Barber was an American architect. Many of his works are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.") doesn't hold a candle to the quality found in the George Franklin Barber article. Finally, the inclusion in your article of all National Register listings by anyone named "Barber" is not worthy of an 8th-grade school term paper, much less an encyclopedia article. It's not as if you are a newbie who hasn't heard about this kind of issue previously. --Orlady (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe your assurance one bit, Orlady. You should not be interfering and using Administrative tools to do so. If an administrator's intervention was needed, which it wasn't, you should not be the one to step in. You should not be chastising me now; you shouldn't be following my edits or leaping in when you see mention of me editing.

I am not embarrassed at all to have started an article and had it turn out there was another on the topic. And so what if in an early draft i was still sorting out which Barbers were which. It turned out in fact that the George W. person seems to be the same as the George F person, and that Charles I. Barber was his son, and that Donn Barber (also known as Don Barber) and Peter J. Barber and Thomas P. Barber were noteworthy others. Obviously the non-related ones would not stay, and now have separate articles in fact, and i deleted them from the draft article now in this version. I sorted out some information that was not correct in the previously started article, already, too; the editors there didn't/don't have it all sorted out right either. About that bolded statement, I put that in after discovering that a merger was going to be necessary, and anticipating there could possibly be nastiness. Which you stepped right into, responding to the implicit request not to pull some nasty ploy, by going right ahead with one. --do ncr am 03:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, when you persistently put information into mainspace without bothering to verify it first, the problem is _not_ all the people who keep telling you not to do that. You damage the encyclopedia when you do that, and it needs to stop. Now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a glib and stupid comment, in context of what i do. I do far more than average in terms of setting up systems to catch and fix errors of fact, and to engineer out the possibility of errors. You and others give no weight to the error of having no information; I happen to strongly prefer that there should be information provided on every one of the NRHP places and about the NRHP architects and so on. I think it is embarrassing that there have not been articles about the top 200 NRHP architects, in fact, which I've been remedying; you don't think that way, and you are free not to think that way, but your way is not objectively better. You and others' complaints about ambiguous statements "so-and-so is an architect and/or builder", for example, pretty much comes down to your preferring to believe in confident statements that are possibly false, or to have no information at all. You're just wrong about what my effect is; I build; I am simply not going to be bothered by you claiming i damage the encyclopedia. It is tiring, though, having a bunch of fault-finders hoping to pounce on some apparent error to get all angry about. --do ncr am 04:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to discuss your attitude with Jimbo Wales, who once said Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. --Orlady (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead, Doncram -- I've even started the thread. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

OMG! You, Sarek of Vulcan and Orlady, are behaving in a disingenuous at best and ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS at worst manner!!!!!!!!! You just twisted Doncram's statement "You and others' complaints about ambiguous statements "so-and-so is an architect and/or builder", for example, pretty much comes down to your preferring to believe in confident statements that are possibly false or to have no information at all.", into implications that HE wants to provide false information!!!!!!!!! Indeed, the very statements he is referring to are his bend over backwards ways to prevent providing false information. The Jimbo Wales quote has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. Here you are discussing whether it is appropriate to build and article, in mainspace, using an under construction tag in the way Doncram was doing when y'all started this big hooha. I repeat, OMG!!!!! Lvklock (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, the main thrust of the comments in that discussion thread was on potential libel, copyvios, and other seriously bad stuff, but the message was not just about the seriously bad stuff. In order to avoid the seriously bad stuff, Wikipedia has to be intolerant of everyday bad stuff. Mr. Wales also said: "We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it." The "every little tidbit is precious" attitude is what Doncram was expressing above, in different words. --Orlady (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Orlady, please don't recast what i say. In the past you have misrepresented what I have said many times, and again now.

In the past few days I created the following NRHP architect and/or mason articles:

Fred F. Willson, Montana architect
Link & Haire, Montana architect
A.J. Gibson, Montana architect
Wade Hampton Pipes, Portland, Oregon architect
Peter J. Barber, Santa Barbara, California architect and mayor
Thomas P. Barber, Colorado architect
Donn Barber, New York architect
Barber & McMurry, Tennessee architects
Henry deCourcy Richards, Philadelphia, PA architect
Lang & Witchell, Dallas, Texas architects
Joseph & Joseph, Kentucky architects
Ferry & Clas, Wisconsin architects
Arnold F. Meyer, Wisconsin builder to designs of Ernest Flagg
Silas Owens, Sr., mason in Arkansas
Thomas Frazer, Utah mason
Sanguinet & Staats, Fort Worth, Texas architects
Frank Chamberlain Clark, Oregon architect
Bernhardt E. Muller, Arabian nights style architect of Florida
Fuller & Delano, Worcester, Massachusetts architects
Sheperd S. Woodcock, Massachusetts architect
Jules Leffland, Victoria, Texas architect
O.P. Woodcock, Florida builder
Bruce & Morgan, Georgia architect
Brinton B. Davis, Kentucky architect
Frank Carmean, Arkansas architect
Favrot & Livaudais, Louisiana architects
Lloyd Titus, Philadelphia architect
H.T. Pugh, Jerome, Idaho mason
Oscar Wenderoth, supervising architect of U.S. Treasury, appointed by Taft
Roy Blass, Lustron house designer
Bryan W. Nolen, Oklahoma architect
Patton & Miller, Chicago architects of > 100 libraries
William Waters (architect), Wisconsin architect
John W. Ross (Iowa architect) (nominated for deletion; Kept)
John W. Ross (North Dakota architect) (nominated for deletion; Kept)
John W. Gaddis, Indiana architect
Marsh & Saxelbye, Florida architects
Albert Randolph Ross, architect
Dinnie Brothers, masons in North Dakota

and, yes, I created

User:Doncram/George F. Barber in mainspace, when it turned out later that George Franklin Barber already existed.

I am a) sure that some could argue that one or more of these oughta be merged or organized differently, b) sure that there exist some errors of emphasis and omission and characterization in some of these, c) sure that fault-finders can do what they do best. But, I am even more sure these are good starts, and together make a good contribution to Wikipedia. I built lots of good connections in the process of developing these, and these articles will stand in good stead as the NRHPs they link to get created gradually. By the way, for the six above that turned out to be masons or other builders, I am 100% sure that Elkman's NRHP article generator will provide indication that the persons are architects, and that editors will blithely paste that into articles. I happen to prefer more accurate statements in infboxes and articles. :)

Go ahead, chime in and say if you were creating any of these (which you weren't) you woulda done better. And point out the first edit of each wasn't a great, fully-formed article. Or that some aren't great now. So what. They're started, they can be improved; please do help improve them! Some can say they shoulda been started in a sandbox, but I don't agree, I don't understand why some get so angry about the fact that I saved more than a few pagemoves and developed them in mainspace where categorizers and biographers and others were chiming in with improvements as I developed them. Live and let live, okay? If you're not interested in architects and masons and builders, please go away. :) If you are interested though, please do help develop these. :) --do ncr am 16:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll pick one. Lloyd Titus -- "Possibly associated with:", and when I Google http://www.google.com/search?q=%22lloyd+titus%22+%22titus+and+round%22, I get exactly one hit -- this article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But not even that now, since I deleted the bogus info from the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

~~And how on God's green earth can you call this a great, fully-formed article?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)~~ Misread.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, i didn't. You are picking the very first edit, replaced very shortly. And I developed more context, until you, SarekOfVulcan ripped out blockquotes (rather than develop them more properly which was indeed needed) and in a subsequent edit removed the Under Construction tag. I thought you took over that article (now at H.T. Pugh); it woulda been better otherwise. :) --do ncr am 17:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, you did. "And point out the first edit of each wasn't a great, fully-formed article."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, take a breath. Read what I wrote: i suggested u or someone else would point out that the first edit wasn't a fully formed article. --do ncr am 17:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, *headdesk*. Sorry.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I ripped out uncited blockquotes. Three quotes, two sources, and no indication what went with what. I have no particular problem with you putting them back, as long as it says where they came from...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, you brag that you "saved more than a few pagemoves". So what? What's good about that? What's bad about a pagemove? Is your resistance to keeping your stuff in userpace until it's ready based on some idea that pagemoves are to be avoided? Ntsimp (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about saving pagemoves particularly but I do feel perfectly proud of having created this set of articles efficiently, and one part of the efficiency is doing it in mainspace, benefiting right away from others helping and saving steps. I developed the Fred F. Willson article in 5 edits over 16 minutes (a good bit longer if you count how long my first edit took, not measured). If I did it in userspace, there would have been interference about having categories in userspace and other complications, if i didn't comment out the categories and so on, all taking away from simply developing it. I simply wouldn't have gotten to the Willson article, as the last of what turned out to be 40 articles, if I had taken on extra overhead. And, how at all would it be better if the Fred Willson article was started in userspace, then moved into mainspace, in the end? I do notice one user commenting happily at my Talk page already about that article, and maybe we'll get pics and get it to DYK. I think it is better to get the work out, to forge connections between articles and editors, and to proceed. You don't have to like creating articles, if that's not your thing, of course. There's just no need for all the anger about another editor making contributions though. --do ncr am 17:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories need not be a challenge in userspace, Doncram. Just surround them with "comment" tags, as I have done in User:Orlady/Hall income tax. --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's just one complication. Another is that it is natural to go inbetween the linked articles and edit in connections, in the process of developing and collecting good pics and sources from the related articles, which you can't do if the article is in a sandbox (or bots will rip out the connections you make). These architect articles are highly related to the NRHP place articles they link to. Your Tennessee hall tax article in a sandbox is fine, but it is not connected, you are not building the inter-connections that are a big feature of these architect articles. There are other complications too, adding up to more overhead from sandbox use. These architect articles are created from Elkman's article generator, instead of from mine. I agreed before in back-and-forth with Dudemanfellabra (within the wp:AN proceeding that was seeking to ban me from creating new articles) to try, in a new /batch of my generator, to use the Talk page sandbox approach for a geo-based or architect-based list of NRHPs, and I will do that. I am aware, in advance, of multiple complications, which a new demo will demonstrate. You are not particularly interested in generating NRHP articles or supporting other editors who might create them, which is okay, and you aren't and don't have to be aware of the complications. --do ncr am 21:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Doh! Silly of me not to recognize that userspace only works for persons of obviously limited capacity (like myself), writing on trivially simple topics (like taxation) that could not possibly be related to anything else in Wikipedia (other than other trivially simple topics like law and finance) and lack the extreme intricacy of articles that match the names of buildings with the names of their architects. --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And you also created Charles L. Thompson, tossed everything mentioning him and his firms into the same article, and redirected Frank Ginocchio and Theodore M. Sanders to it. Not really an ideal situation there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was started by me earlier, not within the last few days, so I didn't claim credit for it above. I did indeed develop that and also contribute to many other articles during the recent period. Including that I've created a good number of high-quality redirects. If you want to step in and argue at Talk:Charles L. Thompson that Ginocchio and Sanders should have separate articles, that is okay, but I don't happen to see lots of material present to develop them, and I currently think it is best to cover them in one merged article. It was an advance to link those names to the Charles L. Thompson article, either way it eventually ends up. Are you trying to find fault? Why? --do ncr am 18:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Because you don't establish that buildings designed by Thompson, Sanders and Ginocchio were actually designed by Thompson, but you put them in his article anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Charles L. Thompson is the lead partner in several partnerships including that one. It is impossible to know which partner oversaw what project, within the partnership. Only Thompson's name appears in the title of the study nominating 143 for NRHP listing. It makes sense to have one article about all of the overlapping partnerships, and for it to be at his name as the primary partner. There is no partnership name that includes all the names; I happen to see no good alternative to placing it at Thompson's name. Please discuss at Talk page of the article, if you propose an alternative name for the combined article, or to split (though I don't welcome any such proposal, offhand, honestly). --do ncr am 19:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"It is impossible to know which partner oversaw what project, within the partnership." -- I find that rather difficult to credit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you want to believe that precise attribution of design projects to architects within a firm is always going to be possible, before an article can mention the project at an architect's article. That's too high an information standard. It's reasonable to include the Thompson, Sanders and Ginocchio partnership projects in the Thompson article for now, whether or not eventually we split the article. Dictums like "get accurate information before you put it in mainspace" aren't helpful. I have accurate information, that the given project is credited to a partnership by the National Register's database, and that Thompson is one member of the partnership. I don't have infinitely detailed information, which is likely not ever going to be knowable, about the hours of quality time one architect vs. another put in on a given design project. Do you want their internal time sheets? Maybe you should disbelieve their time sheets, which are created for billing purposes, maybe you further want an on-the-spot second-guessing witness measuring the architect's time with a stopwatch? Seriously, it's not reasonable to demand too much, in the first drafts of an article where one is sorting out attribution of projects and sorting out definition of scope of the article (include the partners or not), and that's okay. The draft is a good start. --do ncr am 22:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And, to prove I was correct in being "sure that some could argue that one or more of these oughta be merged or organized differently", Orlady now proposes merger of the H.T. Pugh mason article into the NRHP list-article for 65 places listed in Jerome County, Idaho. Hmm, why not restore/develop from the blockquotes, and let it be a nice short article about the mason. He wasn't a Freemason, as far as I know, after all. :) Seriously, it should be a nice article about the man. It's totally DYK-developable as an interesting article. I tend to think Orlady, too, is trying to find fault, some other way of doing whatever I chose to do, and not finding an objectively better way with this one. --do ncr am 18:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And, in this edit labelled "trim redundant", SarekOfVulcan strips out the documentation of items that are NRHP-listed from the Henry deCourcy Richards article. S, you've done that in other articles, such as H.T. Pugh, where your removal undermines the lede statement "More than 20 of his works are preserved and are listed on the National Register of Historic Places" (no longer proven in the article). My intention with the NRHP-listed documentation, is to allow for the addition of other buildings, not NRHP-listed, which should require other footnotes documenting their associations. And my intention with showing (Henry deCourcy Richards) or (Henry deCoursey Richards), is to show how the credit is given. I think it detracts from the continuing development of the article, if you strip that out. My first step to continue developing, would be to restore that information, not easily created or recreated later. I am not stupid for setting it up this way, to be robust for additions of other information and to provide item-specific documentation of association. Take a look at List of George Franklin Barber works, where each item is specifically supported by a footnote, if you want to see other editors' take on the necessity of this. --do ncr am 19:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It is exactly as established now as it was beforehand, considering that everything I removed was an identical named ref pointing to the NRHP database, rather than to the particular properties being listed. List of GFBarber works has 53 refs for the list of works -- HTPugh has 1. And as I said in the edit summary, if you have to repeat the article subject next to every entry in the list, something is badly wrong with the way it's set up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You're still missing that 13 of the items are credited to deCourcy while 17 are credited to deCoursey, certainly a good possibility for future confusion; I believe it is best to keep track of the specific documentation of attribution for each item in the list. I would keep the different names in, until I had a specific source commenting on the alternative spelling. In other architect article cases, there's potential confusion for longer, as with the two John W. Ross's. Keeping track of minor variations in spelling is often helpful in finally clarifying that the variations refer to same or different persons. You're being too aggressive to rip out documented information, before the topic is well-developed.

Note List of George Franklin Barber works has 26 rows cited to www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com. List of non-ecclesiastical and non-residential works by John Douglas is a good English historic sites example, also with specific footnote for each building listed. Please, go ahead and strip out all the painstakingly added footnotes on each row in those list-articles, and see how well you are received! Seriously, you are not seeing how these articles can develop, with lists to be sorted chronologically or otherwise, with each item documented, with other non-NRHP-listed items being inserted and needing different documentation. If you rip out all footnotes, then that incorrectly suggests new insertions won't need footnotes. It's more robust to keep everything documented specifically, all along. --do ncr am 19:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality of new articles

In an attempt to move this away from the personal... the underlying issue here is: what level of quality control should be done before someone creates a new article?... how much research into the topic should the creating editor do? What level of sourcing should he have in place before writing? Should we start off by just tossing in all the information we have, or should we perform some preliminary quality assessment and organization first? These are not easy questions, and I don't know if there is a "right answer". But I think we need to reach some consensus (even if it is to "agree to disagree") on this to resolve the tensions that are building. Blueboar (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think that an absolute basic first step would be to make sure that all the information being put into the article actually applies to the subject of the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Then, please don't remove the footnotes that document a given building is specifically associated with the architect! (Or that document association with probable/possible variations on the architect name, like George W. who turns out to be the same as George F. Barber). The point is to get accurate information, keep it accurate and documented, and edit appropriately as developed information warrants. --do ncr am 19:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Then get accurate information before you put it in mainspace. You're the only one in this project that ~~can't~~ won't do that. I understand that you may be able to back up your "helpful contributions" with your own interpretations of different policies, but just because it's "legal" doesn't mean it's welcomed. Sure, you can continue to do what you're doing and probably won't get blocked for it, but if you continue ignoring every single person that ever criticizes even the smallest jot and tittle of your work, the number of people that would just love to see you go away and never come back will continue to increase... I'm beginning to become one of those people myself. I've never come across anyone so stubborn in my life, save lawyers and politicians. Please, Doncram, for your own good.. just stop.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What needs to be stopped is the nasty hounding of new and old editors who are making honest contributions. Dudemanfellabra, i still am not over how you hounded out one Pennsylvania editor, an actually experienced one. Other good editors have been driven away. The remaining editors here are, too much, the ones who like contention and finding fault. It is not necessary to set a standard for new articles, in a project whose goal is to create good articles. You and others are too focused on micro-managing how other editors proceed, and you are too happy to drive the producing editors away. In this case, I lay out 40 good article topics that I identified as being needed, and that I started articles for. This is a serious contribution. There's nothing to "stop" about that; it is what this project is for. --do ncr am 20:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Blueboar is asking a good question. Just as a for-instance, are this and this examples of what not to do, or are they the right way to create stubs that we can develop into real articles? I'm not expressing an opinion; just wondering what the consensus around here might be. Ntsimp (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Those seem to be reasonable stubs, and I don't see any reason not to work forward from them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The first diff is an article created by me, with edit summary indicating that I did so to support the existence of disambiguation at Fairview Apartments (it's amazingly hard to develop and maintain the disambiguation that is necessary to support WikiProject NRHP, and creating an article or two used to be absolutely required and still is good politics). The second diff is a similar stub created by another editor, thank goodness. Will the good people of this wikiproject turn on that editor, and hound him/her into stopping being involved? It's been done too many times. There are seriously fewer arrivals to WikiProject NRHP articles, seriously fewer new members. The general tenor in Wikipedia is to treat brand new editors badly, and to hound out many of those who try for longer. WikiProject NRHP has been a relatively friendly place, because we are lucky to have topics that are so uncontroversial. It seems to be human nature, of mob rule or whatever, to seek to tear down and criticize what others do, particularly someone who stands up to it. Most new editors and many experienced editors just walk away, instead. There is nothing wrong, and lots good, about how I set up these 40 articles. Who the hell should care to criticize these? There was nothing, now there is a pretty good start on these architect articles, a way in for new/old editors. On the two stubs that Ntsimp points to, there is less there; it is certainly better to include in online NRHP documents ASAP where those are available (as should be available for most/all Utah articles), and which oughta be provided in the Elkman article generator IMHO, to provide means for new/other editors to contribute more. --do ncr am 20:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So much for "an attempt to move this away from the personal".... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, consider that Ntsimp is asking a serious question for him/herself, what is okay to for Ntsimp to start with, in starting up articles in Utah. Or will one's head get ripped off if one does anything at all. I would be pretty terrified to get started as an NRHP editor right now. I have noticed Ntsimp adding to already-started Utah NRHP articles, and adding lots of pics to the geo-based NRHP list articles. And not starting any, I think. I think the answer can only be: start an article however you damn like. Be bold. Sure, you should probably try to consider whether you can start articles at least at the level supported easily by Elkman's article generator, i.e. including at least the infobox (with its possibly incorrect attribution of architect) and the categories it supports. Ignore Elkman's intended-to-be-daunting wording, start your article with one sentence. Or, I would be happy to generate somewhat better draft articles for one or more counties for you, with some more starter information in them and with the NRHP documents linked and inline references drafted, and with other bells and whistles. Or just start it. Click on Thomas and Mary Hepworth House and type "hello world" and hit return. Then come back and improve it a bit. Or leave improvement until later. If there's nothing indicating significance (such as assertion of NRHP listing), then the new article may attract Prod or other type of deletion nomination, but you can and should remove any Prod and continue. If there is an AFD post notice to wt:NRHP to get support of me and other NRHP editors, who will succeed in getting the article Kept. I do hope you will find your way to being empowered to start NRHP articles, which is something that Dudemanfellabra, me, and many others have enjoyed doing. Somehow the right to start articles on valid topics seems almost to have been taken away from newer editors. You should enjoy the privilege of being able to proceed, any way you damn please. --do ncr am 22:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me clear up that misunderstanding right away. It's true that I haven't started any NRHP articles myself, yet. Given that the nomination documents are nearly all online for the Utah properties, there is no way that I personally would start an article like the examples I linked. Indeed, I don't intend to create any without multiple good sources. And please, Doncram, if it matters what I think, I'd rather you not work your particular stub magic on Utah on a larger scale. My question was an attempt to get down to some details on Blueboar's question: what should be our minimum standard as a project? Ntsimp (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be helpful (and much less antagonistic all around) to focus on the positive side of my query, rather than the negative.... instead of looking for stubs that don't fit each of our personal quality standards... may I suggest we look for NRHP stubs that do meet our personal quality standards, and explain why we like them. If you can find one that lies just on the positive side of your personal line of demarcation, that would be very helpful. (note... I doubt each of us will set the line in the same place... that is OK.) It would also be instructive to see which featured articles related to this project started off in stub form (if any), and to see what they looked like when they were started. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to generate a minimum-acceptable stub (by my lights), using Elkman's generator, at Barns-Brinton House. Choess (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary quality break

There can certainly be good reasons to create the type of sub-stubs Ntsimp linked to. Disambiguation is probably one of them, completely eliminating the red-links in a particular county list might be another (if not done to excess), a place to hang a commons category of photos for a historic district might be another. There is however a "correct answer" (as far as it goes) as to what type of stub is acceptable according to Wikipedia rules. It is essentially an article of any length that asserts notability. Stubs have always been acceptable according to the rules in Wikipedia, and I hope always will be. Another consideration is the use of Elkman's tool. Last time I looked he had something on it about not using it to create 1 paragraph stubs. Elkman of course does not own the infobox, but I think it would be polite to follow his request here and create at least a 2 paragraph stub if you use his tool.

All this begs the question however, "How short of a stub is generally acceptable for WP:NRHP members?" This isn't anything that we can enforce, but I think it is reasonable that we ask the question, and all try to meet the standard, with enough flexibility to ignore it when needed. I'll just propose something very simple: half an hour of research, 2 sources (or at least one very good source), 2 paragraphs, an infobox and a photo if available. Smallbones (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying question: is that a goal for what one will bring the article to, in some reasonable time frame (say before a bot removes an UC template one week later)? Or do you believe that the article must meet that standard, in the first edit? If the latter, why? It can't possibly matter, if the article gets to whatever is your standard in short order, right?

I don't understand why there should be any such 1/2 hour standard; why? to hold off nasty editors who have nothing better to do than find fault? At this point I have lost respect for the critics, who seek to control the productive editors, and who seem to have nearly eradicated arrivals of new editors.

I do rather agree that it seems impolite to ignore Elkman's request for more than one sentence, which is part of why I created an alternative article-generating system (available upon request for any county or architect or other grouping). --do ncr am 00:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As proposed, up to that standard in a few hours/1 day. The half-hour research time is just to be sure to yourself, and to help other project members be sure, that you have something reasonable to say and haven't missed anything obvious. Probably better to call it a guideline since it can't be enforced, and there are times when it isn't applicable. Folks do have a reasonable expectation that other editors will try to come up to a certain quality. And from the other side, I think editors who aren't meeting a general standard have some right to expect that other editors will HELP them. I hope that's what being a community, a joint project is all about. The alternative is that we all ignore each other - which would probably be a bit better than all the sniping that has been going on. I don't want an argument, I just wanted to answer the stated question of what other editors think minimum quality standards should be. Smallbones (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, which part of don't break mainspace are we failing to get across here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Doncram: Stop using my infobox generator as an excuse for the things that you are specifically being called out for. The comments provided in the text area and the request to make more than short stubs are not meant to be daunting toward new contributors. They're a request to put something more than the infobox and a few sentences into an article. It says, "You need to enter some more information about where the property is located, its history, and why this property is notable." Is this asking too much? Apparently, it's been asking too much to ask you to do this, so you've come up with an alternative article generator. Congratulations on programming something of your own. But, your conduct is coming up for review, not mine, and I'm really tired of having my name dragged into your arguments when I'm not all that active on Wikipedia at the moment. (And, do you care to guess why I'm not all that active?)

By the way, I used my infobox generator to create a one-paragraph article at Hamm Brewing Company Beer Depot in East Grand Forks. The article is unexciting, but it at least mentions the use of refrigerator cars and explains at least a little bit about how refrigerator cars made more opportunities for commerce. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A typical stub I recently created is David Rayfiel House. Since I found this particularly interesting, I spent more time on it than perhaps others. For this recent NRHP addition (as with all I create for NY), there is a link to the OPRHP scan of the NRHP application. I won't create a stub without having that ref and reviewing it in detai. Given the number I've created at this point, I'd say it took about an hour to draft the stub, especially since there's no Elkman infobox. Can't see how there can be a time frame set on any of this; it's totally dependent upon experience and available secondary resources. From this I created the stub bio for David Rayfiel. This is what I get great joy from and find the whole experience very fulfilling.--Pubdog (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

One thing that would improve the base quality this project's stubs would be the addition of at least one fact about the building that was obtained from (and cited to) a source other than the NRHP database (Note: I would classify the nomination documents as being distinct from the database, even though you can access both through the website.) Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration with WP:USRD

Hello. At WP:USRD, I have started a task force with the goal of improving U.S. Route 66 and any articles related to it. US 66 is by far the most viewed road article, so we at the project want to get the article in good shape and to do it we'd like as many hands as possible. I am still in the midst of organizing things, but I'd like to extend an invitation to help out. We're looking for a few editors who are interested in the history, landmarks, pop culture, and Americana along the Mother Road.

If you know of any other WikiProjects that might be able to help, please let me know. If you're interested or know someone who might be, please sign up or have them sign up at WP:USRD/US66. Thanks! –Fredddie ™ 00:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

GLAM Camp in NYC

I'll be attending the GLAM Camp in NYC this weekend. In short it's a series of workshops, including GLAM professionals and Wikipedians, to work on how Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums can cooperate with Wikipedia. I think that WP:NRHP has a lot in common with WP:GLAM. After all the NRHP/NPS could be viewed as being an archive and runs many museums and libraries (and likely a gallery or two). More than that, many of the sites were originally, or later became, libraries or museums. I think I've got an "official" position in WP:GLAM on the Ambassador Steering Committee (we haven't done much there yet), but my main interest has been sitting back and watching what's happening and trying to ensure that the project works for all Wikipedians , not just for a few highly-motivated museum types. I've probably been sitting back too much and it's time for me to actively contribute, so of course I'd like to hear any comments or concerns that folks here have, or any ways that WP:NRHP, WP:GLAM, or museum professionals can cooperate. Please leave general comments here, or more specific comments on my talk page or by e-mail and I'll try to relay these to the workshops (without in any way pretending to represent this project). (A mostly separate topic follows this) Smallbones (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps bring up licensing for digitized images, and encourage them to release their digitized images into the public domain, or under a free-use license, that would allow us to transfer them to Commons and display them on articles. Bms4880 (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There is lots of movement along this line. EG Chief digital asset manager at Yale explained the U's fairly new program, where almost everything they control will be released under a free license (might take a while to implement). Several institutions were at the program this morning, essentially asking how they can upload whole databases of pix, in an orderly manner. It seems that many institutions take their goals of disseminating knowledge very seriously and are willing to work with Wikipedia on it. It will take some handholding, helping them, etc. This is not a one-off type of thing, rather people talked of relationship-building. Smallbones (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 in DC

Wikimania 2012 will be held at Georgetown University, Washington, DC July 12-15, 2012 (about 14 months away). There is a good opportunity to this project to contribute, or to put our best foot forward, for the conference. General info here and here While there is lots of time, I'll suggest that we come up with some project(s) aimed toward the conference. One obvious project would be to bring National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington, D.C. up to featured list status - get it fully illustrated, eliminate the red links, and probably organize it a bit better. That way all the international wiki visitors would have great info on our national capital (I assume most of us in WP:NRHP are US citizens) from a great Wikiproject. There are lots of other things we might do as well - let's hear lots of suggestions - before clearing it with the Wikimania organizers if necessary. All ideas appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

NRHP listings in commonwealths, territories, and associated states

I have recently gone through all 50 states' lists of NRHP listings and rated their importance (with some last minute help from User:Ebyabe) The state-level lists (e.g. National Register of Historic Places listings in California) received High-importance ratings, and the lower-level lists (e.g. National Register of Historic Places listings in Alameda County, California) received Mid-importance ratings. While going through the lists, though, I came across National Register of Historic Places listings in United States commonwealths and territories and associated states. For these smaller territories and islands, the organization is much less clear cut.

That one article has on it all the NRHP listings in the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, United States Minor Outlying Islands, Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. The list of regular NRHPs matches up with our other list for NHLs, List of United States National Historic Landmarks in United States commonwealths and territories, associated states, and foreign states, which also includes listings in the United States Virgin Islands and one in Morocco. I rated both the NRHP and the NHL lists as high-importance, since they are "top"-level lists of sites on the register. There seemed to be no sub-lists (analogous to county-level lists in state cases) to speak of, so that worked fine.

Upon further investigation, though, the following lists also exist:

Each of these articles (except the Virgin Islands one) is duplicated in the National Register of Historic Places listings in United States commonwealths and territories and associated states list (although the individual lists are more up to date). While I went through and rated all of these individual lists Mid-importance, as I would have done with county-level articles, I feel that this is not the best solution.

I see two options:

Turn all of the individual lists into redirects to the big list and remedy any differences between them. Merge the Virgin Islands list into the big one and then turn it into a redirect as well. We will be left with one big article rated High-importance. This will match our NHL list in format as well.
Remove the duplicated material on the big list and keep all of the sub-lists separate, rated Mid-importance. The big list would be rated high-importance like a state-level list. This would also require a new section for the Virgin Islands, though it would just be a link to the full list.

I favor the first option, but I thought I should ask here before doing anything with them. In either option, I think the big list should be moved to a more grammatically correct title, such as National Register of Historic Places listings in United States commonwealths, territories, and associated states. I also think the NHL list should be moved to National Historic Landmarks in United States commonwealths, territories, associated states, and foreign states to avoid unnecessary disambiguation. What do you guys think?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As the person who was responisible for setting up the individual lists (as well as keeping them largely updated), I am opposed to the first option. Personally, I'd ditch that big list and redirect it to the main NRHP list. I see no reason why a merged listed is even necessary. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 00:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the lists are large enough to stand alone, so I agree with Niagara. The merge list isn't necessary in my opinion. I would rate each of the smaller lists at high importance to put them on an even level with the states. Royal broil 01:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've redirected the list to the national one and rated all of the individual lists High-importance. Thanks for the feedback!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Listcruft

Why are the following lists even necessary? You'll never guess who created them.

There are undoubtedly many more, but these three stuck out at me as I was going through the NRHP lists of unknown importance category, which I'm working on emptying at the moment. Do these not fall in the realm of WP:LISTCRUFT?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fascinating that notable sod houses still exist. The list will be useful to anyone else who might want to research them. Jonathunder (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

To comment about one, the List of telephone company buildings one, it is identified as a Set Index article, which is an alternative form of disambiguation. Who would have thought that there exist about 50 NRHP-listed buildings named Telephone Company Building, Bell Telephone Building, Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Building, or Telephone Exchange Building, and close variations? The encyclopedia needs to provide for reader navigation to these articles, which seems to me best done by disambiguation pages for those 4 specific names plus one list-article of them all plus other notable telephone buildings. Having a not-very-exciting list-article serves the purpose of providing for economical lookup. I started the list with edit summary "start a possibly boring but needed list". But I think it turns out that one can begin to discern something from looking at the list of NRHP-listed ones, that telephone buildings have a certain role in U.S. history, a certain importance and probably provide similar architectural challenges (which have changed over time as location and space requirements for telephone exchange buildings have changed). Why are the NRHP-listed ones deemed important, is a good question to ask, which the list-article could be developed to address more fully, if/when an engineer or other person interested in the topic comes along. Perhaps some are the first example of a given engineering/architectural approach. Until then, it still serves the navigational purposes.

Another alternative would be to have just the 4 needed disambiguation pages, and to include "See also" links from each to the other 3, and to try to maintain a virtual list among the dab pages, without having an actual list-article. But those links between dabs would not really be justified as the names are quite different, and the links could be deleted; the intention to maintain a virtual list serving readers would not remain clear to other editors. Really, what is needed for the encyclopedia is to have just one list of the notable telephone buildings of the world to which each of the related dab pages can link.

Likewise, who would have thought that List of Elks buildings or List of Masonic buildings or List of governors' mansions in the United States or List of plantations in the United States, or other lists of buildings would get a lot of traction, but many of them do. --do ncr am 23:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an important difference between List of Elks buildings and List of sod houses. Quite a few Elks buildings exist with very similar or identical names, whereas there are only three sod house articles, all with very different names. As per WP:LISTCRUFT, I think a list like List of sod houses should start in the sod house article. Then, if enough articles are written about various sod houses to justify a separate list, a list can be created at that time. Likewise for dormitories. Telephone buildings is kind of in between; I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it. PhantomPlugger (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy for the past few days and haven't been able to get back to this. I didn't think about the idea of starting these lists inside of their "parent" articles. I think that would be the best solution–especially since the sod house and dormitory articles are both a little lacking (the former more than the latter). I think both of these lists should be merged to their parent articles and redirected there.

As for the telephone company buildings (which has been updated a bit since my first comment), I'm also more willing to let this set index article stay, but I think the same thing can be accomplished with categories. Why not just make a Category:Telephone company buildings and put all these articles in it?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think this project as a whole focuses too much on creating lists and sub-lists (and reorganizing the lists and sub-lists, and creating lists of the lists, and disambiguation pages for the lists... etc.)... and not enough on creating solid well sourced articles. But then the NRHP itself is essentially a list, so perhaps it is understandable that people who like lists are attracted to the project. As for categorizing instead of listing... Wikipedia has never really made clear when one or the other is best. Thus we end up duplicating ourselves and doing both. Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, i did a little browsing to look for info about the architecture of telephone buildings and found one pretty good source, which includes a U.S. map showing thousands of them. Most people don't notice these buildings. I happen to have noticed several oddly tucked away within historic districts. I am sure there is plenty of technical, engineering / architectural material about telephone buildings, because these are are ubiquitous and they pose distinct challenges (probably mostly to have minimal cost while serving the required functions).

About the List of sod houses, i agree that is a short list and could included as a section in the sod house article. Back when I created it, I think I might have thought there were going to be a lot more to be added, i.e. that I was just saving time by setting up the separate list. Also, i do think I was particularly bothered by one, Sod House (Cleo Springs, Oklahoma). In the absence of a dab page at "Sod House" and/or a list-article, it's possible that someone will try moving this to Sod House, arguing that there is no other place of that exact proper name and not being bothered that that sets up two articles differing just by capitalization. There are other situations like Octagon house vs. Octagon House and Masonic temple vs. Masonic Temple where there has been a ridiculous amount of blather to make petty distinctions, and in general undermining useful differentiation in naming. I think it would be wrong to give the Cleo Springs, Oklahome place a world-wide primary importance for the name "Sod House". And, I can't explain it exactly right now, but I think having the list-article in place helps to head off nonsensical moves and interminable discussions about the naming. I don't really oppose merger right now (in part because I can't explain myself better), but I do predict the situation will be a bit less stable if the list-article is redirected. Maybe there will never be any future dispute about this one, knock on wood. There already is this discussion, oh well.

P.S. I went ahead and merged/redirected the sod house list article. But then i notice that put 4 NRHP redlinks into a regular, non-list article, which isn't generally stable. Editors who have "owned" a long-standing article often will tend to simply delete redlinks they don't understand; there's no reason to think the editors of the sod house article are knowledgeable/appreciative about NRHP listed places. So, to avoid churning/dispute with that, it seems best to just create the NRHP articles. So I did just create:

Pioneer Sod House, Wheat Ridge, Colorado
Minor Sod House, McDonald, Kansas
Wallace W. Waterman Sod House, Big Springs, Nebraska
Jackson-Einspahr Sod House, Holstein, Nebraska

They are short stubs for now, which some editors really don't like. Having the separate list-article was more stable for keeping them as redlinks. If you don't like these as short stubs, then you shouldn't have put the existence of the list-article into play. But, hopefully these will be improved. Feel free to add to them. And, in general, be informed that I am often aiming to create stable situations, and avoid current and future disputes, when I decide to create stubs or set up disambiguation pages or otherwise build supporting structure to the NRHP articles system. You can second guess me, personally, all you want, but I do think i do a pretty good job, and there is no pleasing everyone given conflicting views. Here, Dudemanfellabra probably likes to be rid of the list-article, but doesn't like the new short stubs. Tough-o, it is done for now, unless anyone wants to actually develop the stubs. --do ncr am 23:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Having a telephone buildings category makes a lot of sense. But having that would not suffice on its own at all. That just does not work because it does not allow for there to be redlinks and it does not serve purpose of allowing editors to work ahead in the topic area. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for a good discussion of how overlapping categories and lists and navigation templates are complementary. --do ncr am 23:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Doncram... re the sod houses: looks good, thanks. My only quibble (and it is just a quibble)... is that the entire process was done backwards. Because we started with a list, we ended up needing to find a place to put it (and decided it was best in the sod house article)... which then resulted in having to write stub articles to prevent redlinks. A better approach would have been to start off writing four decent start level articles, and then mention these buildings (with links) in the larger sod house article... and finally reformat these mentions into a list within the sod house article. Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

GLAM results

Back from the WP:GLAM conference in NYC. There are certainly many institutions that want to donate high quality images to Wikipedia as part of their educational mission, or perhaps as a way of gaining some additional attention from our readers. This raises hope that there may be an institution out there which has a database of photos of NRHP sites. Perhaps the SHPOs? I believe the Minnesota SHPO is putting out freely licensed photos on Flicker. In any case if you know of such an institution, I'll suggest that you first contact them about a specific photo or small set of photos. If they appear open to the idea then you could direct them to WP:GLAM for further donations. WP:GLAM could then easily organize mass uploads, among other things, if that is what they want.

Other things an institution (GLAM) might want to do are a) a training session for e-volunteers on how to write Wikipedia articles (perhaps run by you or by an Ambassador) b) Putting together a list of topics of interest to the GLAM that folks could write articles on, or c) getting a Wikipedian-in-residence (usually an unpaid intern).

One small topic that grabbed my eye is the use of QR codes, which is being done on the inside exhibits at Derby Museum. A QR code is just a bigger type of bar code, that can be used by a smart-phone (with a free app) to connect directly to a specific Wikipedia article in the phone's preferred language. Materials costs are only for paper, ink, and scotch tape and all software use is gratis. I'm thinking about putting these outside for NRHP buildings and did a quick experiment with a new article on the hostel where most of us stayed, the Association Residence Nursing Home. Europeans and most New Yorkers know what to do with the QR codes (take a photo of it with your smart phone) and the direct connection works.

I guess the way this might work en masse is something like the following. You walk by Independence Hall and on a streetlamp or utility pole is a QR code, you just take a photo of the code and up pops the English language Wikipedia article on your phone. Your Japanese friend takes a photo of the same code and up pops the Japanese version of the article. You walk a couple blocks to the First Bank of the United States, see a different code, take its photo and get a different article. Go to City Hall, snap that photo, and get that article. Any feedback on this would be appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Record amount of listings for a state in a single weekly announcement?

I just finished updating New York's lists with the ten properties added in yesterday's weekly announcement of new listings. Just out of curiosity, is that a record for the most new listings for a single state in those weekly announcements? It sure feels that way to me, but I couldn't believe that there aren't others out there. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The weekly list for December 11, 2009 had 62 properties in Utah. Ntsimp (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's right; I remembered that one but didn't remember how many there were. Of course, most of them were address-restricted archeological districts. So maybe that's "most named, location-disclosed properties"? Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate NRHP articles

Church of the Ascension and Saint Agnes in Washington, D.C. was started January 25, 2007. On May 2, 2010, Church of the Ascension (Washington, D.C.) was created. It is the same building.clariosophic (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Then the later-created one should be redirected to the older one, to preserve older edit history most meaningfully. Have redirected, am merging info, could use help in editing the merged article. --do ncr am 05:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I started cleanup, basic restructuring] today, but have several Memorial Day functions to go to. clariosophic (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Which name is current?

Denverjeffrey left me a request for help regarding two houses on the Washoe County, Nevada list: they shared similar names ("Borland-Clifford House" and "Clifford House") and addresses, but were marked as being listed on different dates. Through research that I've noted at Jeffrey's talk page, I've concluded that they're two different names for the same house, so I removed "Clifford House". Do you think I did the right thing, or should I have removed "Borland-Clifford House" instead? Below my comment I reproduce my comments that I left for Jeffrey. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's just one house, but the situation is odd. If you put "Clifford House" into Elkman's infobox generator, it gives you B-C House, and you get the same thing if you tell Elkman's county list generator to give you Washoe County. However, if you run a search for all Washoe County locations in the NRHP Focus database, it only gives you C House. The property appears in the Recent Listings for July 3, 2008 (note that someone put it into the list with a listing date of June 24, 2008), so I suspect that they simply changed the name by which it was listed.

I just created Borland-Clifford House. The refs seem to indicate the reason for the name change. clariosophic (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives DYK collaboration

This summer I am serving as the first Wikipedian in Residence at the US National Archives (see Signpost article); in order to serve as a hub for activity related to the National Archives' collaboration with Wikipedia, I have recently created a project page at WP:NARA. Since it seems relevant to this Wikiproject, I wanted to point members to our first editing project, which was recently announced and can be found here. The National Archives is an incredible resource for images and other documents related to America's historic sites. I would be grateful for any input as we work out the details, and, of course, your participation once it launches. Dominic·t 14:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Prince Hall pictures

This Wikiproject may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Prince Hall Mystic Cemetery#Photos about the best image(s) to add to that page. Incidentally, the Arlington Historical Society has a bunch of information on the history of the cemetery and I hope to see what is reliably sourced and suitable for addition. Ma^t_chups 02:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"address restricted"

Why are certain addresses restricted when they can be found on maps? For example, I walked into Shantok, Village of Uncas and took pictures. Both the arch. district and the burial ground are (inaccurately) placed on Google Maps, and the article here has a close approximation of the coordinates.
If the address is restricted, can pictures still be uploaded for use?

71.234.215.133 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The address is restricted to keep people from looting - especially burial grounds, shipwrecks, etc. If coordinates are inaccurate then you can report them at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues for the NRIS to review. I have uploaded images for Address Restricted places only when their location is common knowledge which can easily be located online, by signs at a park, an active church, etc. There are many listed effigy mounds and Great Lakes shipwrecks in my area. If their address is so restricted then why would they have signs for it? Royal broil 13:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have found that the Address Restricted notation can be the default listing for "There is no address". Most archaeological sites or parks don't have a physical street address, thus "Address Restricted" 25or6to4 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Address Restricted" does NOT mean address is not known. It usually means that when the NRHP nomination was filed, the archeologist or others involved in the filing requested and believed and were promised that the location of the site would be kept private. It's unfortunate we don't easily know which requests and promises should now be disregarded because of events since. In some cases a museum has been opened or otherwise the location has been made very public in reliable sources, so damage will not be done by Wikipedia mention. Otherwise, I suggest contacting the state historic preservation office or the National Register before yourself choosing to disclose the location of a place you happen to know about. --do ncr am 05:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've always used a simple rule of thumb, if the property is listed as "address restricted" and the address can be confirmed through reliable sources, it can be listed in the Wikipedia article. If it cannot, then the fact that you, personally, have found the address and the property would count as original research, which is a no-go. I think that is a simple way to go about the address restricted thing. IvoShandor (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think every time that we've visited this subject its come down to using your very best judgement. (Correct me if I'm mistaken). An example of how I've handled one of the address restricted sites I've written about was with the Liddell Archeological Site. Auburn University, who owns the site, published some info and a very general location, so I added that to the article. I asked around in the area (OR, as mentioned by IvoShandor) and found out where it was, but then did find an obscure document that confirmed it(not OR, but not online and I'm not telling any potential looter were to go dig for artifacts). So I took the photograph from the public highway right-of-way and used it in the article without giving away the site's location along the approximately 500 mile long shoreline of the reservoir it borders. Altairisfar (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Joplin, MO properties

In the wake of the tornadoes it may be likely that we will see, in coming months' weekly list announcements, a bunch of removals from Jasper County, Missouri. This article in today's New York Times already confirms the destruction of one listing in the city, Elks Club Lodge No. 501:

Finally, here, on yet another day, a few Elks gather on the hill where their beloved Joplin Elks Lodge No. 501 once stood. A place for fish fries and bingo, for New Year's Eve parties and Kansas City Chiefs games—"Cold beers and wings and ten tons of B.S.," as an Elks member, Randy Bell, puts it—is now a mishmash mound of playing cards and concrete, hula-girl decorations and steel

Is anyone else familiar enough with the city and the damaged areas to make some guesses as to what else might no longer be standing? Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on the map, the following other properties in that area might also have been destroyed or severely damaged:

Scottish Rite Cathedral (Joplin, Missouri)
Olivia Apartments (no article, but we do seem to have a photo)
Ridgway Apartments (ditto) Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

According to their website the Scottish Rite building escaped serious damage. No idea on the others. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Springfield, MA

It looked like the recent tornado thru Springfield went thru a historic area. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Holland Reformed Protestant Dutch Church

While working a list in my userspace, I came across Holland Reformed Protestant Dutch Church (#90001243) in Ottawa County, Michigan. It's not listed on the county list, but when it is searched in Elkman's tool, it shows up as "DR" (Date received, pending nomination) with a date of July 20, 1990. This page from the Michigan State Historic Sites Online database says that the building was listed on the register on August 23, 1990. That would seem to imply that the NRHP had the nomination from July 20 to August 23, after which the listing was approved, but the NRIS database wasn't updated? The church is included on the weekly list of actions taken 8/20/90-8/24/90, which can be found on page 76 of this pdf. Should I report this to WP:NRIS info issues MI?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Nation-wide, there are a fair number of cases, probably a few dozen, just like this, where locals/state/others believe/know that a place was NRHP-listed, but the NRIS database still shows as "DR". In many/most of these cases we can even find the Weekly Announcement that the National Register puts out which shows the listing happening a few months later. The National Register should be pretty receptive to fixing NRIS for these cases, if we collect them and report them systematically. My last efforts to report NRIS errors didn't result in changes; a new effort to report NRIS errors to a higher level in the National Park Service is probably called for. --do ncr am 15:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

First off, Doncram, can you check your 2010 version of the NRIS? Maybe they've already corrected it? If not, I'll go ahead and put it on that page.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I attach approximately zero probability to the likelihood that the National Register would have corrected its records on that one during 2009-2010, given no request from us to do so, and given very little changes on their part ever. I have observed them doing some updating in response to my/our requests, and in response to some other parties' requests (for example an address correction that I know was reported by a New York State historical society), but otherwise, zippo gets changed.

I'd look it up in the 2010 NRIS, but it's not terribly easy to do so for me; I do not have a lookup webpage set up and would have to run a database program, on the computer where I have that database program (not with me now).

Another option is to look in www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, which has updated to the 2010 version of NRIS. At NRHP.COM's Ottawa county Michigan page, it shows the place with listing date in 1990. I thought that would state a specific day-date of July 20, 1990, which would verify that NRIS's 2010 version does not reflect any update (and would be consistent with NRHP.COM ignoring listed vs. delisted vs. other status). But NRHP.COM seems to have chosen now to just report year-dates, so the available info does not rule out the small possibility that you wonder about.

I'll just paste the info over to wp:NRIS info issues MI. It can be an open question there (as for all other NRIS information issues), whether the National Register has amazingly chosen to update on its own, without public request and pressure. --do ncr am 18:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I encountered NRHP.com three years ago, before I found any other NR-related pages other than Wikipedia, and since that time it's always given only the year. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Christeele Acres Historic District

I imagined this sort of thing has come up before, so I wanted to know how to resolve it. I've just noticed that Christeele Acres Historic District is a blatant copyvio of the nomination form, and has been since its creation. Obviously we should have an article on it, but it would need to be rewritten from scratch. Should it be tagged for speedy deletion? Ntsimp (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If there's nothing worth saving, yes. Alternatively you can erase all the copyvio material and just leave a sentence or two with the infobox as a stub. I would leave an edit summary saying something like "deleted copyvio of http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/99001626.pdf". Optionally, you can put {{subst:cclean|url=http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/99001626.pdf}} on the talk page. Station1 (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And Elkman started a new one. Thanks everyone! Ntsimp (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for DYK. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Who is the author for Brabson Ferry

Hi, I am a direct descendant of the Brabsons' who owned the Brabson Ferry Plantation; I grew up there. I was wondering who wrote this article on the Plantation. The pictures are really good. 24.197.141.78 (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Margaret Brabson Hicks

If you're talking about the Brabson's Ferry Plantation article, it appears from the history of it that User:Bms4880 was the main contributor.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the article, and took the photos. Thanks for the positive feedback! Bms4880 (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox update

There is currently a proposal in the infobox sandbox to update the NRHP infobox to be meta-compatible, i.e. compatible with Template:Infobox. The update also adds some new parameters such as |builder= (name), |demolished= (date), |restored= (date), |restored by= (name), and three new Boundary decrease parameters.

The biggest change with this update is the addition of a new "Significant dates" section of the infobox, which groups all dates together. If only one date is shown, the section doesn't appear.

If anyone has any objections to this update, please comment at Template talk:Infobox NRHP#Built information. If no one objects, the sandbox will go live Friday.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Where are the parameters for maps? There are two historic districts in Huntington (CDP), New York, which apparently overlap each other, and therefore need clearer definitions. ----DanTD (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about map parameters. Can you link to the two articles in question? For all the currently supported mapping parameters, click here. There is a section on that page for district-specific parameters as well.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Contributing buildings

Is there any strict definition of a contributing building in a historic district? Maybe in the database? 2 cases in point: in the Colonial Germantown Historic District there are nearly complete inventories online with buildings included as significant, contributing, non-contributing, and I think an occasional nothing. I take "significant" and "contributing" to fit our category of contributing. In the Broad Street Historic District (Philadelphia) there's a complete inventory with none of those words, the nomination form mentions several buildings, but doesn't really single any one or several out. This may be a special case (it's the center of Center City Philadelphia), but I'd guess all are considered to be contributing. Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"Contributing" is defined at Contributing property. The historic district nominations I've read typically identify some properties as "contributing" and others as "noncontributing", so there shouldn't be any ambiguity in distinguishing their status. Since the definition of "contributing" is based on the qualities that make the historic district, we can't generalize from one district to the next. Often the noncontributing properties were less than 50 years old at the time of National Register listing. I've seen a few cases where properties within a district are historically or architecturally significant, but are noncontributing simply because they don't the definition of the particular district. --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The definitions at Contributing property all look pretty fuzzy to me. While it may be untypical that inventories don't note "contributing" or "noncontributing" there are some that don't (and more typically nominations are available, but inventories are not). In those cases, should we just use our best guesses? Smallbones (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've come across one nomination form in Lauderdale County, MS, that only includes a list of properties, and doesn't say if they're contributing or not. Knowing a lot about the history of the era, I know that the buildings are contributing and that there are other buildings in the district limits that are noncontributing. One would have to assume that any building warranting mention in the document (that doesn't specifically say "noncontributing") would more than likely be a contributing property, no?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good - apparent agreement between myself, this talkpage, and the article writer, but ....

For your Center City district, compare the number of buildings listed with the number of contributing properties given by NRIS. I'm surprised that this issue has come up: Pennsylvania forms have always seemed to me to be nice and comprehensive in this way, although they're sometimes confusingly different, as you can see in the differences between the Bridgewater and Beaver HDs in Beaver County. Dudeman makes a good point in his final sentence; as well, I'm sure anything above "contributing" is included. It sounds vaguely similar to what Indiana Landmarks does out here: there are five categories (from worst to best, "non-contributing", "reference", "contributing", "notable", and "outstanding"), of which the best three are contributing properties. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, Elkman's infobox generator gives the number of contributing buildings and sites (total 44 here) and inventory lists 73 buildings. Given the number of small buildings surrounding the giant (and old) behemoths, I'm convinced. Smallbones (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to properly embed infoboxes

One South Broad, a contributing property in the Broad Street Historic District (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), has just been named a Good Article, but I just ruined the infobox. I wanted to maintain the info from the old infobox (height, sq feet, etc) and it sort works, but it looks like sh--! Any help appreciated!

Smallbones (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, generally the NRHP infobox works best as the one embedded. By the way, I'm not sure were the July 1978 designation date came from, considering the district it is in was listed in April 1984 (I've altered it accordingly, assuming it was a typo). Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 02:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, was a typo, good general priciple. Smallbones (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Has this been delisted or something?

Chickamauga Lodge No. 221, Free and Accepted Masons, Prince Hall Affiliate... the article gives a reference number, but the NRHP website says it has no record. --Blueboar

What website specifically are you searching? Elkman's generator shows hit (search on "Chickamauga Lodge No. 221"). --do ncr am 13:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I am searching what is actually cited in the article... nrhp.focus.nps.gov.

Hmmm... It seems that this is an issue for more than just that one building... I have the the same problem with Columbian Lodge No. 7 Free and Accepted Masons, Masonic Lodge No. 238, and The Old Masonic Lodge. Our articles say these are listed on the NRHP, and give reference numbers... but when I search the focus website, I am told there is no record. I note that these buildings are all in Georgia... does it perhaps have something to do with that? Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think search might be b0rked -- I'm not pulling anything up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You're referring to http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregadvancedsearch.do?searchtype=natregadvanced as the Focus search screen, perhaps. Yes, Focus seems to show nothing for any search right now, seems like the site is down in some way. That search screen was not the source of data in the article. Focus is properly not directly linked from the NRISref reference per long discussions, some archived from Talk page of List of Masonic buildings and some later discussion archived here at wt:NRHP; please feel free to read those archives. --do ncr am 13:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain it. I'll wait a day or two to see if they fix it.

citations

That said... this tells me that the issue I had several months ago (which you reference in your last comment) has not been resolved... if the focus website is not the source of the data, why do we cite it as if it were the source of the data? I understand that we are actually citing the database and not the website (correct me, again, if I have this wrong... my understanding is that the focus website is simply a way to access the database, on line), but the distinction is not clear from the wording of the standard cut-and-paste citation. We still need to re-word the cut-and-paste citation so it makes the distinction between the database and the website clearer. Perhaps something along the lines of:

"Database of National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2009-03-13; (on line access available through: nrph.focus.nps.gov search engine)"

This would more clearly indicate that we did not take the information from the website, but that the website is a courtesy link where readers can find the same information without having to go through the hassle of requesting a zip file of the actual database from the NRHP itself. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

When we worked through the last long discussion here at wt:NRHP, meaning Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 48#Please change the standard citation to omit the link which Blueboar opened, eventually i posted the following checklist:

(1a.) we need some help to fix the template so that it accepts "2009a" and "2007a" and "2007b" as arguments
(1b.) we need to identify the pre-2009 version dates of NRIS, i believe there were two during 2007 that appear in articles
(2.) if editor Elkman agrees with using the NRISref template, for Elkman to make revisions to the NRHP inbobox/article generator so that new infoboxes being created include "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. March 13, 2009. (or whatever is the correct call once (1.) is completed), rather than the current reference
(3.) we put in a bot request for changes to be applied to existing articles, in a smart way that gets and displays the right version date information (2009a, 2007a, 2007b)
(4.) consider any refinements to the Template:NRISref, such as whether the link to a download URL is to be included into what Template:NRISref displays. These discussions can take place here and/or at Template talk:NRISref.

Steps 1a. through 3. have been done. Blueboar now wants to proceed with step 4. It cannot involve putting a link to Focus, because the Focus interface does not provide access to all the NRIS data. But sure, some improvement to wording of what the NRISref displays should be possible. I happen to think the link given should be presented more clearly to clarify that the link given is a link to where the database could be downloaded. But then no one should be encouraged to download that database, so why include that link? I think the link could be included in documentation at the {{template:NRISref}} page, but doesn't need to appear in 30,000 articles. Another task never done was to stash copies of the March 2009 NRIS database, and now also the July 2010 data/December 2010 release date one, into an internet archive website. --do ncr am 20:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes... I am talking about step 4. This is essentially an application of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT... the person who adds information to an article needs to say precisely what they were looking at when they saw the information they added. If an editor found the information while looking at a copy of the database downloaded onto his/her computer at home, then he/she needs to somehow indicate this in the citation (adding a helpful courtesy link to the focus website for the benefit of readers who don't want to bother ordering away for their own copy of the database). However, if some other editor finds information while looking directly at nrhp.focus, then he/she need to word the citation differently... to indicate that they got the information from the webpage.

In other words, I think we really will need two, slightly different "standard citation formats" (depending on what the editor was actually looking at when he/she added the information) The current one is fine for situations where the information came from the webpage... so, we need to craft one for those situations where the information came from the "home version" of the database. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. A database is a database is a database, and there's no need to specify whether the format accessed during editing was a website or a downloaded copy. This is completely analagous to citing a book or newspaper: there's no need for an editor to specify that he or she accessed a paper copy, the Googlebooks version, or a Xeroxed personal copy. This is an application of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT only in the sense that we're discussing using a convenience link (covered on that page), not in the sense that any more information needs to be added to Say Where Its Got. That being said, the NRHP Focus site is dodgy enough that it may be wise to change the location of the convenience link to be something of the form af an added phrase: Database available from NRHP Focus or something of that nature. Nice image in that article, by the way. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I would agree if the database and the website were exactly the same... but (correct me if I am misunderstanding) I have been told that there is information/data available on the downloaded "home version" of the database that isn't available on the focus website. If this is the case, then the database is not quite the same as the website... which would mean that we need to note for readers and other editors whether the we got the information from the database or the website. It's analogous to noting which edition of a print source (say an almanack) you were looking at. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thought the focus site contained everything in the database, but I don't actually know... let's assume for the sake of argument that it doesn't. In that case, it's an incomplete copy of the NRIS database; more analagous to a book that's missing pages than to a different edition. But a database is still a database is still a database: The existance of a partial copy of a paper book in some place doesn't obligate the editor to note that he or she is using a complete or incomplete copy of that book, and the same is true of the database. Again assuming the focus site is incomplete, I think it might be wise to make note that it's an incomplete copy in the convenience link. However, it's not a matter of altering the citation depending on what copy of the database the editor is using. It's a matter of making the convenience link as convenient as possible for readers. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Chickamauga Lodge No. 221, indeed a nice image!

Blueboar is concerned partly about a theoretical case that does not come up, "if some other editor finds information while looking directly at nrhp.focus". If the Focus search screen results for an NRHP place is the actual source used by an editor, then a custom footnote pointing to the individual place's URL within Focus could/should be used, I think we'd all agree. That simply doesn't happen though, because NRHP editors know that they can more information more easily by accessing NRIS (via NRHP.com, or via Elkman's interface, or via my system supporting a few counties' articles, or otherwise).

Here in "List of Masonic buildings" archives is where, in previous discussion with Blueboar, I spelled out specifically which fields Focus lacks and why it is unacceptable to cite it when NRIS was in fact the source for data, as it was for the NRIS data reported in the Chickamauga Lodge No. 221 article. Location and architecture and other information was not in the Focus results for an example discussed then.

Blueboar is right to raise concern about how the NRISref appears. It includes a "convenience link" but that is only to the location for downloading the NRIS database, which I would not recommend to any Wikipedia reader. I like Andrew Jameson's suggestion for a different label describing the link. How about variation "NRIS database available for downloading", which I think is slightly more accurate and descriptive? --do ncr am 22:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Question is, then, does that still apply? Focus allows you to query on architectural style, so will it show it to you if you search for the place? (The site seems to still be down, or I'd check it myself...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Focus is working now.

I do understand the points that Andrew and Doncram are making, and I like Andrew's suggestions when it comes to citation wording when you are relying on your own downloaded copy of the database... but not everyone has bothered to download a copy of the database. I feel it would be wrong for someone like me (who does not have a downloaded copy of the database and relies purely on the focus website), to pretend that I got my information from a downloaded copy of database. I should cite to what I saw... the focus website. And if someone else simply run the Elkman tool, and relied on that, then they should cite Elkman's webpage (yes, I know we are not supposed to rely on Elkman's tool, other than to generate an info box... I am just saying that if someone did rely on his tool, that is what they should cite).

(Ignoring the few editors who might pull their information from Elkman...) both the downloaded database and the focus website are acceptable ways to access information on these buildings ... and they have a lot of overlap (they will both give you the same information to some extent)... but because there are some differences between them, I think it is important for the citation to distinguish which was used by the editor who added the information to the article. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So, Focus _does_ list Architecture -- it just doesn't actually label it, so you have to know that that line in the screen is a type of architecture to recognize it. I'd say that makes it citeable for these purposes. Is anything else still missing?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Crap, crashed again. Should have taken a screenshot. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Still working for me (or they did a very quick fix)... try again. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... not sure if this is even possible... but if someone who has the downloaded database could do a screenshot of what appears on your computer screen when you look at the entry for a typical property, it would be a great help. I think we would all be able to discuss the distinctions better (and figure out how best to word citations) if we could actually see what people are talking about, and do a side by side comparison. (BTW, Doncram, thanks for linking to our previous discussion where you attempted to describe it, that did help me understand the differences... a bit). Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I just leave it at "not useful"? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll point you back to something you said at the top of this section: I understand that we are actually citing the database and not the website... The NRIS database contains the information, and that's what should be cited. The focus website, or Elkman generator, is the front end that is used to display the information. Citing the front end as a source is misleading. This is, again, analagous to a paper book. It doesn't matter whether you used a physical copy of the book, whether you used Google books, or whether you've got a copy on your Kindle: the citation for that book will read the same. The paper or Googlebooks site or Kindle is the front end that displays the information. For convenience, you might add a link in the citation to the Googlebooks version of the book, but that doesn't imply that Google is the source of the information, or that you even used Googlebooks in your research. It's a convenience link for the reader to make it as easy as possible for him/her to look up the information. That's what the focus URL is for: It's a convenience link for the reader to make it as easy as possible for him/her to look up the NRIS information. (Although as Sarek notes, "as easy as possible" is kinda relative.) Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I see we have a deeper disagreement, Andrew ... I read WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT as indicating that the wording of a citation should be slightly different depending on where you find the information... if you took your information from a hard copy paper version of a book, you should cite <ref>Author, Title, publishing info, edition, page no.</ref>... but if you take the information from Google snippets you should cite something along the lines of: <ref>Google snippets search for "search term" in: Author, Title, publishing info, edition</ref> (with a link to snippets). This allows those who wish to verify the information to know exactly where you found your information. This distinction is especially important in the case of taking info from Google snippets searches, as a snippet can remove the highlighted text from it's context. (granted, with the database there really isn't a "context" to remove information from ... one of the problems with the database in all its forms is that it presents information without any context... for proper context on the info you really need to look the nomination documents... but that is a different issue) Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is the data base by itself considered a reliable source (as opposed to the documentation behind it)? My understanding is that it is merely a tertiary clerical compilation or extract of nomination forms or other sources without serious editorial review. If it also has imprecise fields that don't differentiate between architect, builder, etc., or inform what happened in "significant years", wouldn't it be better practice to use the data base as simply a starting point but to always cite some more reliable, detailed and less error-prone document? That might help avoid some of the problem stubs recently encountered. Station1 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Station1: That's a fair point about reliable sources. If I understand correctly, the database would be both a secondary and tertiary source. It's a secondary source for the the fact that the property is on the NRHP, the date it was placed there, its NRHP reference number, and the type of designation (historic district, landmark, etc). It's a tertiary source for property location, architect, year built, and so forth (and, as you point out, it contains flat-out errors for some places). Using the nomination form as a cite for the latter information would, I think, always be preferable, but requiring the use of the nom form would set a rather high bar for article writing, as the nom forms for many properties aren't readily available. Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar: I'm not talking about Google snippet view; I'm talking about versions of books that are available in full through Google books. For example, Detroit in history and commerce by James J Mitchell. Do you propose that the editor who uses the Googlebooks version of this book should use a different format of citation than the editor who uses a paper copy? Because that's an entirely novel interpretation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and contrary to what the guideline states. Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no... being one of the more involved editors at WP:V and WP:NOR, I can tell you that the database would classified a primary source for the fact that the property is listed on the NRHP, the date it was placed there... etc. Note: primary does not mean unreliable or "bad" ... the NRIS database is probably the single most reliable source possible for that information. But it is primary in nature (after all... the database is the first place of publication for such information).

As for the citation... Yes, I do think the citation should include some sort of notation to say indicate you read the book on Googlebooks. I'll take another look at WP:SAYWHERE... it's been a while since I read it, and I suppose it could have changed... but that is the impression I had of what it says. In any case... this difference of opinion on citations in general explains why we are disagreeing somewhat on how to format the citation hear. I am sure we can figure something out... it does not have to be done today. Even the current "standard" NRIS citation is acceptable... I just think it could (and should) be done better. Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the NRHP and the NRIS database are one and the same and that there is nothing more official (primary) than the data base itself. But not to get sidetracked: primary, secondary or tertiary, the question is, Is it reliable? It might be good enough for actual existence (assuming the name is the same as the common name), ref number, date and type of listing, but is it good enough by itself for information about the topic (the building etc.) as opposed to the listing, for example the architect, year, etc.? Station1 (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Example: The new article Henry W. Brinkman cites nothing but the NRIS data base. It shows five works in three states attributed variously to Brinkman & Hagen, Henry Brinkman, Henry W. Brinkman, and H.W. Brinkman. They may well be the same person, but is the data base by itself a reliable enough source to say so, or even to say he was an architect and these works survive? Station1 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You shoulda waited a few minutes for this version of Henry W. Brinkman which does provide a reference that specifically supports Henry W. Brinkman is the one associated with Hagen, from AIA directories. NRIS is a reliable source, but is to be used with reasonable judgment. --do ncr am 00:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And that is a very important point... the NRIS is very reliable for some things, and not very reliable for other things. The one thing it is extremely reliable for is a statement that a building is listed on the NRHP. It is very reliable for the reference number of that listing. It is quite reliable for the date that the NRHP listed the building. It is probably reliable for a statement as to what architectural style the building falls under. It is not all that reliable for a statement as to when the building was constructed (we know it does contain a lot of errors in that field), and it is definitely less than reliable for a statement of who the architect was (since it does not distinguish between architects, builders or people who played some other significant role in the building's history). Blueboar (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

From WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT: For a source available in hardcopy, microform, and/or online, omit, in most cases, which one you read. Which is completely reasonable: A source is a source is a source, and there's no reason to differentiate among the paper version, the online version, the Kindle version, your personal copy, the library's copy, or what-have-you. Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Another Believer

I was going to post on this user's talk page, but since I've received flak from people for doing that before, I decided to post here first. User:Another Believer has churned out about 100 (that's a guess) new stubs for National Register of Historic Places listings in Portland, Oregon. One completely random example is Postal Building (Portland, Oregon). As can be seen, the articles include nothing more than "_____ is a building in Portland, Oregon, that was listed on the National Register of Historic Places"... no infobox, no NRIS, no nothing. I, personally, think these types of articles should be frowned upon, though obviously I'm not about to try to AfD them. At the very least, I think we should introduce this guy to Elkman's infobox generator or Doncram's /drafts tool. I think all Oregon nomination forms are online as well, so maybe we could even introduce him to Focus.

I was made aware of the massive stub campaign when the bot-list of new articles was updated. I see from his contributions that he is still going. Can we get him to stop or at least slow down for now? I plan on going through and at least adding infoboxes to all these new articles (at least the ones on that bot-list) and rating them Low-importance later tonight. Anyone want to help?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for the future... no more "stub" campaigns. I am not against article creation campaigns... but when we do one, let's set the standard higher and get the articles to at least "Start" status. Blueboar (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but if we absolutely must have stubs, these actually aren't that bad. They are completely factual and have sources people can actually click on and see. My experience has been that when infoboxes using only the NRIS are added to the few articles I've created or substantially edited, they usually contain errors. One had the wrong date, architect's first name, and style, even though they were all already in the article and sourced. Another had a bad construction date and the governing body 20 years out of date, also already in the article. Personally, unless someone wanted to research the nomination forms, I would just leave these alone to grow or not grow naturally, and see what happens. Station1 (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've argued before that any NRHP stub should at minimum contain the property's address, state when or approximately when it was built, and state why it's on the Register. Most readers are far more interested in a building's historical significance rather than the mere fact that it's on the Register. Imagine a historical commission placing a marker in front of a house that says, "A historical event took place here." Your immediate thought would be, what event? Bms4880 (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly. Blueboar (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Station1 that these stubs are in fact accurate (and I prefer them to Doncram's "was built or had other significance" statements), but the facts in these stubs were already present on the list article before the stubs were even created. I like Bms's suggestion of a basic level of information in a stub, especially in the group of states where all the nomination forms are online (of which I have now confirmed that Oregon is a member). That said, this guy is still creating stubs. Would anyone be opposed to me posting the following message on his talk page?:

"Hi, Another Believer. In going through recently created articles that appear to be under the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, I see that you have been creating very short stubs for National Register of Historic Places listings in Portland, Oregon. While I and the rest of the project are thrilled to have the opportunity to collaborate with you, there has been some discussion at the project talk page of the length and quality of these stubs. Though it is not strictly a "rule" or "policy" of the project, stubs of this length and quality are usually frowned upon because of their lack of information. Saying only that a building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and not elaborating on why the building is listed–i.e., what makes the building historically notable–gives no more information than can be found on the pre-existing list of all sites listed in the area.

This is not to say that you should not continue helping out by creating these articles, but perhaps you may spend a little more time on each one? There are many tools and sources with ample information about each individual site in this area. You may have noticed that I have added infoboxes to several of these articles (e.g. Yale Union Laundry Building, West's Block, and a few others). Those infoboxes can actually be automatically generated using information available in the National Register Information System (NRIS) database. The database can be queried via an off-site tool created and maintained by User:Elkman. The site will return a pre-built infobox with all of the information I added to those articles. On top of that, the actual nomination documents that historians submitted as part of the process of getting the building or site listed can be found on the NRHP's Focus website. The website includes many nomination documents for buildings and sites throughout the nation, and–good news–every single nomination document for NRHP listings in Oregon can be found on that site. Just for an example, searching for "Yale+Union+Laundry+Building" (notice the plus signs) returns the following entry: NRHP #07000759 – Yale Union Laundry Building. On that page is a link to a pdf that includes tons of information about why this building is historically significant. This document can be used to expand the current stub dramatically. There exists such a document for all of the articles that you have recently created.

While I am by no means suggesting that you are required to include all the information in these documents, it would be desirable if at least some of the information was added... enough to establish notability. If you have any further questions about how to find information on sites listed on the NRHP, you may consult WikiProject NRHP's help page or ask a question at the project talk page. Again, thanks for the contribution. We look forward to working with you in the future!"

--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, no need to post the message on my talk page since I stumbled upon it on my own! :) I apologize if my blitz produced stubs that were subpar. I just had a method going that made it easy to generate stubs and get them into the encyclopedia for future expansion. Like Station1 suggested, my intent was to "plant seeds" so that other contributors would have a starting point...an attempt at encouraging the spirit of SOFIXIT. I do very much appreciate the recommendation for the off-site tool--I imagine that is quite helpful. I will be sure to take a look at some of the project's work. Sorry again for the stubby stubs! --Another Believer _(Talk) 07:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about it... If no one told you that we want more than stubby stubs, you can not really be faulted for creating them. Now you know. I hope you will continue to contribute to the project... and help us as we try to improve our articles and provide more information for our readers. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well hello there haha. Right, like Blueboar said, this is not a reprimand or anything; we're glad that you've become interested in these sites. I'm going to go right now and add an infobox and a "Further Reading" section to each of these articles and include a link to the nomination document. I feel like with that level of information, it would be more likely that someone would expand the article. If you feel like doing a little research, there will be plenty available haha. Again, thanks for the contribution!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding! I do have an interest in NRHP sites, so hopefully we will be working together again. Thanks for your assistance as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, when I saw what AB was doing, I gave him a heads up about the Doncram stub issues, knowing his article blitz might ruffle some feathers. I also told him about Elkman's tools and about the Oregon nom form availability. I can vouch for him and also know that since these are all Oregon-related and WikiProject Oregon is a very active project, these stubs have a better chance than most of being expanded. Oh, and the Oregon SHPO office seems to have better resources on these sites than most states, so there are more places to look for information to expand them. P.S. Next time just drop him a note instead of talking behind his back! :) Valfontis (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Like I told him these stubs kind of bug me, but more in a "ooh, gotta expand that" way, vs. an "ugh, what I mess, I need to avert my eyes and hope someone else fixes it" sort of way. Valfontis (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on inclusion of NRHP attribution in architect article

I think it is wasteful to include every possible spelling of the architect's name in articles about architects, as shown here. This is unnecessary in most cases, and should be omitted.

Support as proposer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. If it's clear it's the same architect, including the exact NRIS attribution is unnecessary. Bms4880 (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Support per above.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Support but if the intention is to show certain works were in partnership with someone else, it makes sense to say that. I'm not sure if that's the intention in the example. Station1 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for noting the removal was not just of same info; it included other attribution info as well as other material. --do ncr am 22:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose a policy, use reasonable judgment About the repetition of NRIS attribution, the inclusion of exact spelling of NRIS attribution seems useful in some new articles like this one, because there have been several cases where minor variations have been helpful in clarifying differences, like sorting out that there were 2 very similarly named architects in the same time period. And, there's a Philadelphia schools architect article where I think the noting of 2 different attributions seems helpful, to clarify that works attributed to an erroneous-but-common spelling are really meant to be listed in that article, that it is about one person. Too abrupt removal of item-specific names cuts off good development and sorting out. And, in this case, there are additional names given in the attribution which SarekOfVulcan removed, which show the shared credit of architect with other architects and/or with builders or engineers. Removing the info seems luddite at this early point in an article's development, esp. when being removed by an editor not seriously involved in developing the article. Of course, if an editor is developing a good list of works much further, and there is no possible doubt about naming, it is reasonable to use normal judgment to remove duplication. Upfront deletion when the links are still new, and are redlinks, seems combative, unhelpful. --do ncr am 22:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Also, I wouldn't want a "straw poll" as stated here to be interpreted later as general support for SarekOfVulcan's edit, which also removed address and other information from the architect's list of works. Addresses and other detail is commonly included in architects' lists. --do ncr am 22:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I think the real issue is that these lists are copy/pasted into the article from an external source, and aren't really all that well formatted. It's entirely possible to integrate a list of architects' works within an article, as in Long and Kees, which doesn't even use a list format. Or, Clarence H. Johnston, Sr., which does use a list format, but doesn't have variant spellings and other copy/pasted markup. I don't think it's necessary to list all the variant spellings or other things, like "Kees and Long" versus "Long and Kees". If there's a collaboration with another architect, then mention that other architect. Use prose or a good-looking list format, not a database dump. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, someday I'll have to figure out how to list the interrelations between Long and Kees, Kees and Colburn, Long, Lamoreaux and Long, Lowell Lamoreaux, Serenus Colburn, Frederick Kees, and the rest in that cluster. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Elkman here.... simply cut and pasting from any source is wrong. Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. I agree with Elkman that the real issue is that raw data from NRIS is being pasted into articles in a "semi-automated" fashion. That's not writing an article. Long and Kees is an excellent example of using this information in an encyclopedic fashion. I should note that I tend to be tolerant of the sort of inept-looking content creation that SarekOfVulcan describes when it's a case of a contributor with limited English who is creating content about an important previously undocumented topic related to some place like Uzbekistan or Ghana, but that's not the situation here. --Orlady (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment I hesitate to comment as this usually causes Doncram to focus on my (non-disruptive) behavior instead of on his own, but I think I saw a thread about including the addresses in these type of articles. Sorry I can't find it now, but there are so many Doncram threads... Anyway, here are three before-and-after cleanups I've done (some had intervening edits by others but I've done most of the style edits): diff, diff, diff. Basically I've stripped out all the redundancy, improved the consistency and in a few cases provided necessary info (like the full name of the partner in Lawrence & Holford--it looked silly with just his surname). Note I only left the attribution if it was actually different from the subject of the article. I think this might qualify as a "good-looking list format" as mentioned above. I'm neutral on the initial inclusion of addresses, but I think in the long run only cities should be listed, especially as the lists become all bluelinks. Anyway, that's my suggestion for a minimum standard of acceptability for the style of these stubs. Valfontis (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Elkman and Orlady above. I have created or expanded several articles on architects with multiple buildings listed on the NRHP. See Rudolph Weaver created, William Augustus Edwards expanded and Edward Columbus Hosford, created. The later one is now tableized. clariosophic (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting you should mention Edwards -- have you seen this one?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Yikes! Thanks for redirecting that page, Sarek. --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Are all NRHP buildings inherently notable ENOUGH to justify a stand alone article?

I know the consensus on this used to be "Yes" (a consensus supported by numerous AfD discussions)... but given some of the comments by project members at the recent ANI threads, I am wondering if consensus has changed. I think we should at least re-examine the question, and determine whether consensus has changed or not. Don't know if this should be a formal, community wide, RFC (feel free to post it if you think it should be)... but at least we can start off by seeing if there is a consensus of project members. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Leaning towards saying "No" - I do think the fact that a building is listed is an indication of WP:notability... but I am not at all sure that the mere fact of being listed, alone, is enough to justify a stand alone article. (I do think it is enough to qualify it for inclusion in the various state/county list articles). I agree with the comments made in some of the above discussions, that call for us to explain why the building is listed. If we can not answer that basic question, we should hold off on writing an article. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but What "inherent notability" means is assuming the existence of the appropriate sources unless proven otherwise. The bibliography section of the registration form ensures these exist in most cases. But this assumption could certainly be disproved in individual cases. Ntsimp (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the nomination docs (when available) and the sources referenced in the nomination docs could be used to establish notability. I am really talking about just pointing to the NRIS database and saying "its listed (see, here is the reference number) so its notable enough for an article." I think we need more than just that. Blueboar (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. A building that meets the standards for NRHP easily exceeds our Wikipedia GNG standard. Buildings listed on the register are a very select group. The question of what should be included even in a stub article is an entirely different issue and ought not cause us to adopt an unduly high notability bar on historic buildings. (typing from a keyboard without a tilde and unable to sign - cbl62). Cbl62 (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. For all the reasons that have been hashed out an repeated over and over again since this wikiproject began. Lvklock (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but: NRHP status provides a peer-reviewed indication of notability, but there are some that can't sustain an article on their own, either from a lack of useful source material (a common fault with some of the older noms), or a shotgun approach to nomination, i.e., the dozens of individually-listed houses in Park City, Utah, which should have been a historic district, and which should probably be lumped into a summary article that would provide more context to the end reader. Historical buildings and structures of Zion National Park was the result of both conditions. For better or worse, some editorial discretion is called for now and then. Every now and then I find something that should never have been approved and are just tax credit deals, but those are fairly rare. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes overall with rare exceptions as indicated above by several people. Please provide links to the discussions in ANI threads. Royal broil 03:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
It depends. In addition to notability, one of the primary policies of article creation is reliable sources. The general consensus is that NRHP properties are notable enough for Wikipedia, because they've gone through a review process at the NPS, but sometimes there isn't enough research material for a standalone article here. I'll just pick out a random example: First National Bank of Beaver Creek in Rock County, Minnesota. It's covered in a multiple property submission, but all it says about the building is, "Banks, perhaps the most important structures in the smaller towns, often purchased the choicest commercial lots. They are ususally the most significant building on Main Street. The First National Bank of Beaver Creek (1917) is the best example in the county." It also mentioned that they imported stone from other locations instead of using the native quartzite. But, as far as finding enough information to really include in an article, I'm stumped. So, that's the sort of article that I'd skip creating.

One idea that came up at the admin noticeboard is that some of these articles could be merged into another list if there isn't enough information for a standalone article. That's a distinct possibility, but another idea I had is that our state and county list articles usually have blank space where a summary of the building would normally go. Maybe we should start a drive to get some of those summaries filled in, so the list articles have a little more information for people besides just a list of properties. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Another idea would be to merge some of our perma-stubs into a (non-list) article on NRHP buildings within a given region (such as the town or county)... rather than having a bunch of perma-stubs (one for each building), we would have one broader article, with a paragraph or two on each building (those that can sustain a separate article would be summarized, and have a "main article" link). After all, There are lots of things that are notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia, but that are not notable enough to sustain their own stand alone article. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes and No. Listing on the National Register is a strong indication that a property has been documented sufficiently to meet the general notability guideline, but there are instances where that supposition turns out not to be valid and, even when the documentation does exist, not every property that is individually listed on the National Register is truly individually notable. Furthermore, National Register listing of a property is only an indication of notability and is not itself an encyclopedic topic worthy of an article, so the mere existence of a National Register listing (including geographic location, listing date, acreage, and similar administrative data available from NRIS) is not sufficiently noteworthy to form the entire content of an article. For a long time and in many different venues here I have held that many National Register properties are more appropriately documented in articles about broader topics with which the properties are associated. (List-articles also are an appropriate context for documenting individual properties for which only minimal information exists, but the discussion here leads me to think that several of us agree that the county- and state-level list articles that the NRHP WikiProject has emphasized often are not particularly satisfactory for the purpose of documenting individual properties.) Some examples to illustrate my views on this subject:

Thomas J. Walker House and Newton Cannon House are examples of properties that probably aren't notable, even though some sort of documentation might exist. Both are buildings that were removed from the National Register after they were destroyed. Although substantial documentation might exist regarding these properties, that documentation has not been located yet. It's not credible that anyone would want to use the Wikipedia articles as references when visiting these sites, as there's nothing to see at either location. Although some information has been located about both properties and used to develop the articles, in both cases the information is very thin, and I submit that a more useful way to document both properties in the encyclopedia would be in some sort of broader article -- for example, in an article about antebellum houses in Tennessee. Until such an article is developed, both houses could be amply documented in NRHP list-articles.
Oak Ridge gatehouses documents three identical properties that are separately listed on the National Register, but not because they are separately notable. Instead, the separate listing is presumably because they are in physically separate locations. There would have been no useful purpose in creating three nearly identical articles about these three properties.
Old Natchez Trace segments listed on the National Register of Historic Places is another case of individually listed properties that are not individually notable. Although the article does commendably discuss the entire group of related properties listed on the National Register instead of documenting each one separately, I believe that even this is excessive treatment of what is almost entirely non-notable information. The notable topic here is the Natchez Trace, not the fact that a few distinct segments of the Trace are listed on the National Register and have serial numbers. Most of the individual listed segments are very short segments that are located at or near visitor pull-offs from the Natchez Trace Parkway. Apparently they were listed on the Register in the 1970s as part of National Park Service justification for expenditures to do restoration work or building visitor-access improvements. The documentation about the individual locations is only slightly longer than what's in the article. The meaningful elements of this article could easily be incorporated into Natchez Trace, Natchez Trace Parkway, and possibly similar articles.
The article Wilder Village Historic District is another example of an article about a National Register listing that would be more effectively documented in another article about a broader topic. That historic district article is almost entirely about the land area, street names, and number of buildings included in the historic district. It gives no meaningful insight as to the district's notability -- that is, why the district is listed on the National Register. The associated article Wilder, Vermont (which contains the entire text of the historic district article, but not the infobox, because Doncram wouldn't allow it to be included) provides meaningful context (including discussion of the aspects of the village history that I assume are the basis for the Register listing) and would be an extremely appropriate place to deposit the stub-level information about the historic district. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes and No, as per several editors above. The NRHP registration by itself is enough for it to be notable, but single sentence stubs do not help anyone gain any understanding. dm (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with just about everything said above, especially combining some articles into broader articles, but it still comes down to Yes, with very rare exceptions. Smallbones (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Mostly, but not always Elkman's comments about multiple property submissions are a perfect example. Long ago, I created articles/lists like Miami Shores Thematic Resource and San Jose Estates Thematic Resource Area. Partly 'cause I was looking for shortcuts to stubbing Florida, partly b/c I felt silly creating bunches of articles named "House at ___" or "Building at ___". There are some like that which are stand-alones, like House at 1240 Cocoanut Road, which I see no alternative but to create individual articles. But with MPS/TRs, often each building isn't notable, per se, but taken together, they are. --Ebyabe (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except... I think any property or district that has been individually nominated--i.e., is not part of a Multiple Property Submission--is automatically notable. For most of these, the nomination form will detail why the property is notable, and support the contention with references. For the the handful that might not detail notability (I'm addressing some of Orlady's points above), I would argue that the paper trail left by the nomination process, through the state Historic Office and the NPS, is enough to pass the notability threshold. That's not to say that some of these articles might not benefit from a merge with other property articles or an article about the coterminal municipality (again addressing some of Orlady's points above), but that's a matter of reader convenience rather than a notability decision: individual nomination is sufficient in my mind to justify a stand-alone article, but doesn't require one, and the subject of article merges is...well...a different subject than the one at hand.

Those properties that have been been submitted as part of a MPS may not be notable enough in and of themselves to warrant a seperate article. My default assumption is that these properties are indeed individually notable, and on any article I've personally worked on (with one waveringly possible exception) that's certainly turned out to be the case. However, if the nomination form doesn't assert individual notability, and no other references can be found (as in examples above), then the individual properties don't even have the cover of the "paper trail" argument I made above. In this case, though, the MPS itself is still notable, and writing a general MPS article is probably the best solution, both from a notability point of view and from a reader's perspective, as a discussion of the shared attributes of the structures that make them thematically similar would be more enlightening than standalone descriptions. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Mostly, but not always I agree with Ebyabe's comments above. See Whitfield Estates Subdivision MPS, which he created. I grew up in Manatee County and am familiar with Whitfield Estates. There's probably not much info available on individual houses. Perhaps the MRP could be tableized to show NRIS data on each one. Redirects from the house name should suffice. clariosophic (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment on Straw Polls, "decisions" and consensus

Since SarekOfVulcan saw fit to remove my comments below (after 8 minutes) from "his" section above "Straw poll on inclusion..." with the edit remark "rm soapboxing, has nothing to do with whether attribution is useful" (talk about ownership!), I guess I'll just have to start a new section in order to make myself heard. I am incensed that he should display such highhanded behavior on the talk page of this wikiproject. It is just one more evidence of how far this project has deteriorated that he thinks it okay to treat another editor that way. And I'm not even doncram, an editor that everyone seems to think it's okay to treat poorly! Keep your heads low old timers. I know you're out there, no longer expressing opinions, just writing your articles and posting your pictures. I guess that's what you have to do to stay sane. Meanwhile the mob who thinks they are right because no one dares disagree rule..... (Okay, perhaps a tad over dramatic, but I literally shake with anger as I write this.) He's not even a member of this project!!!! Is this really OK with you guys? Acroterion (talk · contribs)? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk · contribs)? Altairisfar (talk · contribs)? Appraiser (talk · contribs)? cbl62 (talk · contribs)? Cg-realms (talk · contribs)? Clariosophic (talk · contribs)? Daniel Case (talk · contribs)? Dmadeo (talk · contribs)? Ebyabe (talk · contribs)? Einbierbitte (talk · contribs)? Ipoellet (talk · contribs)? IvoShandor (talk · contribs)? KudzuVine (talk · contribs)? Pubdog (talk · contribs)? Royalbroil (talk · contribs)? Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs)? Sanfranman59 (talk · contribs)? Swampyank (talk · contribs)? TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)? UpstateNYer (talk · contribs)? I can't even believe even you guys who've been more involved, Dudemanfellabra (talk · contribs), Nyttend (talk · contribs), Smallbones (talk · contribs), think it's OK to just shut me up! But this is the atmosphere being fostered by it being OK to just trash doncram, to spite all the good work he has done/does do. If you can trash him, then you can trash anyone who agrees with him, right? Anyway, here is my soapboxing comment, removal of which generated more soapboxing on my part. :) Hah! Lvklock (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. A true consensus is a community working together to find a solution that EVERYONE can live with, not a majority shoving their view down the throat(s) of the minority. You can all "decide" whatever you want for the next couple weeks, but without allowing doncram's participation in the discussion you'll never reach a true consensus. Of course, that doesn't seem to be what any of you want to do anyway, you just seem to want him to learn to do things your way. I do see that some of you were able to find some piece of his work to comment positively on at his talk page while he's blocked. Assuming good faith, I'll take it that you meant it kindly and weren't just trying to impart an object lesson for him to absorb while he's being "punished". Actually, if you really looked, there's probably much MORE to admire in his body of work than to criticize. All I can conclude is that it must be more fun to criticize. Maybe you should all use this couple weeks to think about how to actually LISTEN to the reasons doncram keeps trying to explain for why he does what he does and try to help come up with solutions EVERYONE, including he, can live with. Then maybe he could stop feeling like he constantly had to be on the defensive against not just whoever's on wikihounding duty at the time, but the whole mob of you all piling on every time he marches to a different drummer than the rest of you. (No I don't really think you have an organized wikihounding schedule, but there sure seems to always be someone watching him.) Because believe me, from my perspective it doesn't look like anyone is really listening and trying to achieve BOTH your aims AND his. Instead you all just say "hey, stop that I (and quickly we) don't like that!" When he tries to explain that he's doing it in order to appease the disambiguators or whoever, in general I hear you all say "we don't care about that!" In a community truly run by consensus, not by democracy, everyone has to be WILLING to compromise and accomodate EVERYONE's needs. The only person I have personally witnessed trying to work things out between wikiprojects IS doncram. It's ironic and a crying shame, in my opinion, that it turns out to be his home wikiproject that proves themselves completely unable to come to any agreements with him. Lvklock (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider Doncram's behavior trying to "work things out" between anyone. Was he trying to "work things out" when he accused me of not knowing the difference between architects, builders, or engineers? Was he trying to "work things out" when he accused me of lying about the date when the Floyd B. Olson House was built? As far as other people are concerned, believe me, we've tried to "work it out". But since Doncram doesn't want to acknowledge anyone's concerns and doesn't want to put more content into his articles, it's leaving many of us with a sense of frustration. Frankly, I don't understand why Doncram's best friend has to show up here and lecture us. I don't even want to spend any more time this evening having to debate you, since you, personally, haven't been putting anything into developing articles. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Struck out -- I guess I wasn't supposed to comment here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Elkman, I want to sincerely apologize. I didn't say properly what I meant below. I really did go back and forth over inclusion of your name on the list, because in the beginning of my participation in this project, you were very much one of my favorites and I do truly respect your work. When I said what I did below, it was out of frustration because I truly don't know how to say something that won't offend you, so I was trying to choose to not address it to you at all. Let me just say that I very much admire your work, and I wish that we COULD all just live and let live and not constantly be walking on egg shells or out to get each other or looking for the barbs in what others say or cleaning up after the hidden mines blow up or blundering in and offending people. Lvklock (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

And I specifically left your name out of the list because I didn't want to engage with you any more than you "want to spend any more time this evening having to debate" me. You chose to enter this conversation of your own accord. But, since you're here.....He did not say at all that you personally do not know the difference between architects, builders, or engineers. He said that your generator doesn't differentiate. And yes, I do think he's trying to work things out and avoid the vague statements everyone hates so much by working through the most common architects, builders, and engineers so that generated articles can differentiate, thus acknowledging both the mob's concern about his vague, sourced statements and his concern about inaccurate statements of facts. How is that NOT trying to work things out? But while he tries to do that, he's then attacked for the manner in which he chooses to work through identifying said architects, builders, and engineers and creating articles about them, because someone else doesn't like the way he builds those. So, as I've pointed out before, it's while TRYING to address one set of complaints that he's attacked for some other supposedly horribly unacceptable behavior. Is it any wonder he begins to feel persecuted? As far as accusing you of lying, again he was making an informed guess at what he thought it likely the information from your generator meant. He called neither you nor your generator a liar. He also explained his thinking and acknowledged that he was wrong. Neither of those seem to me the behaviors of someone refusing to work things out. You say "Doncram doesn't want to acknowledge anyone's concerns". I say anyone else doesn't want to acknowledge many of Doncram's concerns. Different sides of the same coin. You say Doncram "doesn't want to put more content into his articles." That's just far too much of a generalization. There are many articles that he has put more content into. Even when he does, someone comes up with complaints about the manner in which he does it. And anyway, STUBS ARE ALLOWED IN WIKIPEDIA!! This is like we all live on a street where the speed limit is 30 mph, but everyone else chooses to drive 15 mph and they're all mad at Doncram because he drives 30 mph. It's legal to drive 30 mph, but you just want him to drive slower because it's your preference. So, he agrees to drive slower in some circumstances, but that's not good enough, because he won't agree to never drive 30 mph. Then you start watching him and complain because his trash can got left out a day too long, his grass grew too long before it got mowed, his dog peed on the 30 mph sign and there were too many cars parked at his house. None of those things are technically illegal either, but everybody doesn't like them, so he's WRONG for doing them!!!!! As far as why I haven't been developing articles, it's a combination of liking pictures more, not enjoying it around here any more and real world stuff which is none of your business. And I don't care if you "listen" to me lecture or not, I DO feel strongly that I have a right to voice my opinion about the direction this project has taken. You certainly voice yours when and where you choose. I don't pretend to have made anywhere near your important contributions, but I still claim the right to have my opinion heard. Lvklock (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I gave up on influencing Doncram a long time ago. I respect the work he's done over the past few years, but I see no indication that he's really interested in collaboration or cooperation, and I feel that the quality of his work has increasingly taken a back seat to article creation at all costs. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I obviously disagree and I see many, many evidences of attempts at cooperation and compromise. As I said above, addressing one person's concerns often just leads to another set of complaints. As far as "article creation at all costs", I don't see it that way at all. For example, much of the recent contention has been about a county wide "drive" in North Dakota. My understanding was that the "drive" was already going on, and doncram took the opportunity to test the article generator he had programmed trying to make what he viewed as improvement's upon the generator used by so many over the years. I absolutely concede that his focus was more on developing his generator than on developing each of those articles. BUT, my take on it is that he WAS making his way back through the articles generated and making improvements, cleaning them up, and noting what could be done better and refined by the generator. I believe that a few years ago it would have been seen as great work. But noone has any patience with his process any more. (You know, I've seen him work through huge lists of articles that needed some kind of cleanup. There's a category, list of NRHP disambiguation pages needing cleanup that he regularly maintains. He helped with BLP cleanup. If people just listed the articles they were so worried about somewhere, he or someone else who was interested would likely clean them up shortly. I don't pretend to speak for him here, it's just a thought.) Here's another example. Yes, he made a bunch of stubs when he was primarily disambuguation focused. Disambiguation was his focus, not each of those articles. But he wasn't just making articles for the sake of making them, either. Lvklock (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Lvklock... While WP:Consensus is not determined by a simple majority vote... neither does it require unanimity. Yes, the ideal consensus is one that everyone can agree to... but the reality is that this ideal is rarely achieved. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And even less often when people don't really try. And, please note, that while others opinions are always welcome, I was really trying to solicit the opinions of long time NRHP wikiproject members about more than Doncram's behavior. No one has commented on the fact that SarekofVulcan, not even an NRHP member, completely deleted my comment on this NRHP Talk Page the first time I posted it. Everyone is accepting of everyone else's disrespecting Doncram, and now it's okay to disrespect me. Many of the discussions calling for decisions, or changes in "the way things have always been done" here on this page are opened by people who are not even WP:NRHP members. It seems to me that a whole bunch of people who really have little interest in, and indeed a bit of disdain for, the NRHP are having a huge impact on this project. I don't understand why those people can't just live and let live. So you don't admire the NRHP, so don't follow it. But why feel the need to tear down the work of those who do? I know that there are programs run by the Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia Foundation aimed at GROWING the population of editors. My experience here is that in practice it seems to be do it our way or don't do it at all. I think that while the Foundation is working to grow the population it is shrinking because people who work outside the norms get driven out and other people watching are much less motivated to contribute. 24.58.50.147 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I take exception to the assertion that no one has been seeking solutions that everyone, including Doncram, "can live with." He's been offered plenty of reasonable solutions that he can live with (for example, create rough-draft articles in user space and move them to article space only when they are truly ready), but he doesn't want to live with those reasonable solutions. --Orlady (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And I take exception to the fact that it is apparent that you do not care that he has reasons (which he has explained over and over again) why bulding in user space doesn't work for some of the things he's trying to accomplish. You say he refuses to listen to other's concerns. I say others refuse to listen to his. To me, your comment just illustrates an instance where you haven't really listened, or you have, but just dismissed his priorities because they don't match yours. Since you've commented here Orlady, what is your opinion of Sarek's removing my original comment here 8 minutes after I posted it?) Lvklock (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've read Doncram's reasons for not wanting to create articles in user space. As I read those objections, they boil down to the general idea that the National Register of Historic Places is a delicate and important topic that can't be handled in the same fashion as any other topic. Sorry, but I don't buy the notion of NRHP exceptionalism, and I don't accept Doncram's assertion that a solution that works for other article developers can't possibly work for him. As for my opinion of Sarek's rearrangement of this page, all I will say is that I am not in support of having conversations diverge onto unnecessary tangents. --Orlady (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your synopsis of what his reasons boil down to, but in the spirit of acceptance of a moratorium on talking about him in his absence I will leave it for him to defend when he gets back. I will say that I urge any reader to think twice about accepting any synopsis Orlady might make of Doncram's views anywhere. If you think I'm his best friend (as Elkman derisively says above), then she's his worst enemy. So, I'd at least assume the truth to be somewhere in the middle. :)

FYI to those who don't want to trust my synopsis of Doncram's views, my comment about Doncram's rejection of the idea of creating rough-draft articles in user space is based on statements at Wikipedia_ talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 49#George F. Barber. You can read his words there for yourself. --Orlady (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm....we really must think differently, because I'd say this example supports what I said as opposed to what you said. Lvklock (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As for Sarek's "rearrangement", I'd say you have an odd definition of "rearrangement". Rearrangement implies moving elements around, but keeping them. He completely deleted my words. He could have MOVED my comment to a new section (as I did when I discovered his deletion). He could have commented that he didn't believe my comment belonged there and asked me to move it. Instead he ERASED me. Not on his talk page. Not on a mainspace page. On a project talk page where I was making a comment about something that, like it or not (and none of us do), DOES have an effect on the project. So, you can couch your support of Sarek in any verbiage you like, I don't think it was behavior that this project ought to condone. Lvklock (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies -- I did not study the edit history to figure out who did what when. I thought Sarek had moved your comment to a separate section; I didn't realize that he deleted it. As a general rule, and particularly after seeing content-oriented discussions like the one at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs veer off into personal attacks, I am not interested in fomenting needless personal wikidrama by studying who did what to whom when. (My lack of interest in wikidrama is related to why I have told Doncram that, when he formed the view that I was engaged in a personal vendetta against him, I still had not noticed that I had interacted with him in several different situations here. I thought that I was commenting on a variety of content-related topics and I had not paid attention to the names of the other participants, but he apparently noticed my name coming up repeatedly and decided that I was engaged in a personal campaign against him. Unfortunately, much of his subsequent behavior toward me caused me to conclude -- and I believe would lead most disinterested observers to think -- that he was working to convince me that I should conduct a personal campaign against him.) --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC) IMO, it's way too easy to offend other people in online interactions... --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't study the edit history. You didn't even really read what I said, let alone study the edit history. The very first sentence of this section is "Since SarekOfVulcan saw fit to remove my comments below (after 8 minutes) from "his" section above...." Then, when I asked your opinion I said "Since you've commented here Orlady, what is your opinion of Sarek's removing my original comment here 8 minutes after I posted it?" Please note that both of those sentences contain the word remove. If this is an example of how carefully you read things before you respond, perhaps we've found the reason there are so many misunderstandings. Either that or because "it's way too easy to offend other people in online interactions" you've given up trying to avoid it. Maybe it would be easier to avoid "needless personal wikidrama" if you paid a little more attention to those around you. Lvklock (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with most of what Lvklock has to say. I am a fan of doncram's work, and also a fan of Elkman and Orlady's work by the way. Back in 2008 and 2009, I spent a lot of time on articles relating to this project -- creating 100 or more articles on California historic sites. I worked closely with doncram on many of those articles, received valuable input and advice from him, and even took a trek with him to the Pico Canyon Oilfield as a joint effort on that one. I have found him to be a bright, hard-working Wikipedian who is devoted to this project and to ensuring accuracy of its content. I have not been active in the project in the last couple years, and on occasion I've considered re-engaging. But having kept this talk page on my watchlist, I've noted the sharp criticisms of doncram and have been much chagrined by it. I can see that doncram may become defensive and combative at times, but from what I've seen, he has always appeared to be driven by improving the project. Anyone who has come under the firestorm of criticism heaped on doncram might well react similarly. In reviewing his work (e.g., Baird Law Office, Prudence Crandall House, Doris, Sachs Covered Bridge, Charles M. Robinson, Locust Grove, Carter Hall, List of octagon houses), I'm a bit puzzled by the volume of criticism and absence of praise given to his work. I hope he will return to the project and continue to be an active contributor. When he does, perhaps giving him space to do his thing would prove mutually beneficial to all. Cbl62 (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Lvklock (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

STOP - May I suggest that we NOT argue about Doncram until he returns from his block. We can discuss the Project, or specific articles (and even more abstract things like what constitutes a consensus) without him... but we should not discuss any specific editor or his actions when he is blocked and unable to respond. Blueboar (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you dm (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I have been trying, pretty much unsuccessfully, to elicit opinions about Sarek's behavior in completely removing my first comment. Further, my first comment was all about a few people jumping to come to "consensus" while doncram was not here to have any input. I can fully support not talking about his behavior while he's blocked. It wasn't his behavior I was trying to discuss. Lvklock (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think your comment should have been deleted. It's not like your the only member of this project who expresses their opinion expansively. I do mean that with love, folks, as I can go on a bit myself. --Ebyabe (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I realize that I am not a member of this project and therefore my opinion carries much less weight (as it should) in this debate but for what its worth I don't have a problem with the stubs that were being created by Doncram although I admit the wording could stand some improvement. I think that the whole thing was blown way out of proportion and that most of the stubs that were given as examples in his case were poorly chosen and in almost every case they (Doncram) went back and made additional edits later. I say that only to say that the fact that the members of the project also seem divided over this case leads me to believe its less about the person and more about whether the project wants to create stubs or not. Well the answer to that is simple IMO. Either stubs are allowed or they are not and if they are not is the project prepared to accept that there will be many NRHP articles that will never get beyond a stub or start class and what does it intend to do about those that already exist. It should also be noted that many of these articles apply to other projects like the state projects, the city projects and WPUS, many of whom are more than happy to create a starting stub for later expansion. I only wonder if, when Doncram returns, they will simply start creating stubs under one of these other projects rather than the NRHP project.

I also think that Sarek acted rashly and although his or her actions are generally fair and even they have over the last few months made some pretty bad calls from an administrative standpoint. I would say this is one of those cases. --Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and for your attempts to help. Lvklock (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not that we don't like stubs... or well, I guess I should just speak for myself... it's not that I don't like stubs; I am perfectly fine with some stubs, and I've been consistent on that. Even when this whole /drafts debacle started, I made it clear that I was fine with creating minimalist stubs for sites which would more than likely never grow beyond that length because of the sparsity and brevity of sources available. I would prefer that they not contain all this ambiguous, wishy-washy language that has recently become prevalent, but I understand that Doncram is working out the kinks. I'm willing to give him a little room to work on the stubs (though I still stick to the idea that they should be developed in user- or talkspace before going live).

What irks me to no end about the vast majority of these stub-creation drives, though, is when a very small stub is created with little to no information, but upon just 5 minutes of Googling, one is able to find at least 2 or 3 good, content-filled sources that were readily available to the stub's creator–especially when one of those sources is the digitized NRHP document. Had the stub's creator simply taken that 5-15 minutes to develop the stub even a small bit instead of going on to create another 30 stubs and never paying them anymore attention, I–and I assume many others–would have very little to criticize. It's not the quality of the stubs, per se, that I am criticizing... it's the lack of effort on the part of the creator.

I'm not asking for the creator to instantaneously spit out a featured article, but at least include a sentence or two about why the site is historic. Sure, it would be great if the creator would continue to develop the stub beyond that, but I can't force another editor to do that. A recent example–which was actually created by none other than Doncram–is the Robinson-Hiller House. While this is a very minimal stub, it is at least factual and explains why the site is historic. Sure, it could have been expanded more, but this is a respectable start. If it had just read "The Robinson-Hiller House is a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places", any reader would be asking why the heck that article even existed.

To reiterate, if there are readily available sources out there, at least make the attempt to include them. If there aren't any, just hold off for a while until they are... there is no deadline. If at some point in the distant future, it is found that there will likely never be any more sources available, maybe combine that NRHP article into one with a broader scope. Basically it boils down to just putting a little effort and sensibility into the process. If there is something to draw from, draw from it–even if it's only a single sentence; if there's not, wait until there is. That's all I'm asking, and I'm sure that if everyone in this project worked under that philosophy that all of this bickering back and forth, harassing, and mistrust will fall to the wayside in favor of peaceful collaboration.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Dude. As with Orlady, it seems to me that you are deaf to doncram's concerns about what is missing when developing things in a sandbox, but I agreed earlier to stop discussing his behavior. Any chance you'd like to comment on Sarek's deleting of my comment, or the fact that there seem to be a lot of people uninterested in NRHP trying to effect change around here lately? Lvklock (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone who has commented here, particularly those of you who have offered the opinion that Doncram is being unfairly criticized for a few stubs that had problems that have been fixed, is invited to contribute to cleaning up the issues with the article-space pages listed on User:Orlady/List. --Orlady (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be glad to take a look, are there any specific things I should look for or is the goal just general improvement and expansion? --Kumioko (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Look for things like "built or has other significance in 1871 and 1874", for an example I just pulled from an unreviewed article on the list, and other material that makes you ask "what significance?" or "ok, which is he?". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note, Sarek, that unlike you, I am allowing your comments (and Orlady's) that are unwelcome from my point of view to remain in a section that I started trying to talk about YOUR behavior, not Doncram's. That's because I recognize the right of other editor's to make posts, even in a section where others have agreed not to discuss the topic they're discussing, even in a section started to discuss something different. Just sayin'. Lvklock (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

[EC] That is a list of pages that contain (or contained when added to the list) one or more of the various problems with Doncram stubs that have been discussed at copious length on various noticeboards and talk pages over the last several months. Issues include deliberately vague (and thus fundamentally meaningless) text such as "is or was a property", "has other significance in 1822, 1840, and 1921", and other patterns that have been discussed (I found most of those pages by searching article space for certain text strings that have been discussed), meaningless verbose descriptions of "data" items in the NRIS database (such as a sentence in an article that is obviously about one building that says "The listing includes one contributing building"), and excessive use of direct quotations. --Orlady (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been follwing the developments about Doncram until reading them just now. Stubbing is important, sometimes tedious work and despite having a few disagreements in the past with Doncram, I think his efforts are a net positive to wikipedia, and I've done similar work. Many users who will probably never register and create articles will contribute further knowledge to these stubs in the future about their history. Is having no article better than a tiny article? Even if better information could be provided, for example in dating a building dendrochronology may be more accurate than written records current provided, but if there is some data backing up what he is saying, let it stay even if it is minimal. Some people have to build log cabins before others build mansions. Swampyank (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Lvklock (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree and using myself as an example I edited hundreds of stub/start articles before I created 1. --Kumioko (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Orlady that articles should be worked on in one's sandbox and polished before being created. I also agree with Elkman's caution on his NRHP tool that one line articles aren't sufficient. A stub is OK but it should have some substance to it and show that some thought has gone into it by searching the subject on Google and on Wikipedia itself. Searching on Wikipedia avoids duplications and can also turn up relevant info in other articles.clariosophic (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Lvklock (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I give up. Everyone wants to talk about Doncram. Everyone wants to talk about stubs. No one wants to talk about rude behavior toward me just because I seem to be doncram's friend. No one wants to comment on the fact that a lot of conversation around here seems to be driven by people with little interest in the NRHP. I give up. Lvklock (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we want to talk about stubs. Go figure; we're working on an encyclopedia here. Ntsimp (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And this particular aspect of the topic's been talked to death and can't be resolved without Doncram's participation because he's blocked right now. And, gee, the section was started to talk about something else...partly the fact that another editor deleted comments from a section because they didn't pertain to what the section was started to talk about. Apparently that irony is lost on everyone but me. Go figure. Lvklock (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Two comments... 1) I fully agree that we should stop talking about Doncram... however, 2) that does not mean we should stop talking about problematic stubs, and how to fix them. It does not matter who created the problem... what matters is fixing the problem. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, no, your comments should not have been deleted. A simple apology might fix that. Secondly, don't be so disingenuous. If you didn't want to talk about doncram or the content he produces you probably shouldn't have brought them up in the first two comments in this section that you started. You directed the conversation toward that from the start and now you want to throw up your hands in exasperation? Come on now. That said, neither is that big of a deal. I've brushed up against doncram a few times, he's quite unwieldy, but I can be as well. Either way, his benefit outweighs whatever annoyance people might have with him. It's really not a big deal in my mind, I can see others feel differently. --IvoShandor (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I can see why you think I was being disingenuous. I even thought about how to try to make the distinction I was seeing that I think keeps it from being that way. Yes, I brought his name/content up in my first comment elsewhere. By the time I started this section, I myself was more interested in talking about the deletion of my comment than about the comment itself. But, after Blueboar called for the moratorium on talking about Doncram, which I agreed to support, I repeatedly tried to

steer the conversation away from that. THAT is when I started being frustrated about the fact that I couldn't get people to stop talking about Doncram's stubs and except for a few new voices saying the same stuff that we've all said and heard before. So, I was making a distinction with before and after Blueboar's STOP comment. Also, the exasperation was already there regarding three or four other editors. I'm just being more vocal than usual, I guess. Anyway, thanks very much for your comments. Lvklock (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I want us to talk about the content without talking about the editor. Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, kinda hard to do. Dudemanfellabra kinda tried, but there's no doubt who he was talking about...Anyway, it was a good concept. Lvklock (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Absent truly extraordinary circumstances (e.g., threats of violence or perhaps hate speech), I see no justification for excising a contributor's comments from a project talk page. Doing so because of disagreement over the content is particularly troubling. I don't think anyone has defended that. IvoShandor's suggestion of a simple apology seems apt, but that's up to Sarek. It certainly would be nice to put these incidents in the past and see the project move forward in a collaborative and collegial manner. Cbl62 (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would have been much better for me to move the comment to another section instead of reverting it as soapboxing. I apologize for not doing that in the first place, Lvklock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for saying so. Apology accepted. Lvklock (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Support - best two lines of the whole section dm (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Luten Bridge Company

Could we discuss this a bit? The current article is specifically about the Luten Bridge Company in Knoxville, TN, because of the jurisprudence that was established when they built a bridge after the contract was cancelled. However, there seem to be Luten Bridge companies across the country, which are not necessarily directly related. Can anybody find good references to clarify the relationships, if any, between these companies? Should the Knoxville article be moved, to clarify it isn't the only one? And what about Naomi? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. Here's a reference about bridge companies in general, and Luten in particular. Bottom line is the various Luten Companies aren't independent, but rather are branch offices of the main Luten Engineering Company based in Indianapolis. Luten Engineering was founded by Daniel B. Luten as the "National Bridge Company." Choice snippets from the linked ref:

Luten’s firm grew and by 1907 it claimed to have erected over 700 such bridges. Also, by 1907 Luten’s company had representatives working alone or through established companies in Los Angeles,Topeka, Chicago, Connecticut, Iowa, and Philadelphia. By the early 1910s, his firm had designed and erected over 4,000 concrete arch bridges and had twenty-four engineers located throughout the United States. Through the 1910s Luten’s firm dominated the industry, primarily due to the numerous patents he held.

and

George Daugherty was president of the Knoxville branch office. Daugherty worked in Tennessee in the 1910s as an agent for the Luten branch office in Pennsylvania. In this capacity, he met his future wife while building a bridge in Loudon County, and they subsequently settled in Knoxville. Luten's offices were initially located in The Richard Building but he soon moved them to the Mercantile Building. (bolding added)

So while there was indeed a Luten Bridge Company in Knoxville TN, it wasn't the Luten Bridge Company as teh article currently implies. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So, were they actual branch offices of Luten Engineering, or did they license the name and patents and run independently? (Or is this a distinction I shouldn't be drawing?) Your source would seem to indicate the first, but some of the other material I read was a bit confusing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest moving the article to Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Company, since that's the point of the article, and apparently the most likely reason people are searching for this company. Bms4880 (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Luten definitely licensed his patents, and in other references I found, there's some indication that these designs were known generically as "Luten bridges" (in the same way that Stirling engines are known as "Stirling engines"). However, the offices that called themselves "Luten Bridge Company" seem to be more closely associated with Luten himself than just licensing the patents: see, for example, page 2 of the reference above, which lists "offices" on a promotional calendar, which indicates some form of cooperation in marketing. It's not clear to me whether Luten in Knoxville was outright owned by Daniel Luten or whether the relationship was more like a modern-day fast-food franchisee (I suspect the latter, actually), but I think that if the Luten Company in general deserves an article, then that should include all the branch offices. Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like there's enough notable content, here and in the sources, for 3 articles: Luten Bridge Company (based in Indianapolis, but with offices and operations in other places), Daniel B. Luten and Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Company. --Orlady (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There's also a separate article in existence for the Luten arch, which is the patented design used by Luten Bridge Co. Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Orlady that the legal case should be spun off as an article and the two existing articles should be expanded. clariosophic (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC) clariosophic (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Current Florida corporation records [1] show that a Pennsylvania corporation known as Luten Bridge Company qualified to do business in Florida on March 6, 1915. It withdrew from the state on August 29, 1934. clariosophic (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyphen vs. endash

As you probably know, I recently created a large number of articles. I used endashes for all of the "Name-Name House/Building" entries. However, the Balfour-Guthrie Building article was moved (see history) from the title using an endash to one with a hyphen. Is there a preference per MoS? Thought I would ask the NRHP experts. If hyphens are preferred, I have a lot of pages to move... Thanks for any feedback! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that page was moved.. AFAIK, endashes are always preferable to hyphens in article titles. Any time the NRIS spits out a double hyphen ("--"), I replace it with an endash. The NRIS reports the name of the building as the "Balfour--Gutherie Building", so I would think that should be an endash.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I moved the page back (over the re-direct) to the title with the endash. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that there is currently an ArbCom injunction disallowing moves that are made solely for the reason of changing between hyphens and endashes. Nothing needs to be undone at the moment, just don't do any new moves until the issue is settled, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

However, when creating new articles, do bear in mind that per MOS:ENDASH it is to be used to join two disjunctive elements, i.e. the names of different former owners of a house. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Two new NHLs today

Somewhat unexpectedly, along with a ton of "additional documentation approved" from Massachusetts listings, today's NPS announcement included two new NHLs, both of which were already in the pipeline: Congressional Cemetery in Washington DC and United States lightship WAL 539 (under the name Lightship LV-118) in Delaware. Both were previously listed, and we had the articles and photos.

I have made the appropriate updates to the articles and lists (this gives Delaware NHLs in all three counties at long last, so that had to be changed, and I think that puts DE in the same category as MA, CT and RI (I think ... there may be more) in claiming NHLs in all of its counties), including the {{Delaware NHLs map}} template, but it will remain to others to put coordinates in the lists. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note — I recently discovered that "additional documentation approved" entries often result in a name change or address change for an already-listed property. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Russian Village District

I completed the article on this interesting little historic district. I'd appreciate it if some of you would look at it. I wonder if this is something that is good, or intersting, enough for WP:DYK. If so, could one of you do that? Thanks! Einbierbitte (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I added a few more images that shot back in 2008. A decent DYK hook could probably be built around Stys's use of salvaged and recycled building materials, including railroad cars and the wreckage from the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. Cbl62 (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and photos!Einbierbitte (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Local designations in infoboxes

I know that Chicago Landmarks (example Auditorium Building) and sites on the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation's list (example Pittsburgh Athletic Association) have their local designations mentioned at the top of infobox_nrhp, but do we generally do this with smaller cities? Bloomington, Indiana has a "Bloomington Historic Designation" that's been applied to many of its NR-listed sites, including the John L. Nichols House, and I'm curious whether or not all of you think it advisable to include that in the infobox. Moreover, if it belongs, what colors should be used? Please note that the large majority of BHD buildings are not NR-listed or otherwise notable; one of the landmarked buildings is an entirely unremarkable house that's known only because Breaking Away was filmed there. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say there should be one color for all local designations, if they get included in the infoboxes. 'Cause there's only so many colors. As to whether they should be included, I don't have a strong opinion either way, so whatever the consensus is would be fine by me. --Ebyabe (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yellow (or gold) as well as shades of blue seem to already be in use in some Wikipedia state and local lists already. Perhaps, we can settle on a color that indicates state-listing and another color for local governmental listings. clariosophic (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

State and local designations that have had color templates created for them are listed at Template:Designation, along with all the other national and international ones used in Template:Infobox historic site. So far only 5 state registers and 6 local registers in the United States have color designations. I see no problem with including them in the NRHP infobox if the property is also listed on the NR. I've found that even at the state register level, with some rare exceptions (like this one), most properties that aren't also listed on the NR just aren't notable enough to ever have an article. If they are, then the historic sites infobox is used. As far as limiting the state registers to one color when used in Infobox NRHP, I don't agree. On the local level, I'm neutral. Altairisfar (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

How about making the state colors related to the state? California is the Golden State - the color should be gold. Nevada is the Silver State - the color silver. Florida is the Sunshine State - the color yellow. New York is the Empire State - royal purple. Washington, the Evergreen State - green :) Einbierbitte (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good, at least for some cases. It may be more difficult for some of the other states though. Alabama is the Yellowhammer (Yellow-shafted Flicker) State (yellow?), Michigan is the Great Lakes State (blue?), South Dakota is the Mount Rushmore State (?). Flag colors and other state-connected colors are also used at WP:WikiProject Historic sites, with a guide here. Altairisfar (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Fully illustrated question

How close is each state to being fully illustrated? Not including the "address restricted" sites, I guess. Not asking for ulterior motives, like that Florida is pretty close to done. Would never do something like that. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Man, this looks impressive - how many sites left to go in the state? I took a quick look and all the 4 or 5 counties I checked look "almost done." Plus about 45 counties already on the Fully-Illustrated list.

As far as how close other states are - I'd guess "not very close at all." I can only report impressions from the few states I know best. Pennsylvania, even though Philly and Pittsburgh are both fully illustrated (and I think Eire is close), is only about a-third done. Lots of spread out sites, up in the mountains in between the 2 cities. (Plus we have winter up here!). (11 PA counties on the FI list out of about 50 in the state) South Jersey is maybe half complete, but North Jersey is severely lacking (in pictures that is). For awhile I was thinking that Delaware would be the first fully-illustrated state, but mostly because there are only about 500 sites left to go, in a fairly compact area, not because most sites have pix. My vague impression is that other small states, e.g. Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, are not in this race. Michigan, New York, Minnesota and Nebraska have some very good prolific photographers, but are too big to be close yet. Maybe Nytend can fill us in on Ohio or Indiana.

Let us know about your progress. Maybe I can motivate a team of folks to do Delaware and give you some competition!

Smallbones (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, can we consider lists fully illustrated if we can independently confirm that buildings without pictures have been demolished? I know some people like to use pictures of the empty lot in this case, but the lots aren't always empty. Teemu08 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is worth discussing in detail - so I'll make a section directly below. Smallbones (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking for my state, Utah is a little past a third done. Only 5 out of 29 counties are on the FI list, but if I'm counting right we're at 553 out of 1511. Ntsimp (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There's 62 sites left to get in Florida, not including "address restricted". About 96 percent done, I estimate. Not likely to get much further, though, as most of the remaining sites are extraordinarily inaccessible. A couple on military bases, a slew of shipwrecks in the Keys, a bunch of fish cabins, and some sites I can't find, even with the NRHP coordinates. Still, I can't recommend photo roadtrips highly enough. You really get an appreciation for the state you live in, doncha know. --Ebyabe (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Per Smallbones' comment — I've photographed 1,096 of the 3,755 Ohio sites (in 69 of the 88 counties) and 581 of the 1,708 Indiana sites (in 37 of the 92 counties): I simply don't have the time to travel to Cleveland, Columbus, or Sandusky, where the highest concentrations are (although I'm 3/4 done with Cincinnati), and here in Indiana, I've gotten almost all of Indianapolis, but except for areas that can be day-tripped from Bloomington, I've not been able to get very much. Ohio's better represented than Indiana for areas that I've not visited, due to people like User:Eurekalott that have worked a lot in Cleveland and someone whose name I can't remember that's been working lately on Columbus. Conversely, aside from the occasional Chris Light photo in the northern part of the state, Indiana is pretty sparse where I've not visited. Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Restricted-access sites

Yes, restricted-ACCESS, not restricted-ADDRESS. Does anyone have experience with photographing restricted-access sites, other than simple on-private-property-and-not-visible-from-road situations? I've recently contacted the public affairs office of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base about visiting sites on base, and I've gotten a friendly staffer who's quite willing to find out whether I could get permission to visit these sites and to check through what hoops I'll have to jump if I'm allowed. I'd be interested in hearing of others' experiences, if they exist. Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Me, too! There's some I've thought I'd likely never get (ones on Eglin Air Force Base, for example). I've also run across a some schools with NRHP buildings on their property, that won't allow photographs without position. If they were doing secret research or something, I'd understand, but these are regular old schools. Anyway, Nyttend, good on you for going thru the process to get access, and share the results. Maybe I'll try to do the same, once I finish photographing the easier-to-get-to sites in Florida. Which may be sooner than I thought, at the rate I'm going. --Ebyabe (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I photographed this one that SAID you couldn't go to it because it's on the grounds of some kind of correctional facility, but there wasn't anything blocking the road and no stormtroopers came running out to block me. But, then there was a very small private college somewhere in....Missouri maybe (?) where I pulled up expecting no problem and the guy at the gatehouse almost wouldn't let me drive around campus. Actually, I may have agreed not to use those pics on Wikipedia without contacting the school first....That's probably one of those odd schools like Ebyabe's talking about. Very small, some kind of religious orientation...an unexpected one like Christian Scientist maybe? Anyway, it was a gorgeous campus, on a bluff looking over one of the big rivers and it seemed surprising that they'd not want the free publicity. Generally, I ask if there's someone readily available to ask and just go for it if there isn't. :) Lvklock (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Photographing something from a public road is one thing... trespassing on private property is another. I am sure the Wikimedia foundation would not want us to break the law just to obtain a photograph. Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

actually, the wmf is only concerned about copyright. Other legal restrictions are your own concern. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, not precisely PRIVATE property, as it's owned by the State of New York. And, they do have a day once a year when a local historic club hosts a tour, but it wasn't likely I'd ever be anywhere nearby on that day. So, I actually saw it as driving onto public property to take pictures from the road. And, I guess if the Wikimedia Foundation or the State of New York really have a problem with it they'll let me know. I suspect that if a guard HAD driven out they'd have just told me to make it quick, or to leave with the pictures I had, not that I couldn't use them. It wasn't like I was climbing a fence or sneaking through the woods. Lvklock (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Lvklock: It sounds like Principia College and its Bernard Maybeck designed campus buildings on the Mississippi at Elsah, IL. clariosophic (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that's the one. Absolutely beautiful. I have some really nice pics....that I'll probably never get permission to use. Lvklock (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I was able to get access to the Clemuel Ricketts Mansion (which is in a private housing development and not open to the public) by contacting someone who had property there - they were very accomodating and took me on a tour and let me photograph to my heart's content (they also wished to stay anonymous). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Shadow Lawn (West Long Branch, New Jersey) or ...

Shadow Lawn (New Jersey). I've forgotten which we prefer and why (I prefer the 2nd, it's shorter). In any case we've got two separate stubs and I'll combine at the 2nd title. Once we decide which title is better, I'll then delete the other without any fuss.

Happy Independence Day to all! Enjoy and get some photos!

Smallbones (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:PRECISION, be as precise as necessary but not more precise. Concise titles are preferred. So just "New Jersey" is all you need. Station1 (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - the longer title is now redirected to the shorter. Smallbones (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I did: National Register of Historic Places listings in Clay County, Indiana is about to have more images from yesterday, and when I get done uploading, National Register of Historic Places listings in Vigo County, Indiana will be fully illustrated from the same trip. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancies

I have found some discrepancies in Alaska, Virginia and California. The last one I already fixed. Maybe someone can check the other two talk pages and help fixing those issue. Thanks! -- Firefox13 (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

GLAM Wiki events on July 22-23 in Baltimore's Mount Vernon Neighborhood

Join us at the Walters Art Museum on July 23

Please join us next weekend for GLAM Baltimore 2011 -- a series of two events organized by Baltimore Heritage on July 22-23 to build relationships between cultural heritage organizations, archives and museums and the Wikipedian community in Baltimore and Maryland. We'll start on Friday, July 22 with a happy hour at the Midtown Yacht Club in Baltimore's historic Mount Vernon neighborhoods. On the morning of Saturday, July 23, we'll meet at the Walters Art Museum for an introduction to GLAM Wiki partnerships around the country and break out into smaller groups to develop new ideas for projects we'd like to work on here in Baltimore. We'd welcome any members of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject who are interested and able to attend one or both programs.

You can sign up and find additional details on our meetup page or on the Baltimore Heritage website where you can also use a form to RSVP for the July 22 Happy Hour or the July 23 GLAM Wiki partnerships meeting. I hope you can join us! --Eli.pousson (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for Fully Illustrated Lists

From above - "Can we consider lists fully illustrated if we can independently confirm that buildings without pictures have been demolished? I know some people like to use pictures of the empty lot in this case, but the lots aren't always empty."

I don't know that we've had formal criteria for this - except that, after some discussion and a small amount of opposition we decided that "Address Restricted" sites need not be included (though they may be if they don't encourage looting, ...). RE: the specific question, I'd say "Why not just take a photo of the occupied lot?" Certainly note in the table that the original building has been destroyed. In general I wouldn't include the photo in the article unless it showed something really special. Also I might focus the photo on the lot, rather than on the new building.

I do think that the pictures of the lots (empty or otherwise) do add something to the lists - credibility. If you put up a photo of a lot on the county page, you are putting up your reputation as an editor, saying I researched this, I checked it out in person, and the building ain't there. Maybe that's not needed in some cases - I'll let others decide on that. It does take a lot of work, for a small actual benefit. A couple of examples of the benefit of doing the research.

- For Jayne Estate Building I searched several times in an area where addresses had changed or were unclear and the coords were off, until I was finally sure the building could not possibly exist. Another editor added the info later that it had been torn down decades ago.
- For Building at 813-815 W. Second Street in Davenport, Iowa, it had been mistakenly recorded that the building was torn down. Not being able to find it - not even the lot - I later double checked on Google Maps and found it (it's a bar - next time I'm in Davenport somebody should buy me a drink!)

My particular concern about "unphotographable sites" is about ships - they move, sink, get raised, burn down, move again, etc. (See e.g. State of Pennsylvania (steamboat) - though I did find a pic) Taking pictures of a place where the ship once docked rarely adds much IMHO. (See MUSTANG at National Register of Historic Places listings in Anne Arundel County, Maryland - does it add anything?)

I'd think that, after some discussion, we could come up with some reasonable rules on when some photos need not be in the list and still have it be FI. Smallbones (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If a building (or whatever) is demolished, it's demolished. A picture of a place where something once was, but no longer is, adds nothing (except perhaps if its a heap of rubble). I understand why such pictures are added, but to me personally, it seems like adding pictures of empty lots treats these lists as if they were part of a scavenger hunt, not an encyclopedia. Teemu08 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as photos of demolished building sites, I include them only so there's not a gap on a list. Sometimes there is a new building there, sometimes it's an empty lot. When I can find information about the demolition, I add a reference to that. But sometimes I can't find any info as to whether a building is demolished, moved or whatever. For documentably demolished buildings, I'd be happy if we came up with a graphic like for the "address restricted" sites.

With sunken ships, I've photographed the area where the ship sank. I don't like doing that, but since I'm not a diver, it's my only alternative. --Ebyabe (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I have a bit of the scavenger hunter in me, and that gives me a certain motivation. I do love completing a list and I do think that the extra effort does have some benefit (but at what cost?). I'd be willing to waive pix of demolished buildings and similar, IF there is a reliable source clearly documenting this. But I don't know what others think. Perhaps we could put in an honorable mention category right below the FI list for 96% or more - no particular reason needed why it can't be photographed. The 4th of July weekend is not the best time to decide this - let's wait a week and see what others say. Smallbones (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The "honorable mention" group seems like the best idea I've heard yet on this subject. For those of us who put in the effort to get the difficult-to-photograph sites (e.g. Elkman's underwater photos of sunken ships, or my photo of the Epsilon II Archaeological Site that required a ten-mile hike through the hills), it seems somewhat unequal for other lists that could have such work but haven't yet to receive a similar fully-illustrated recognition. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with pictures of empty lots (though I don't normally upload pictures of empty lots unless there is something special about the site), I suggest searching extensively on the free image sites (Google Books full view, Library of Congress, etc.) to make sure there isn't an old photograph of the building before settling on an empty lot photo. Bms4880 (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point, but I'll generally take and upload a site photo even if we already have such a photo; I'll soon be uploading one of the site of the Harrison-Landers House, which was photographed by HABS before its destruction. The empty lot photo won't go in the list, but it can be useful in the article if I ever get around to expanding this NRHPBot stub. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, for our WP:WLM project, we have decided empty lot pictures are not only important for conservation awareness, but can also even win a photography prize! Jane (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Honorable Mention" list idea, or better yet, "90% fully illustrated" list seems to get better and better the more I think of it. Moreover, I can't think of any reason that anybody would oppose it. Unless somebody says otherwise, I'll include such a list directly below the Fully Illustrate list in a couple of days. Smallbones (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've included "90%+ Illustrated" lists right below the NRHP fully illustrated lists (as a sub-section) and included 7 lists that I know about. Please post any comments on the format here, and find other lists that qualify I'd guess there will soon be more total photos in the 90%+ list than in the fully illustrated lists. Smallbones (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

List of National Historic Landmarks in Wyoming has 23 out of 24 illustrated. Should this go on the regular 90%+ list, or should there be such a section in the NHLs list? Ntsimp (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I found several other NHL lists at 90%+, so I added a new section in the NHLs list. Revert if appropriate. Ntsimp (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Who knew that so many NHL lists are so close to being fully illustrated?! Smallbones (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably because NHLs are more prominent and thus more likely to be photographed by people in general. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Drake Well

Having been able to go to Drake Well Museum over the holiday weekend, I was going to set about expanding the article (with photos and, maybe, a video), but am no longer sure of the best way to do so. Should I move the article to Drake Well, with the main focus on the historic site? Or keep the article where it is and focus on the museum? Or split the well from the museum and have two articles? Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 00:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Why "Drake Well" instead of "Drake Oil Well"? Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME, it is almost always referred to as "Drake Well". The nom form appears to be one of the few instances of where "Drake Oil Well" is used. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 02:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I've never heard a name for it (other than "the first oil well") aside from the NPS designation. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, oil wells tended to get named based on who owned them or where they were located. I not sure if that was the name when it was drilled, or whether it was named after the fact. I've started the researching/writing the well article, and it does appear I can get another article dedicated solely on the museum. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 19:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, I think I have a little bit more on its status as a former PA state park from two books on the history of the PA state parks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, anything you have would be appreciated. I think that is the one era I have very little on. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Back to the original question, I think that Drake Well and Drake Well Museum should probably be a single article. My opinion on combining "historical" and "present use" topics is that IF historical and present-day locations are substantially similar, and IF a detailed discussion of the historical context would not put undue weight on the site's history, then the topics should be combined. In this case, the historical context of the site is sort of the whole point of the museum, so that seems OK. And I assume that the present park boundaries are such that nothing historically important is excluded, and there aren't potentially notable structures included that weren't involved in some way with the Drake Well. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That is what I thought initially, but after doing research, there does appear to be a lot more to the museum besides the well. The historic site covers an acre, whereas the museum itself covers 22 acres and has acquired a bunch of stuff relevant to the whole Pennsylvania petroleum industry.

Also, if there is one article, where would it be Drake Well or Drake Well Museum? Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO, if the other stuff isn't independently notable, then there should still be one article--in that case, the raison d'etre of the Museum is still the Well, and the addition of other stuff to the site doesn't dilute the historic connection between the Well and the Museum. It's like if Coca-Cola purchased a bunch af new bottling facilities. It's still the came company, and the addition of even a substantial amount of new assets doesn't change that. However, if othre aquisitions of the Museum are indepently notable, such that the well itself forms a much smaller portion of the notability of the museum, then perhaps two articles are warranted.

Assuming only one article is preferred, I would lean toward Drake Well Museum (with a redirect from Drake Well, of course) because that's presumably the current common name of the site. Andrew Jameson (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. When the museum was formed in the '30s, it would have most likely fallen under the first example, but in IMO is notable on its own today. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 21:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Having read the current versions of both articles, I think it is OK to have two separate articles. I would make sure each has hatnotes so if someone gets to one looking for the other it is easy to find that too. While most oil wells are probably not notable in and of themselves, I think if any oil well merits its own article, the Drake Well does. The museum is on the history of the whole oil industry in Pennsylvania, not just one well. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)