Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 68

Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant

This old NRHP article was recently moved to DRAFT, apparently because someone thinks there were some significant problems with it. I found some related comments on the talk page of the editor that did the move. Can someone straighten this out? MB 01:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If you want to restore the original article to mainspace, you can place a request at WP:RM/TR under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves". An admin will usually restore the article within a few hours. Station1 (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

But someone needs to address whether there are significant problems. I was just flagging this because it is an unusual action - it should have been fixed or discussed on the talk page. Now the article redirects to a section in an article that is not even part of the project, while the NRHP article is in draft space. MB 15:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Trying to make sense here. The article which was moved out of mainspace is now at Draft:Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant, and looks to me like a substantial, valid article. It is about a contributing building/structure in a NRHP-listed historic district, and was in quite good form back in 2007 (ancient days!), when its original creator brought it to this version, although the NRHP nomination document for the district was not cited (and almost certainly was not available online). That NRHP doc is available now (text and photos. And it happens to cite a very relevant MPS document (Jeffrey A. Hess, "Hydroelectric Generating Facilities in Minnesota, 1881-1928," National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, 1988), which happens to be available online HERE, although it is not cited in the district article or here, AFAICT.

It is simply not right to move this long-standing article out of mainspace and replace it with a redirect. I think pretty surely it would be better to develop the article further, and to have a {{main}} to it from where the topic is covered (which should be in summary form) at the current redirect target. And certainly it should not be moved without discussion, which was effectively like an AFD with no discussion. Station1's suggestion is what should be done, i think. --Doncram (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I made the request Einbierbitte (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Moved back to Mainspace. Einbierbitte (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I made the move. But it was actually a replace using St. Anthony Falls Hydroelectric Development
Problems with the original Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant:
1 - (relatively minor) I have never seen it referred to as "the St. Anthony Hydro Plant"
2 - the picture is of the "Main Street Station" (there is a correct picture in my replacement)
3 - "sits on the site of early sawmills", that is the Main Street Station, not the Hennepin Island Plant
4 - (note that the coordinates are correct)
5 - A major error "The current structure was built for electric power in 1882" - that is the Minneapolis Brush Electric plant which has been gone for about 130 years. The Hennepin Island Plant was built in 1908.
6 - "Today, the hydroelectric plant is the only industrial draw on the falls' power." - the St. Ahthony Falls (Hydraulic) Laboratory also uses hydropower. And recently, after the article was written, the Pillsbury A-mill has a hydroelectric generator.
7 - "total of 12 megawatts." - also after the article was written this is now 13.9 MW.
8 - In the paragraph on the Water Power Park - "A walkway now crosses in front of the building, leading to a bridge across the spillway separating the plant from Hennepin Island"" - the walkway is in front of the Main Street Station. A walkway leads to a bridge crossing the headrace canal to the Plant.
9 - Strangely some of the errors, like #5, may have come from NSP which owns the plant (Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy).
10 - "The facility stands on the east bank" - that is the Main Street Station, the Henn Island plant is near the center of Hennepin Island.
About half of the article is wrong, most of the errors were in the original article.
My intent was to replace it with St. Anthony Falls Hydroelectric Development which includes the Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant and much more (everything in the Henn Island Plant page except the Water Power Park), and is extensively footnoted (including the 1971/1991 nomination of the historic district for the NRHP). The intent is to add an article on the Water Power Park. This was explained on my talk page, and as I said there, it was not clear where my comments should have gone.
I ask that Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant be returned to Draft where it was a reference for Water Power Park.
Else is someone going to correct the errors in Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant
Is someone going to write separate articles on the 7 other hydroelectric plants in St. Anthony Falls Hydroelectric Development, at least a couple are contributing resources to the St Anthony Falls Historic District (NRHP)(contributing resources are footnoted). One problems with separate articles is that information in the sections is quite interrelated.BudKey (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

So, no disagreement with errors?
No discussion about restoring a flawed page?
Aren't significantly flawed pages supposed to be marked with something like "Help this page with...."?
There will be no objections if I edit out errors - with supporting cites? BudKey (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Most cites will use NOMINATION, Minneapolis to the NPS to nominate the St. Anthony Falls Historic District to be placed on the NRHP - the original 1971 section and a much longer 1991 section.
https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/0cbb35f0-93c3-456e-a3b9-8027e70f9757
This document was linked to by --Doncram - "That NRHP doc is available now (text"
And it is used in St. Anthony Falls Hydroelectric Development in 8 footnotes and "Further reading".
Cite NOMINATION pdf pg 246 "One of the first central hydropower generating plants in the nation was built on Upton's Island at the foot of St. Anthony Falls in 1882..... who named their firm Minnesota Brush Electric" (The 1882 Minnesota Brush Electric Central Station is certainly historic, but is not a contributing resource because the building was removed, then the island it was on was removed.)
DELETE 1 "The current structure was built for electric power in 1882" and Categories:"Energy infrastructure completed in 1882" That was the Brush Electric plant, not the Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant (henceforth HIHP).
NSP (Xcel), the owner of HIHP has at least one current webpage with this date error. Footnote 2 (archived) also contains the error. Some other errors in Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant likely came from NSP. The bad date has also spread to at least a couple other webpages by groups that should know better (including the National Park Service).
(Another error in footnote 2-NSP page - "each turbine accommodating river flows of up to 3,800 cubic feet a second" That would be very difficult since the total licenced capacity was then 4,025 cfs.)
Cite NOMINATION pdf pg 62-63 - Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant
This gives the correct construction date for the HIHP. BudKey (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Cite NOMINATION pdf pg 62-63 - Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant
and click the coordinates from Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant to get GoogleMap-Satelite
This is the Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant. Compare to the map - it is "located near the center of Hennepin Island" [NOMINATION] and a " limestone headrace conveys waterpower to the plant from the east-side mill pond" [NOMINATION]. It has a headrace and tailrace, which any functioning hydro plant needs. And it is in the location of a tour of the HIHP I took, with hundreds of other people, about 2 weeks ago. The NSP tour guide knew 1882 was for a plant across the river, and the correct date for the HIHP.
On GMaps follow the headrace canal out to the upper pond. At the end of the headrace there is a bridge for the Water Power Park.
DELETE 2 "leading to a bridge across the spillway separating the plant from Hennepin Island" - there is a bridge, the rest is wrong (the "plant" referred to is the Main Street Station).
NOMINATION calls the plant Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant and Hennepin Island Power Plant
DELETE 3 "also known as the St. Anthony Hydro Plant" - I have always lived in Minneapolis and have never heard it called the St. Anthony Hydro Plant - cite?
Cite FERC Online eLibrary, Docket: P-2056, search for: accession number 20110525-5099(25774825) By 2011 NSP had rewound generators and replaced turbine runners increasing the capacity of each generator and the plant total.
DELETE 4 "produce 2.4 or 2.5 megawatts each for a total of 12 megawatts"BudKey (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Cite: NOMINATION pdf pg 84 " East Side Platform Sawmills ... In 1894, the east half of the platform became the site of a hydroelectric plant (see No. 39 [Main Street Hydroelectric Station])"
and pdf pg 94 "Although the East Side Milling District received a setback when fire destroyed sawmill row, in 1887, the surplus waterpower was eventually taken over by the city's emerging hydroelectric industry, which built Main Street Station (206 Main Street) on the site of sawmill row in 1894..."
DELETE 5: "sits on the site of early sawmills" - that was the Main Street Station.
Cite: NOMINATION pdf pg 63-64 Main Street Station
and find 44.983640°N 93.254690°W / 44.983640; -93.254690 on GoogleMap-Satelite
The map location is the 1894/1911 Main Street Station. Compare GMap dimensions with NOMINATION. Compare the substation in GMap with NOMINATION. And that is where the Main Street Station was when I toured it about 20 years ago. The picture at Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant is the "Main Street Station". Note the shape of the building, and adjacent to the upper pond. Note the substation at the right in an enlarged picture.
DELETE 6: picture.
Note on GMap the entrance to the Water Power Park is on Main Street and the Park runs along the cellular dam upstream from the Main Street Station.
DELETE 7: "A walkway now crosses in front of the building" - that is the Main Street Station.
From GMAP - the east bank of the Mississippi at this area just south of and along Main Street.
DELETE 8: "east [bank]" - that is the Main Street Station, the HIHP is at central Hennepin Island.
Much of this article mistakes the Main Street Station for the Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant. (The Main Street Station is a contributing resource.) BudKey (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

DELETE 9 "to provide the public with access to the plant"
That is not in the 2004 FERC licence renewal or the plans to FERC for the Water Power Park. There is no public access anywhere very near the HIHP. (The tour I took a couple weeks ago was part of a citywide event NSP participated in). "Access to the plant" probably refers to the Main Street Station, and is access near the outside of the plant.
DELETE 10 "and interpret its [HIHP] part"
Water Power Park signage interprets hydropower use, hydroelectric development and specifically the Main Street Station, but not specifically the HIHP. The HIHP is invisible from the Water Power Park.
Cite: Hydropower project/Pillsbury A Mill
and about 2 weeks ago I toured the Pillsbury A mill hydroelectric plant - it is in operation (using water).
DELETE 11 " Today, the hydroelectric plant is the only industrial draw on the falls' power." This was questionable when written since the St Anthony Falls (Hydraulic) Laboratory has been using water since it was built.
CHANGE 12: The Crown Hydro project is now "another" instead of "second".
Cite: FERC Active Licenses (spreadsheet)
The curent FERC licence, that includes the HIHP, is to "Northern States Power Co (MN)" In a FERC filing NSP said the name used should be "Northern States Power Company (d/b/a Xcel Energy)"
CHANGE 13: Xcel to Northern States Power (or NSP)/Xcel
"A portion of the island overlooking the falls has been made into Water Power Park" - the whole thing starting at Main Street is the Water Power Park - interpretive signage starts just outside the Main St. entrance (not corrected).
Other than that he rest is substantially correct:
Most of the links are dead. BudKey (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

new pic by BudKey

Hi BudKey -- Yes the restored article (I'll call it the "full" article") should be revised to correct any errors (with in-line citations please) and to expand it, perhaps including to move material to it from the section about it in St. Anthony Falls Hydroelectric Development. The section there should be shorter and should be a summary of this article (not yet the case) and should include a {{main}} link to the full article (which I just added). The full article should be longer and can/should include multiple photos which would be inappropriate in the St. Anthony Falls Hydroelectric Development article.

Unlike you I am not familiar with the details, so I can't easily reply to all your comments. This level of detailed discussion about facts and sources is very appropriate to have on the Talk page of the full article, perhaps along with posting notice of discussion here and/or at other Talk pages.

However, I will say that just dropping the statement in the full article that the structure was built in 1882 is not fully helpful, even if you are correct (which I will believe you are) that it was built later. And your follow-on edits mostly just remove detail rather than refine the discussion to expand and clarify. It would be far better to put the 1908 date into the article, with proper in-line referencing. If there is a source asserting 1882 was the date, i.e. if the assertion was not merely an error due to an editor's misinterpretation, then the discrepancy between sources should probably be noted in the article. It would be one level of participation to add warning tags to the article and to post the apparent errors at its Talk page. It would be a higher level of participation to actually improve the article. I'd prefer not to see simple deletion of material without replacement, that sort of seems like trashing the full article. But you are right that we don't want the article to include incorrect information. Thank you for your followup here. I do not myself much edit articles in Minnesota, and I hope someone else can be more involved in improving the full article now, in cooperation with you. --Doncram (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you also for photographing the plant and uploading it. A proper pic really helps! --Doncram (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

["discrepancy between sources should probably be noted in the article"]

Errors in an Xcel source are noted in a footnote in St. Anthony Falls Hydroelectric Development (hereafter SAFHD).

["The section there should be shorter and should be a summary of this article (not yet the case) and should include a main link to the full article (which I just added)"]

My interest is in all the hydroelectric development at the Falls, particularly the context in which it developed and the many common points between those developments. That is what the 3rd link you posted does (was very interesting, thanks): Hess, Jeffrey (February 1, 1991). "Minnesota Hydroelectric Generating Facilities, 1881-1928". NPS. Retrieved June 1, 2019.

Common points that come to mind between HIHP and other developments include::
de la Barre::
historic waterpowr rights

FERC licence (has included 2 of the other plants, among other things)

NSP

street cars

why not on the west bank?

direct generator drive, horizontal vs. vertical shaft

Aesthetic Flow Adequacy Plan

It is not possible, practically, to explain context and those common points in a single-subject article. And trying to do so results in a disjointed understanding. If history books were written as a series of single-subject sections they would be unreadable.

I strongly oppose removing anything from SAFHD. Most of the HIHP section is about "development" and the common points (such as above). Someone else can edit Hennepin Island Hydroelectric Plant. I doubt that will ever contain the amount of information in SAFHD because common points aren't practical to detail in a single-subject article.

["The full article should be longer and can/should include multiple photos"]

Lots of luck with pics. The plant is mostly sunk into the ground and is close to invisible from Hennepin Island. The picture posted was from downstream, and; is the only face that is clearly visible. NSP doesn't want pics of the interior.

By the way, SAFHD notes 7 entities that are contributing resources to the St. Anthony Falls Historic District, which is in the NRHP. BudKey (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

use a formal RFC

Hey, for questions like raised in the #Zion National Park section above, where editors can quite reasonably have different opinions on editorial matters, could we please begin to use more formal RFCs? To be set up elsewhere, e.g. at the Talk page of an affected article, rather than here. The advantages include that these are advertised, attracting a wider range of editors who might have good insights about editorial matters as handled elsewhere, and that these are formally closed by uninvolved administrators, i.e. establishing a decision hopefully based on merits of arguments given, that all can abide by. Just discussing an issue on this Talk page is often unsatisfactory, if that is all that is done. On the Zion issue, I don't want to pre-judge whether we can simply agree without an RFC, but there was a 2016 discussion that was not structured to be closed like an RFC, and it was not formally closed, and perhaps some or all were not happy. Of course before a formal RFC is set up, it is good to discuss out options and try to reach a local consensus first. And to sort out factual/technical issues, hopefully leaving only editorial discretion-type issues teed up for an RFC. --Doncram (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

missing building

Not long ago, I wrote up Dockton Hotel, but it lacked a photo so I went to Vashon Island recently to take one. There's only a vacant lot at the location. I emailed the island's historical society to ask for a date when it was demolished, no reply. Should the article say something to indicate that it isn't there anymore? Schazjmd (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This article mentions in passing that "the building has collapsed," so there's at least a citation you can use. I have, in the past, noted something like "as of 2019, the building is missing from its location and presumed demolished" if I can find no source. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Jameson, that's wonderful! Thanks for finding that source, I'll update the article with it. I appreciate your help. Schazjmd (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Schazjmd, it would be good if you could add a note about this to the wp:NRIS info issues system, specifically to the section "Washington: demolished but still listed" at wp:NRIS info issues WA. We have an extensive system of notes on discrepancies/errors/what-have-you which can be used in correspondence with the National Register in Washington or with a SHPO state office, towards having them or us make corrections/updates. And it serves to allow us to state things in mainspace that are different than are in available sources such as NRIS and many derivative sources online, e.g. to make corrections to place names without having people come back to us and saying we're wrong because some (incorrect) website shows the other info. Most long-term NRHP editors, including Andrew Jameson, have added extensively to that system; i think it serves us well, though it would be good for us to press the state SHPOs more to address discrepancies we know about, and then we wouldn't have to keep tracking them. :( This has been done somewhat, e.g. to achieve delistings of demolished buildings in Utah, done by an editor in the last year or two. --Doncram (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, done! Schazjmd Talk 13:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Union Station (Brattleboro, Vermont)

Members of this project may wish to monitor the current editing of this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

ErfgoedBot

How often is User:ErfgoedBot supposed to run? I have been working on Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Images without refnum for some time now, and I see that the last time the bot ran was June 22. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Congregation of B'nai Israel Synagogue needs info box

Congregation of B'nai Israel Synagogue is on the NRHP and is a National Landmark. It needs the info box, but I don't know how to add to the info box it already has. Can someone do that? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Can someone check on its NRHP and NL status? Today National Register of Historic Places listings in Richmond County, Georgia was modified to list it as both, but the link to the NRHP form only gives the HD. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not on the NRHP individually, just in the HD. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The religious building template supports NRHP listed places, but I didn't see a way to designate a contributing property there. So I added a separate NRHP infobox (standalone as the religious building template doesn't support embedded infoboxes). I didn't do anything about NHL because I didn't see any evidence of that. I didn't see it in List of National Historic Landmarks in Georgia (U.S. state). MB 01:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Zion National Park

Back when Acroterion created National Register of Historic Places listings in Zion National Park, and when Doncram removed those listings from National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Utah as duplicates, it was believed that the former was merely a sublist of the latter, that all the NRHP properties in the park were located in Washington County. A discussion three years ago seems to have concluded to keep the lists this way on this premise. An Errant Knight has recently realized that the premise is incorrect, and added the three properties of the park's east gate to National Register of Historic Places listings in Kane County, Utah.

In light of the new information, I propose that this process be completed, by adding the other Zion National Park listings back into the Washington County list. The park list would then become supplemental, like other lists such as National Register of Historic Places listings in Dinosaur National Monument, and no longer have its statistics counted at WP:NRHPPROGRESS, for example. Ntsimp (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If there are listings in more than one county, it should be a supplemental list, not a sublist. Acroterion (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Ah, good to know that the three East Entrance NRHPs are in Kane County instead, which is confirmed by looking at their locations using MapQuest (the only map service that shows county lines AFAIK). That indeed was not understood until now. Up to 2013 those three were included in the Washington County list (see the April 2013 version of the Washington County NRHP list). Back then I explicitly considered the possibility that some Zion NRHPs could be located in Iron County, into which Zion NP extends to the north, and I verified that none were.

Glad to see also Ntsimp's addition of 12 photos to the Washington County NRHP list, by the way. :)

In 2013, User:Acroterion and I participated in discussion of what to do about duplication, at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Utah#merge/reconfigure with separate Zion NRHP list?, with advertisements given elsewhere about the discussion.

At the time there was three-way duplication: 28 items in the Washington County NRHP list-table, the same 28 in the Zion NRHP list-table, and all of those also covered in Historical buildings and structures of Zion National Park (let me call that "Historic sites in Zion NP" which is perhaps how it should be named). The latter is a very nice list-article which doesn't happen to use table formatting but does include coordinates of all sites. It was developed by Acroterion in 2009 (up to this 2009 version with edits only by Acroterion to that date) provides the definitive coverage of Zion NRHPs with proper description and discussion putting them into context, and organizing by type of site (transportation-related, employee and services-related, archeological sites, etc.).

On the other hand, the Zion NRHP list-table does not contain descriptive information about the sites. All the description fields are blank except for the three East Entrance items where "Also included in National Register of Historic Places listings in Kane County, Utah" now appears (added by Errant Knight); I suppose one could put "Also included in the National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Utah" into all the other 25 rows. However, Kane vs. Washington County is merely part of location, and should be covered in the location column if at all, IMHO. Anyhow this Zion NRHP list really adds very little value, as it effectively is merely a list of links to the proper discussion ("Historic sites in Zion NP"). Of the 28 items in its table, 24 merely redirect to "Historic sites in Zion NP". Only four (Floor of the Valley Road, Zion Lodge Historic District, Zion Nature Center-Zion Inn, Zion – Mount Carmel Highway) have separate articles and all four of these are covered in summary style in the "Historic sites in Zion NP" article anyhow.

The action taken in 2013 was to remove just some of the duplication, the 28 rows in the Washington NRHP list that were duplicated in the Zion NRHP list. It still remained that the rows had little value and that all the good description info appeared in "Historic sites in Zion NP" instead.

Now, if sentiment is for having the 25 rows re-added to the Washington County NRHP list, like the three rows recently added to Kane County NRHP list, that would re-expand the duplication. I suggest fighting back the duplication by either of two actions:

A: Remove the National Register of Historic Places listings in Zion National Park list entirely (by redirecting it to "Historic sites in Zion NP" list). All of its current rows will appear in the Washington and Kane county NRHP lists, and each item is covered in the ""Historic sites in Zion NP" list. Add the 25 items to the Washington County NRHP list, in a separate section for the Zion ones, which are qualitatively different from the other ones, rather than mixing them in. In the Kane county list, the three East Entrance structures are alphabetically together and might be included in its table directly without confusion. Give proper introduction about this at the top. All the coordinates will show in the "Map of all coordinates". It would be good to develop short descriptions for the items, selecting from the descriptive info in the Historic sites in Zion NP list. OR,

B. Keep the National Register of Historic Places listings in Zion National Park list, updating it with the Washington vs. Kane county location info in their location columns, not usurping the description column. It could be made sortable by type of site (transportation vs. employee vs. archeological, etc.) It would be good to develop short descriptions for the items, selecting from the descriptive info in the Historic sites in Zion NP list. Keep the 25 rows out of the Washington County list, and drop the 3 rows from the Kane County list. Instead simply explain at the top of the Washington County list that it includes 76 NRHP listings, 25 being Zion National Park sites covered separately in the Zion NRHP list, and 51 in the table below. And at the top of the Kane County explain that it includes 23 NRHP listings, three being Zion National Park structures covered separately in the Zion NRHP list, and 20 in the table below. This is like how we handle a zillion NRHP list-articles where towns or neighborhoods have been split out and are covered separately.

I somewhat prefer "B", because the all the Zion NRHPs are better presented/explained in one group, rather than with one or two subtables for the Zion ones in the two county lists, and rather than having them scattered among the very different other NRHPs in the two counties. There is no problem with handling either A or B at the NRHPPROGRESS page and likewise no problem either way at the List of RHPs in UT page (which i just amended). --Doncram (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Acroterion, could the Historical buildings and structures of Zion National Park article be merged into National Register of Historic Places listings in Zion National Park? The name of the list-article maybe doesn't fully capture its scope, and it seems to be a list of exactly/only the NRHP listings in the park. It looks to me that the nice wording of the descriptions could be moved into table format, and the nice intro/overview can be used virtually as it is written. The ordering of the list could be as done in the list-article (i.e. by type of site), with it being sortable into alphabetical order too. I am not sure, because some niceties of the current presentation might be lost somehow in implementing a merge to table format. But the overlap of items is so exact that I really think the two should not exist separately. And the table entries, duplicated or not across across lists, are completely empty of descriptive info, i.e. not serving readers well, seeming to prove something about if we have duplicative lists, they are not all going to be well-developed. --Doncram (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not especially in favor of a merge - the summary article was created to avoid having a dozen or more articles on individual elements. Since they are closely related, at least in the case of the CCC structures, I felt they were better described in a group, rather than making readers look all over the place for four-line articles on entrance signs and checking stations. I did something similar with Historical buildings and structures of Grand Teton National Park, where there was more context available to explain, and at one time I had ambitions to do something similar for the Grand Canyon, which sorely needs some kind of summary article. The article as it sands gets about 250 hits a month, and I think it serves a purpose in its present format. However, content could certainly be extracted and further summarized for the list. Acroterion (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay by me that you prefer non-table format, and I do agree that describing similar things together in a group makes sense (I don't like it when very disparate things are lumped together, like all the small counties in a state, rather than using coherent regions where there could be sensible discussion of context, e.g. shared geography and regional history, instead.) Ur preference reminds me of some old discussion at a Detroit historic district article... oh that was for Detroit Financial District, for which someone asserted it had to be put into table format, but User:Andrew Jameson preferred not to do that, in part because the non-table format would not handle long descriptions well, and the format Andrew Jameson settled on certainly works compactly and well for its material IMHO.

But if it is not merged then why do we need National Register of Historic Places listings in Zion National Park? It seems to me that readers are not served well by that, with its 24 links over to the real list-article with descriptions. Would u be in favor of option A then?

By the way, I wonder if more of the individual site photos could be worked into the Historical buildings and structures of Zion National Park list, if that is the one to keep. Perhaps like how there is a thumbnail pic of each Detroit HD building in its non-table list, or perhaps with even smaller pics that readers could click on if they want to really see them bigger. Or with a gallery at the end of each section for each "type" of site. It would help readers to be able to see what they might find in the park. I think the photos are the only info worth merging; otherwise there is only location info which you have captured well enough by the coordinates and linked {{GeoGroup}} map. I wouldn't want readers to have to go back to the duplicative list to see the thumbnail pic for a given item.--Doncram (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It's critical to have every site nationwide appear on a county or county-equivalent list, unless the county has enough sites that we split some out for size. Don't split anything out of a county list that's small enough to exist comfortably as a single page; the only way an NPS list is appropriate in such a case is if it's treated as supplemental. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Kinross Township Hall and School

There has been some discussion about the image on this page between User:Wingerham52 and me - specifically whether or not it represents the actual NRHP-nominated structure. I summarized it in a section at Talk:Kinross Township Hall and School to discuss the image (see our respective talk pages for more detail if you like). If anyone has insight or commentary, please add any thoughts you have. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried searching in Newspapers.com for any mention of the old town hall since 2010 when it was sold by the town and found nothing.

I suggest looking at satellite photos from every year starting with 2010 . You may see it under construction. In the county where I live, the county has a GIS with satellite images available (to anyone for free); I tried to find something similar for Chippewa County, Michigan but their GIS seems to require a paid subscription. Failing that, I believe Google Earth has images for different years also. I won't have access to a computer that supports Google Earth for at least a couple of weeks, but you or someone else could try that. MB 03:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox error

Cincinnati Union Terminal is in Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup because it does not have the refnum in the |refnum= field. This is a new article (had been a redirect) that was developed recently by primarily one editor who has the refnum in the "date added" field appended after the date. I fixed this by moving the refnum to the correct field, which removed the article from the cleanup category, but was quickly reverted. The editor wants the refnum in the date field because they also have a similar NHL number appended to the "designated NHL" field. My "conversation" about this (via edit summaries) was that using |refnum= was a requirement of the infobox, and the reply was "I deal with faulty infoboxes all the time. This is the most cohesive display." Comments from project members? MB 05:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Responding, I posted at Talk:Cincinnati Union Terminal, not necessarily expecting to get any discussion there, but in fact the editor did respond. They are forceful in their views, but they make some good points and/or it brings up some legitimate issues for WikiProject NRHP. The world has been changing around us, in some ways, without our updating the NRHP infobox, and this editor's fresh perspective has some merit.

Three points for now:

• 1) they properly complain about the standard NRIS reference. My view: Besides the fact of a link showing scary error message (see section [[]] below), it provides readers with seriously negative value by directing them to a target where they might download some version of the entire NRIS database. It is really awful. The reference is suggested to be used in new NRHP infoboxes, to immediately follow the NRHP refnum, by the NRHP infobox generator tool. In its current form, I can't argue that it should be included in that article.
• 2)they properly complain about the reference number itself, which is linked automatically (and a regular editor cannot change this) to the NPS Focus page for that reference number. This is unacceptable in general, and in this case they point out that the Focus page (https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/72001018 provides a NRHP document for a different refnum; it offers up the NRHP document that should go with a different 1977 refnum instead perhaps.

HELP, i cannot find whatever other refnum applies. National Register of Historic Places listings in western Cincinnati shows only one refnum for this place. When we had 2 or more refnums in the past, we used to have those displayed in the list-article, but a lot of those got lost. Can anyone tell if a different 1977 refnum exists? They are saying the link goes to the wrong Focus page; I am not completely sure. In this case, a National Historic Landmark, was there a separate NRHP listing for the NHL designation? Or was there a change/expansion listing? They are pointing out the NPS for 72001018 refnum "actually has the 1977 NHL form, not the 1972 NRHP form." AFAICT they are right. The NPS certainly has replaced many old documents with new ones, losing info, that has come up before.

Anyhow, linking to Focus is IMHO awful in general. That is directing reader to a website where, if they scrolled down, they could download the NRHP nomination document and NRHP photos. Why not just directly link to them, from the article, and those should already be linked from a normal inline reference within the article. Don't mislead the reader by suggesting they might get anything different there, by it being a clickable link. I think it should just be delinked. And, for too many sites, the Focus page just serves up claim to effect that "NRHP document has not yet been digitized" which is often completely false. For example for all the "featured listings", the NRHP document is served up somewhere else within the NPS domain. For others we do have NRHP document from a state website or from National Archives. This link in the NRHP infobox must be delinked, IMO, and likewise the same linking from each row in the NRHP list-articles must be delinked.

• 3) They are using links they have created to two documents at National Archives, maybe corresponding to two NRHP refnums, I don't know. Preferring to link there rather than to documents at National Park Service. Maybe we should switch over in general, or include links to both, now that Nation Archives has much more covered than it used to. This editor states "The NPS website is not just temporarily down, it always has problems and very frequently lacks the digital nomination files. Look here: 'The National Archives is the permanent home of our records and everything will eventually be in the National Archives.' "

What they're doing now may have some problems (including I notice now that it is highlighting as "refnum" the new, different number assigned by National Archives for a document; this should not be presented to reader at all, it does not correspond to anything; it obviously differs from official NRHP refnums served up at NPS and at all of the NRIS mirror websites). But their proceeding to use infobox historic sites instead, and to present stuff differently, may be overall better. And/or there are further changes that should be made to NRHP infobox.

I could possibly use some help over at that discussion, but I think mainly we should not be too bureaucratic without good reason, and this editor does deserve a lot of respect. --Doncram (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I've read the TP at the article and the editor certainly seems to assert a high degree of ownership over that article. The original issue is gone now for two reasons. 1, the infobox has been switched to Template:Infobox historic site and 2, the distinct "NHL" refnum is gone also, replaced with the NRHP refnum (so we could even go back to the NRHP infobox.) There is probably no point in pursuing this further. (Not commenting about the forked discussion the bigger issue with referencing.) MB 22:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Wendell August Forge still listed

The building burned n 2010. The article says so, and there are refs to confirm. But the site is not listed as "former" in the county listing/article cats. We don't have a maint template to mark a article as needing these kinds of updates? And if it is still officially "listed", don't we track those somewhere? MB 22:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

They do get tracked, at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues. The part you want is probably Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues/Pennsylvania#Demolished but still listed. But it's really up to interested folks to report these things to their State Historic Preservation Office. I've had some success in getting demolished properties in Utah delisted, but it took several years. Good luck! Ntsimp (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

World Famous Kenton Club

Kenton Club

I've been working on the World Famous Kenton Club article. In my initial research to expand the article, I did not come across mention of NRHP. However, this form mentions Kenton Club in the list of properties.

I'm not familiar enough w/ contributing vs. non-contributing classification to know how to discuss NRHP within the Wikipedia article. I'm hoping some editors might be willing to help by summarizing the details and making any other NRHP-related changes to the entry. The building's description and significance are short, so this should not be too difficult for someone familiar with the terminology and level of detail appropriate for the article. I'm hoping to nominate World Famous Kenton Club for Good article status in the future, so having someone incorporate NRHP info would be incredibly helpful.

Happy to collaborate on the article's talk page as well, or copy the NRHP info here for easier review. Thanks in advance! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I added a paragraph explaining that its within an historic district but due to modifications, only a "historic noncontributing" property. NRHP infoboxes cover only listed and contributing properties, so I didn't add one. MB 16:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

MB, Thanks for getting the ball rolling. I'll see if I can flesh out the detail a bit and merge content into the existing "Description" and "History" sections. Should the NRHP project banner be added to the article's talk page, or are noncontributing properties not worth associating w/ WPNRHP? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say no banner on the talk page just like no infobox. It has no actual NRHP status (unless the exterior is restored). MB 17:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

MB, Ok, thanks, wasn't sure if noncontributing properties within NRHP historic districts were of interest to the project or not. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

For an example of what you're looking for, see Champaign County Courthouse (Ohio). The surrounding NR district isn't mentioned, except to say that it's non-contributing. Nyttend (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect images

Some images of interest to this project may have been incorrectly identified. Perhaps people with knowledge in the area could check some of the images and decide whether fixes are needed. Relevant pages:

• Talk:Building at One Pendleton Place#Wrong image (I removed the image from three articles)
• Commons discussion (I identified a second problem regarding an image used here)

Re the second problem, a Commons category shows Nyttend uploaded an image and they may be able to investigate. There may be additional problems. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding KLOTZ's Firestone images — they're both wrong. See the property's record in the Ohio SHPO's website. The only solutions are to delete the images or to remove them from use and rename them to something like "Wooden house on Westdale Road" so nobody thinks they're the house in question. Such renaming is covered by Commons standards; see c:COM:RENAME item #3. I don't really see a reason to delete the images; they're decent pictures of ordinary McMansions. Nyttend (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Johnuniq for raising the issues and User:Nyttend for pointing to instructions at c:COM:RENAME here and in linked discussions. I just wrote a short bit of this advice at wp:NRHPHELP#Fixing Commons names and descriptions of photos, giving example of my new request for a file rename, which I hadn't put in previously because I had never really understood it before. In this case the incorrect photo was uploaded in 2010, long before the NRHP document and photos were available online; it was probably a reasonable guess by the photographer at the time. --Doncram (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Best practices for citing NRHP documentation

Hi WikiProject,

Someone asked me about best practices for citing NRHP documents. There's Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide#References, but it's unclear to me how up to date that is. For starters, it suggests using {{cite document}} primarily, which now just forwards to {{cite journal}}. It also presumes use of the source editor. My advice was to start with either cite web or cite journal (built into the citation tool in Visual Editor), and then to fill in parameters for as much information as they have access to. I thought I'd post here to make sure, though. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ryan (Wiki Ed):That sounds good to me. It's never easy to fill in parameters. The link Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide#References is a good guideline. There was a tool for adding refs but currently there's an issue with the tool (see above section). I think also, after adding a .pdf it's best to then go to the page History view and click on Fix dead links, archive so that the .pdf file will be archived. There's no way to avoid link rot, so archiving is a good idea. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be updated. One thing is we need to figure out how best to reference multiple versions of NRHP documents, like at any of the various State registers vs. at the National Park Service vs. in the National Archives, so there is an alternative available when one goes down temporarily or permanently. And how to address discrepancies between them, like when one has more photos or ancillary documents, and how to address big differences in filesize/downloading time. These alternative sources are covered somewhat at wp:NRHPHELP. The discussion above at #NPS site error (new?), and NRIS reference issue involves an editor who prefers the National Archives versions, which are relatively newly available. These appear to be more permanent, with solid commitment to supporting them, but sometimes the files take 10 minutes to download and/or completely freeze a user's computer. We need some good examples referencing more than one version. --Doncram (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about verifying Poe Elementary School in Houston's NRHP status

Hi! I believe Boulevard Oaks, Houston is a historic district. I went by Poe Elementary School (Houston) and saw a sign saying it's listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but I couldn't find a listing on nps.gov.

I wonder if anybody knows what webpage would help verify the school's status as an NRHP site? Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The school is the first of the "major buildings within the district" listed in the registration form for the Boulevard Oaks Historic District. It is not individually listed on the NRHP, but is a contributing property to the historic district. Often people do not make that distinction. Ntsimp (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I added a NRHP CP infobox. MB 17:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! The sign was the standard NRHP sign from the US Department of the Interior WhisperToMe (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Willits House

Is anyone available to look into this a bit. An IP recently made what at a glance look like good changes (including adding a ref), but also removed the refnum from the infobox with the edit summary "appears not to be on the register". But the place is in National Register of Historic Places listings in Lake County, Illinois with a refnum. I don't want to revert the change without a second opinion; I haven't even looked for the nom form. MB 00:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I found the listing in the 1982 yearly list. I added back just the listing date and refnum. 25or6to4 (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Finding information on a small town in Lowndes County, Marble Stone, Alabama

Requesting information concerning Marblestone, or Marble Stone, Alabama located in Lowndes County. The town no longer exists, and I wanted to know what happened to it. I recall stories of African American families being poisoned by way of milk deliveries and forced to leave their community. The families had to leave in the night on foot. I am wondering was Marble Stone the town they had to leave. Years ago the only thing left of the town that I found, was a set of concrete steps, which may have lead to the school for African Americans. If anyone has any information on the history of Marble Stone, Alabama, I would appreciate your sharing so we can give them a small place in history. °

User:Voice39, I don't see any hits in Google Maps. But searching in GNIS (on "Marble Stone" at GNIS search page) yields two hits. These are places in Lowndes County, Alabama. I am not sure how to interpret the latitude and longitude info from GNIS, but try:

*Marble Stone Church (historical) 32.1223°N 86.2637°W / 32.1223; -86.2637 (Marble Stone Church (historical), if coords are decimal), if I am to interpret the coords as decimal, GNIS listed 01-DEC-2003 (32°12′23″N 86°26′37″W, if the coord info is Degrees-Minutes-Seconds

• Marble Stone School 32.1313°N 86.2705°W / 32.1313; -86.2705 (Marble Stone School if coords are decimal), if coords are decimal, GNIS listed 04-SEP-1980, 32°13′13″N 86°27′05″W if coords are DMS format.

Click at right to see all of these locations in Open Source Map, but that does not give a satellite view option.

Click on any one set of coordinates and make choices to drill in and see the location in Google Satellite view.

I suppose they were in an unincorporated community named Marble Stone. One would need some more information to start a Wikipedia article on the community, but if it was a populated place then it would be okay to create an article, if one has sources. With just GNIS info is not enough; articles that are sourced just to that (or to copies of its information) routinely get deleted.

There appears to be no info about it in any of the items in National Register of Historic Places listings in Lowndes County, Alabama.

You don't mean "Marble City", as addressed in this opinion article (which I can only partially read). Hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The above mapping didn't work very well. Instead, in the GNIS results, click on one of the feature names found, then select one of the mapping services to the right. Hmm, a different "Marble Stone School" in Mississippi is located on Marblestone Rd. The Alabama coords seem to point to locations out in fields; maybe the coordinates are not very good. There are often issues with coordinates of historic places. Anyhow, GNIS does identify a school and a church, even if the location is not clear. --Doncram (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Tortugas Pueblo Fiesta of Our Lady of Guadalupe, is it listed?

For Tortugas Pueblo Fiesta of Our Lady of Guadalupe, i can't find any NRIS info, nor any mention in the National Register's Weekly listings reports at the time, nor any NRHP documents or photos. If it was listed in 2007, it should be in NRIS version 2013a that the NRHP infobox generator serves up. And there is no hit in this National Archives search on the reference number. Also, I would think it would have a reference number in different format (like "0070####, rather than 10000####). Here is what is available as National Register of Historic Places listings in Dona Ana County, New Mexico:

Tortugas Pueblo Fiesta of Our Lady of Guadalupe
January 22, 2007
(#100001437)
Bounded by Emilia Rd., E. Guadalupe St., Juan Diego Ave., and Stern Dr. / 32°16′11″N 106°45′10″W	
Tortugas, New Mexico	

Although Tortugas, New Mexico is a redlink there is is a Tortugas Mountain Observatory. Help! --Doncram (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The listing date was wrong. It's found in the August 11, 2017 weekly list. Ntsimp (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, Ntsimp, thanks! I see you updated the list-article already, too. By the way, is there any way to search the weekly lists? There are pages mentioning a search, but then it just gives an index to the weekly lists, so it seems you need to know the approximate date to browse and find a given entry. General google searching sometimes works, but not for me this time. Any which way you found it, thanks. :) --Doncram (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know any way to search the weekly lists; that would be useful. I assumed it had been added to the list article soon after being listed, and just used WikiBlame to search for the addition of Tortugas, which found this edit. Ntsimp (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hooray, typo on my part! Usually, when I need to search the weekly listings for something on the list, I'll google search by the reference number, and usually add "listed" to the search. Usually the first two articles are the Wiki article and the weekly listing article. If it's something from the older lists before 1995, I have redigitized pdfs that are text searchable. 25or6to4 (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Hmm there is https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/weeklylistsearch.html which is for "Search the NR 2013 - 2016 Weekly Lists" only. Maybe helpful sometimes.

Real question, relating to my new struggle to begin cover 14 listings in a combo article, Camino Real in New Mexico: I am having trouble finding the county where refnum 11000169 Camino Real-Alamitos Section is listed, so I would like to see its Weekly listing. Googling "11000169 listed" doesn't work for me, nor does googling other combos of info. But this one is in 2011, so it is in NRIS, okay i see from NRHP infobox generator that it is in Santa Fe County, listed April 8, 2011. But it does not appear in National Register of Historic Places listings in Santa Fe County, New Mexico! --Doncram (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

And I stepped through about 8 weeks of weekly listings after April 8, 2011, and can't find it, nor do I come across any of several other Camino Real listings of the same date. NRIS infobox generator says it is in Santo Domingo Pueblo, New Mexico, which redirects to Kewa Pueblo, which is in Sandoval County, but there's nothing about it in National Register of Historic Places listings in Sandoval County, New Mexico. Is this listed? And not in our list-system? --Doncram (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so you grabbed the single listing of those 11 that isn't on a weekly listing. For some reason, the Alamitos listing is not with the other 10 listings, when they were listed. I finally found them on the February 24, 2012 listing! On the location, so far, I'm coming up with nothing. 25or6to4 (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I see 11000169 shown in Santa Fe County on https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/11000169. It's also listed in Santa Fe in the 2014 geodatabase dump, loaded at https://www.historypointer.com/nris/resource/11000169/ (full disclosure: I run historypointer.com). Halmueller (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thank you User:25or6to4 and User:Halmueller! Okay, so it was in fact listed but never announced, so was not in any of our county NRHP list-articles. Okay, added by me just now to NRHP listings in Santa Fe County. (I inserted it as item number 13.5, and believe that automated or semi-automated processes will get around to updating the numbering, and the county, state, and nation total counts, and wp:NRHPPROGRESS, etc., eventually!) And the failure by the NPS to ever announce this has been just noted by me at wp:NRIS info issues NM, in this edit. Resolved, I guess. But another issue is that this and other Camino Real segments are "Address restricted", so little is available for them, although I doubt there is any good reason for this, many being locally well-known roadways that are even current city streets... I will try to take that up with the New Mexico SHPO. Again, thanks! --Doncram (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

NPS site error (new?), and NRIS reference issue

the scary error message, captured by The Eloquent Peasant

It has been pointed out to me by User:The Eloquent Peasant that readers are getting a scary error/warning message (see screen grab at right) in all the NRHP articles that use the template:NRISref, which is probably more than 50,000 articles! I now get the error too, if I click on "National Register Information System" in the standard reference to NRIS, e.g. as linked from infobox of Hotel Cortez (El Paso, Texas) article.

I further notice that I am getting a similar error message for a Multiple Property Submission NRHP document at https://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/64000837.pdf (also linked from Hotel Cortez article). Maybe this comes up only after I click on the "Advanced" option, i am not sure, but further says "This server could not prove that it is pdfhost.focus.nps.gov; its security certificate is from *.nps.gov. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection." and gives me the option to "Proceed to pdfhost.focus.nps.gov (unsafe)". Perhaps if I follow that option, I will no longer experience the issue (i am not sure), but the situation is unacceptable for readers.

Actually if I click on Advanced and choose to go ahead with the risk, I still don't get to the intended webpage, I get instead:

500 - Internal server error.
There is a problem with the resource you are looking for, and it cannot be displayed.

--Doncram (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Surely we need to request to the National Park Service technical people, that they should reverse whatever configuration change might have happened, or otherwise fix the security issue or notice. Is anyone aware of when this changed? Would anyone else like to take the lead on contacting them? If not I will try within a few days probably.

Also, I am sick and tired of the awful current version of the NRIS reference. That link from "National Register Information System" tries to go to the NPS page where one could theoretically download the full NRIS database, which no general reader of Wikipedia should ever do, and it is plainly a disservice to steer people to there. --Doncram (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Doncram: The first warning/error is because of an invalid SSL certificate. It's not expired, but it's a wildcard for *.nps.gov. It's valid for npgallery.nps.gov, but not https://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov, because that's an additional level deep. A certificate for *.*.nps.gov would be needed. Perhaps they're in the middle of a server reorganization? This should be a relatively easy configuration issue to address. The PDF did load for me after I clicked through, though. Mackensen (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe NPS has basically deprecated pdfhost (and perhaps more broadly all of focus.nps.gov) in favor of npgallery.nps.gov. Rather than complaining to the NPS about this, perhaps someone should figure how to map existing URLs from pdfhost (like the bare one in the MPS field of the Hotel Cortez article) to a properly working npgallery link, and then asking a bot operator to make alterations to those links automatically. Magic♪piano 14:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Recently, I ran into an editor @Iryna Harpy:, a lovely person, who seems to really not mind, or actually- enjoys working with references. Maybe Iryna Harpy would have some good suggestions about how to handle this very important issue. (Background: refs for NRHP articles have broken because ... (well see above) and we need to figure out how to fix them all.) Iryna Harpy, please let me know if you'd be interested in giving me / us ideas for how to handle this issue. I'd be happy to work on this with you if you feel up to it. Thank you.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, this got complicated, and I haven't done anything. Keep this thread alive! --Doncram (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox generator

Is there any interest in an updated automatic Infobox generator? I've been working with the NPS 2014 database dump, as well as the weekly updates, and have a combined database of all property listings to support a personal website project. If there's interest, I'll add a page template there that generates an Infobox, in the spirit of the old Elkman tool (and following any consensus reached in the NRIS Reference discussion now occurring). The database is in PostGIS, and has some coordinates for the newer property listings. It doesn't have NHL designations, and does not (yet) reflect properties that have been removed. Halmueller (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I've considered writing an article that I can't make an infobox for. If updating the generator is necessary for new ones, I'd say go for it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

If you've found a way to integrate the 2014 database dump with newer data, I could load that into my own infobox generator. I just haven't seen any updates from the NPS lately (although I haven't been looking, to be honest). The coordinates from PostGIS would be useful for geolocation. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be ideal! I have my extraction scripts (to read the weekly updates, and the April 2019 spreadsheets) available at https://github.com/halmueller/national-register-scripts (elided to include just the reader/parser, not the stuff that deals with my internal database). I can provide a PostGIS dump of the database, too. My data is current through August 16, 2019. I loaded the 2017 dump (which is the 2014 dump plus a few spatial corrections by NPS) into PostGIS. Then added data from the spreadsheets at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/data-downloads.htm, which at the time went only up through 2016 (they now go through April 2019). Added the weekly list for 2017 from 1966-2017 Weekly Lists page. Halmueller (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Great, if this is done either way! It would be really helpful if it could track which specific Weekly List page was the source for each listing, and generate accurate references to them, e.g. how this article in 2019 references a specific Weekly List of February 1, 2019. It has seemed odd to me that we update the county list-articles using the weekly lists but do not cite them there; shouldn't we always cite our sources? And it is a bother later to track down the weekly list that is relevant, when constructing a new article, where a source really is obviously needed. So I think it would be odd, maybe inappropriate, if the weekly lists are used as sources for auto-generated infoboxes but not specifically cited. As opposed to "NRIS version 2013a", which is how I have been referring to the NRIS version released in 2013 and updated in 2014 which the current generator has been using. Also noting which is the source for coordinates in a "source:" field within the {{coord}} template; there has been a slow process going on to identify such as "NRIS2013a" or "USERNAME". I might have a few other suggestions, too. --Doncram (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I can emit source: will be one of “2017 dump”, “2019 spreadsheets”, or “weekly update of date x”. There are a bunch of entries that I pulled in originally from weekly updates but that were just recently updated using NPS 2019 spreadsheets (which include altnames, architects, and sigpersons). See https://www.historypointer.com/nris/weeklyLists.html for a sample of what’s possible; reformatting that info is trivial. I’d prefer to feed data into the Elkman system, or have Elkman adapt my Python scripts, because the links are well known and the UI is very clean. It also avoids any appearance that I’m promoting myself. But I’m happy to put up a proof of concept in case Elkman is occupied at the moment. I guess I’ll knock out the POC this week/weekend as a target for suggestions/feedback. Halmueller (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look at those files and scripts, though I won't be able to get to them until after Labor Day. I'm interested in the PostGIS data because it contains geocoding information that could be useful, whereas the NRIS weekly updates just list properties, cities, states, and reference numbers. That could be enough to find the National Register nomination, assuming that everything submitted nowadays is in PDFs with text, as opposed to PDFs with scanned images. There might be a way to write an automated tool that takes an NRHP nomination form, looks for the fields that are needed for our infoboxes, and then transmogrifies the form data into the infobox template. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

About capturing and transmogrifying or whatever, how would you know that the coordinates thus obtained are good? We know for a fact that all NRHP documents before 1983 would have bad data, not updated for the NAD83(?) coordinates system change. And we know there are widespread random errors. I don't know for sure, but wouldn't any centrally- and currently-supplied spreadsheet of coordinates from NPS be systematically better? I just think that the NPS technical people and state SHPO staff and whoever are making efforts to supply better data, and that going backwards into original NRHP nomination documents would be unlikely to make improvements. (By the way, there once was a Massachusetts SHPO staffperson who showed up in Wikipedia briefly, who had an apparently greatly improved set of coordinates for all Massachusetts NRHPs... it was obvious to them that the national database coordinates were bad and they had figured out better, which they were willing to share. Perhaps that improved data is now captured in whatever NPS now has somewhere. And I knew that there were coordinates in some layer of some GoogleEarth-compatible view available from NPS or something like that, that were better, but I don't think we ever captured that.) And what about all the cases where NRHP editors have gone and made improvements? The editors who add new listings to the NRHP county list-articles for many years seem to figure out good quality coordinates to put in, I am not sure how, but probably involving Google somehow, when listings are new and NRHP documents are not available, at least not centrally. And I know for a fact that several editors have systematically gone through all the NRHP listings in several/many states including Louisiana, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, comparing against Google satellite views, to make corrections into the NRHP county list-articles. I could be wrong about this, but I am skeptical that new effort to go back to original nomination documents is worth a lot of effort. On the other hand, if this can be done efficiently perhaps it will provide another set of coordinates that could be a source for making corrections if there are discrepancies vs. other sources.

What I think is most important is to identify which is the specific darn source, to enable bot-supported efforts to identify improved-or-confirmed-by-editors coordinates vs. very-likely-to-be-bad NRIS2013a coordinates vs. somewhat-more-likely-to-be-better new NPS spreadsheet coordinates or whatever. So that bots can identify discrepancies and suggest or implement improvements. Also it turns out, I think, that any new source labels need to be short and that a couple extra fields now provided in the NRHP infobox coord template need to be dropped. Because explaining why and how is technical and long-winded, I just created a page about this separately, at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Coordinates (or shortcut wp:NRHP coordinates). Please see! I think/hope it is clear, but feel free to edit there and/or discuss there too. --Doncram (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I'm glad you did that, because I've had to remove a lot of false coordinates, especially within the Town of Huntington, New York. BTW, the article that I've been seeking an infobox for most recently has been the Richloam General Store and Post Office. The generator just doesn't recognize it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, good. About the Richloam General Store, that was listed on the NRHP in 2017, while the NRHP infobox generator has been using the "NRIS2013a" version of NRIS database, which includes only up to some date in 2014. So that's why it won't supply an infobox. --Doncram (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I just recently met (in person, in real life!) a person who participates in a huge coordinates fixing-organization similar to Wikipedia, but it sounds like it has more formal/better controls on all changes made in process of verifying/improving coordinates. It is The National Map project, possibly referred to as "TNM". Mostly volunteers, with various levels of review. Does campaigns to fix coordinates of all schools in Illinois, or all City Halls nation-wide, etc. I wonder if there could be any way to coordinate with them, or enlist their support in our efforts to fix coordinates of NRHP-listed places, or to share to them our changes. --Doncram (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Rainbow Arch Bridge (Valley City, North Dakota)

Who has confirmation on the exact designation date for the former NRHP-registered Rainbow Arch Bridge (Valley City, North Dakota)? And while we're add it, does anybody want to add images of the replacement bridge as a potential WLM target for 2019? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• User:DanTD, https://www.nps.gov/nr/listings/970307.htm, "NORTH DAKOTA, BARNES COUNTY, Rainbow Arch Bridge, Main St., E, across the Sheyenne River, Valley City, 97000170, LISTED, 2/27/97", so February 27, 1997. But too late today for me to add it to the article. (I assume this is what you were looking for) Chris857 (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That's it. Now I can update it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

display error wherever "cite web" template is used

A display error has just popped up, in all NRHP articles using template:cite web in their citation of an NRHP registration document. Raised at a consolidated Talk page about the various cite templates, specifically at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Cite web requires website. Where a lot of people are complaining. --Doncram (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

There is also a much longer thread at ANI on this topic. Magic♪piano 21:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"cite report" should be used for all NRHP docs instead

I inquired further about NRHP docs at Help talk:Citation Style 1#what cite template should be used now for govt docs such as NRHP nominations?. Editors Trappist the monk and Izno were very helpful. Based on discussion and testing there, I am now convinced that we should be handling all NRHP doc references using {{cite report}}, which is meant for government documents, rather than {{cite web}}, which is meant for real websites as sources. NRHP docs sometimes have one or more urls where they are available, and should be linked to, but sometimes are only available offline (and note a blank "url=" field is not allowed in "cite web"). If we switch over to using "cite report", then we can explore features that might already be available, or should be added, like allowing us to link to multiple urls for copies of an NRHP document available at more than one of: the National Park Service, a state site, the National Archives site which is including more and more. This allows could allow for backup when the NPS site is down (too often), and allows could allow for preferential linking to the Texas state site, say, where the doc downloads quickly, vs. the National Archives source which is slow. Also allowing us to handle multiple versions of the doc, i.e. including nomination correspondence or not, including photos or not, including local supporting documents or not. And this takes NRHP out of the recent, but likely continuing, concerns and changes which are likely to continue, about how "cite web" should display various aspects of real websites which do not apply to us. Based on all this, I think we should switch over to using "cite report". Comments?--Doncram (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, thanks for researching this issue. Could you nowiki an example of our NRHP nominations cites using the report citation? (Which fields we should include) It'll probably be easier to manually fix the refs when we start new articles than it would be to change the Elkman NRHP infobox generator, I'm guessing. Schazjmd (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

All that is required to switch is to change the word "web" that appears upfront in {{cite web}} to "report", instead, and also to add "|type=none" per advice in that discussion. If User:Elkman could change that in their next edition of the NRHP infobox generator tool, that would be great. So, for Joliet Bridge, it would be preferable if the current suggested reference, e.g.

<ref name="nrhpdoc">{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=86000888}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Joliet Bridge |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate=September 7, 2019}} With {{NRHP url|id=86000888|photos=y|title=accompanying pictures}}</ref>

could be changed to:

<ref name="nrhpdoc">{{cite report|type=none|url={{NRHP url|id=86000888}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Joliet Bridge |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate=September 7, 2019}} With {{NRHP url|id=86000888|photos=y|title=accompanying photos}}</ref>

instead. Further editing is required, as before, to add author and date and put in the actual title of the form if it is a state form instead if that is what is actually used, etc.

There is no urgency to be making changes, though. The recent episode over central changes to "cite web" is over, at least temporarily, by reversal of all changes, so there is no current display error in our references. If a switchover for existing articles is to be done, it can be done by bot run for sure (to be requested at wp:BOTREQUEST), which surely would work wherever the reference is fairly uniform (e.g. where the name of the reference includes "nrhpdoc" which is produced in the current generator tool). Maybe a few of us could begin using "cite report" and see if any problems come up, and see if we can't find our way to exploit any different features it has or could be added there. No way would I consider fighting for "cite web" to be changed to include backup URLs "url2=" and "url3=", say, but it might be possible to get that done for "cite report" (which does include "archive-url" already, by the way).

The "|type=none" avoids having the phrase "(Report)" automatically inserted into what is displayed. It would be possible to choose to insert, say "(Registration)", instead, but i think we do better by including the name of the form used within the title for the place, i.e. to have the "title=" field show either "National Register of Historic Places Registration: Joliet Bridge" or "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination" or, as in fact is correct for this one, "Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory: Joliet Bridge", or whatever is the actual title of the document. --Doncram (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It would seem to me that if you are going to go to all of this trouble to change to {{cite report}}, it might be beneficial for you-all to create a wrapper template around cite report that makes life easier. For example, you might have a template called {{cite NRHP report}} that takes |title=, |id=, |has-images=. Because the title always contains "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: ", that part would be provided by the wrapper template. When |has-images=yes the template would add the "With ..." tail text and link. So for the above example, editors would write:

{{cite NRHP report |id=86000888 |title=Joliet Bridge |has-images=yes}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

John Margolies' Roadside America images

Is there any effort to sort out the commons:Category:John Margolies Roadside America Photograph Archive? Because not all images are of sites on the NRHP, but a lot of them are. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I made a start at better organization, not necessarily with the NRHP in mind, but got distracted by other things. I'll take a look at overall categorization, but it will be a long process, there are so many pictures. I spent most of my time organizing his images of Catskill resorts, where he shot extensive pictures of the hotels, individual guest rooms, plates of food, and often the owners. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

A. F. N. Everett

User:Doncram thinks there may be more NRHP-listed buildings designed by Everett in historic districts in Atlanta and its area. If anyone has some free time, it may be worth conducting a thorough search in PDFs...Zigzig20s (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

We figured it out.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Annesdale

An IP address added several unreferenced paragraphs to Annesdale. Shouldn't we redact it?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If it was just unreferenced but otherwise a good addition, it could be tagged with "citation needed". But it looked to me like it was pasted from somewhere else, so I searched and found it came from a newspaper article and thus was a copyright violation. So I removed it. MB 01:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Stine House, listed, but then not?

I'm confused about L. L. Stine House, in Woodward, Oklahoma, listed on the NRHP in Woodward County. It apparently appeared in 2009 version of NRIS. But doesn't appear in 2010 version of NRIS or 2013a/2014 version? There is a NRHP nomination document for it. Argh.--Doncram (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like it's misspelled in the NRIS as "L. L. Stein House"; if you search by the refnum instead of the name it comes up. (Though it might be a legitimate variant spelling, since the nomination form spells it that way too.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 14:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Article revised. --Doncram (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

September NRHP progress

Assuming the goal of WikiProject NRHP is to expand coverage of NRHP listings in Wikipedia, well then September has been a pretty good month. Based on this diff in the wp:NRHPPROGRESS reports:

• the total number of NRHP listings grew by 78 to 93,673 (net, despite some delistings) (vs. net growth by 726 during the previous 11 months);
• 299 or more photos were uploaded, reaching 78,359 "illustrated" articles (perhaps despite some delistings having photos), for 83.7% coverage, up from 83.4% (vs. growth from 83.0% during previous 11 months);
• 151 or more new articles were created, reaching 69,053 in total, for 73.7% coverage, up from 73.6% (vs. growth from 71.7% in previous 11 months);
• the number of "bad" NRIS-only articles dropped by 23, to 1,624 (vs. decline by 189 in previous 11 months);
• a weighted-average "quality" measure increased from 56.9% to 57.1% (vs. growth from 55.5% in previous 11 months).

I think this is considerably more advancement than usual for a month, nowadays. This is due to greatly increased uploads of photos of NRHP sites as part of the September-long "Wikipedia Loves Monuments" campaign (with many photos contributed by persons not members of WikiProject NRHP), plus the work of several or many mostly-WikiProject-NRHP members who have categorized photos and added them to articles and so on. No credit for supporting the Wikipedia Loves Monuments campaign belongs to me; can anyone more informed than me comment on which persons do deserve credit? And, there is still a day to do more! --Doncram (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I just looked at the most recent Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress and was delighted to see that Mississippi was 50.4% illustrated (when did that happen?), so all states are over 50% illustrated. Overall, out of the 50 states plus DC

• 5 are above 99% illustrated
• another 15 are above 90% illustrated
• another 11 are above 80% illustrated
• another 8 over 70%
• another 9 over 60%
• another 3 over 50%

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

SAH Archipedia

I noticed here that Archipedia is now "open access" - which means that anybody can read it now, not that it has an open license. Parts of it had been open in the past so I'm somewhat familiar with it, but it was complicated. Browse by states is likely the best place to start on the site. They've got 20,000 articles on places - mostly buildings, plus essays. There's great overlap with NRHP and HABS sites but places are defined differently in each so it's hard to say how much overlap exactly. This might be good for some of those NRIS only articles we have. I've added just the link to external links, 3 times so far. Further reading might be better, and of course, integrating their material into our articles would be even better. Hopefully nobody will think I'm artificially promoting their website, it's just good material written by professional architectural historians. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that seems great! You can browse by architect, by type (e.g. "fire stations", "cantilever bridges"), by style ("Hopewell", "Italo-Byzantine"), by material ("art glass"). I inserted state-specific search links (and counts of articles available) into each state's section of resources within wp:NRHPHELP; Coverage varies: Virginia apparently has the most SAH Archipedia articles with 2937. For Florida there are only 130. @Farragutful:, Iowa has 1881. @Jeff the quiet:, Wisconsin has 1129. Connecticut has just 16. --Doncram (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, browsing by type "fire stations" in Hawaii finds SAH Archipedia info for 3 of 7 items already at List of fire stations#Hawaii, and adds two new (old) ones.

The browse by type feature suggests many more possible list-articles (and corresponding categories) such as:

• List of almshouses (currently a redlink, though there is List of almshouses in Ireland and List of almshouses in the United Kingdom and Category:Almshouses)
• List of animal shelters (currently a redlink, though there is Animal shelter and Category:Animal shelters)
• List of armories (currently a redlink, though there exists List of Confederate arsenals and armories and List of armories and arsenals in New York City and surrounding counties and @Victoriaedwards: List of armouries in Canada and Category:Armories (military))
• List of assembly plants (currently a redlink)

and a zillion more. By the way I have a related essay under development, Wikipedia:OkayVsNotOkayListsOfPlaces. I think there's great latitude for editors to write about topics that happen to be interesting to them, building out from lists of historic places of given types. --Doncram (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

J. C. Robinson House

Does anyone understand what happened to this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You could try asking the admin who deleted it. Magic♪piano 12:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It started as a redirect, was blanked and then deleted. No content at any time. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Right. It was created as a redirect to Lizzie Robinson House, but then the creator realized it was a different building and asked for the redirect to be deleted.--Mojo Hand (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Is anyone else having trouble with the scripts lately?

I haven't been able to get either the CommonsCat link script or the update script for WP:NRHPPROGRESS to save edits for the past few days. Since the progress page hasn't been updated in a bit, I'm guessing I'm not the only one with this problem. Has anyone else encountered script issues lately, and does anyone know what might be going on? TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There is an issue with the method by which Dudeman's scripts acquired edit tokens (part of WP's cross-site request forgery defenses) when a page needs to be written. I suspect the method he used was deprecated and has now been disabled. I've updated some of the scripts I maintain, including the NRHP list renumbering script and the progress page updater (the latter done just now), to use what appears to be the current approved method. The problem with this issue (and undoubtedly others) is that error reporting in these scripts is often an afterthought, making diagnosis at times difficult. Magic♪piano 01:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! That would explain it. Unfortunately, we'll either have to find an interface administrator or copy the CommonsCat script somewhere else if we want to update that one. It looks like there's a discussion about it on the interface administrator's noticeboard, actually. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining. For me I wasn't sure if my problem was due to operating system updates on two computing devices i have tried running the update script on.

I just put in a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#WikiProject NRHP project tracking tables and maps for a regular bot programmer to help out some about the general issue of running the update scripts. I personally would like to see (and I think there are some others who would like) the wp:NRHPPROGRESS page updated, including its maps, more frequently, say every night. I myself have been able to run the update script, but I usually do so only after I have done a bunch of editing and I would like to see how that is reflected in changes in the maps and tables. I bet others would like to see that feedback in a regular way. Maybe if someone answers at the bot request page, they can help with the current edit token issue too. TheCatalyst31 and Magicpiano, I hope you don't mind my asking there, and please do comment there. --Doncram (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit token issue, at least for NRHPPROGRESS updating, was fixed by Magicpiano, thanks! Other comments at wp:BOTREQUEST#WikiProject NRHP project tracking tables and maps, where some new possibilities are being offered, would be welcomed. :) --Doncram (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I, for one, like to see if a county's color has changed. It probably doesn't have to be done every day, unless it is automated and doesn't take too many resources. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Article merger

Friendship Armstrong Academy and Armstrong High School (Washington, D.C.) are both about the same building.

Friendship Armstrong Academy is the older article and has just two paragraphs on the original building history (and then lists of principles/graduates that don't even say what era they are from. The lead seems to imply the article is about the current charter school even though the body is mostly about the historic building.

Armstrong High School (Washington, D.C.) was created this year and has much more history.

If anyone wants to merge them, or at least formally start a merger proposal... The two combined would not make a long article, so I don't see any reason for separate articles. MB 02:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge - there probably isn't much in the smaller article that isn't in the larger one. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Way to see NRHP forms that don't have links

Is there a way to see NRHP forms that are not yet on the NPS website, say 100003423? Do you have to write to get them to mail you a copy? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Basically, yeah, unless the state SHPO has online records Einbierbitte (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Some state SHPOs will also email you recent nominations on request. I've found them to be generally more responsive than the NPS, although some (I'm looking at you New Hampshire) don't always have recent noms in digital form.(!) Magic♪piano 16:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I just emailed the state organization. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?}

Requested move 2 November 2019 about Stepped gables or Crow-stepped gables

Hi, there is a requested move open at Talk:Crow-stepped gable#Requested move 2 November 2019, which you might be interested in. My proposal is to rename from "Crow-stepped gable" to what I perceive to be the more common, broader usage of "Stepped gable". --Doncram (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The move was accepted and done. Thanks MB and Acroterion for helping! --Doncram (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

photo upload request(s) for fair use exception to copyright, for NRHP resources no longer extant

Hi, could someone possibly please do an upload of photos for Priestly's Hydraulic Ram, a very interesting (at least to me) NRHP listing in Idaho. It was a "marvelous" device invented by a farmer(?) which lifted water 110 feet to use in irrigation, and unlike any other known device AFAICT had no moving parts whatsoever (at least from what I understand per hydraulic ram article). There was a somewhat-similar-but-not-as-good device in Arizona a few years earlier, but AFAIK that one was not documented, and seems to be lost from history). As documented now in this article, the remnants of Priestly's ram apparently no longer exist. This seems to be a case where the NRHP listing, despite not actually saving the resource permanently, did achieve something great: documenting this strange and wonderful thing, with text and photos. The article now describes this technical thing with long quotes, as I believe is highly appropriate in this case, and it's interesting that a cited 2016 article does too.

Anyhow, would someone be willing to upload the two NRHP photos, with whatever is needed to assert fair use exception to copyright? And, in general, we have large numbers of demolished NRHP sites, where the site is still listed or has been delisted, where it would be great to do similarly. This is not something i would be good at, but i wonder if others (you?) could help. Perhaps have a request list linked from WikiProject NRHP's list of open tasks (above on this Talk page)? Towards addressing the most important cases? (By the way Tamanoeconomico did one or more of these relatively recently, including for File:Marion Allsup House.jpg used at Marion Allsup House article. It looks like they uploaded it in some way that got "DatBot" and "RonBot" to follow up and make it proper, including by reducing the resolution of the photo as apparently must be done. Is this easy to do in fact?) Anyhow, I would really appreciate if someone could handle this case at least. :) Thanks for listening, cheers, --Doncram (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

In the case of the hydraulic ram specifically, I believe those pictures are actually in the public domain. They were published in 1975, and there's no copyright notice on them. According to US copyright law, anything published prior to 1978 without a copyright notice is in the public domain. (The Allsup House picture might be too, though it would take a little more investigation to determine that; it was published in 1982, and anything published between 1978 and 1989 is in the public domain if it was published without a copyright notice and its copyright was not registered within five years.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved to a different county

The Old Chattahoochee County Courthouse (part of Westville (Georgia)), #14 on National Register of Historic Places listings in Stewart County, Georgia has been moved again, to a different county. It is listed in Stewart County, but now it must be in Muscogee county. Should our county listings be changed? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

As an example, the list for Potter County, Texas has the Douglas DC-3 Airplane, N34, which was originally in Oklahoma City at the time of the nomination. It was originally moved within the Oklahoma County page and then removed altogether. I'm not sure if there's a general standard, though. kennethaw88 • talk 07:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever been standardized, but I think that's generally what we do about moved listings. I did the same thing for the Drohman Cabin, which was listed in Madison, Wisconsin but moved to rural Iowa County. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I've always gone by the thinking that the title of each page, "NRHP listing *in* such-and-such county", is where the site currently/most recently resides. If the listed property is no longer in one county, but is in another county, that the current/final county is the list it should be on. I also leave an entry in the "Former listings" section at the bottom for sites that used to be in a county. For instance, in Tarrant County, TX, Texas&Pacific Locomotive 610 was originally located there, but was moved to the Texas Railroad museum in Anderson County, TX. So I have a former listing in Tarrant County and the current location in Anderson County. An unusual example might also be the USS Cabot. It's in the formerly listed section of Cameron County, Texas, where it was scrapped, but was only there while it was being scrapped. 25or6to4 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Emelie

Awhile ago the article on the Emelie Building in Indianapolis was moved to the Kurt Vonnegut Museum and Library. Now the library has moved to a new building taking the Emelie Building article with it. Probably both the Emelie Building (NRHP listed) and the library are notable, but it might take some special skills to separate the two articles. I'll be getting to it in a couple of days but I'm sure I could use some help. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Neighborhoods for City NRHP lists

The National Register of Historic Places listings in Yonkers, New York and National Register of Historic Places listings in New Rochelle, New York, as well as other city NRHP lists need to have their "City or Town" sections replaced with "Neighborhood" sections, such as those in New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles and the like. I don't know what the neighborhoods are in Peekskill though, so somebody else is going to have to tackle this one. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this depends on the city... it makes sense to divide a large city like New York or San Francisco up into notable neighborhoods ... but Yonkers, New Rochelle and Peekskill are not that large... and their neighborhoods are not really notable. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not Peekskill, but Yonkers and New Rochelle have some neighborhoods that are pretty hard to ignore. -------User:DanTD (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

But those lists are so short. What purpose would a "neighborhood" column serve? Ntsimp (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What purpose does a "City of Town" column serve? Making everything look a certain way? It appears to be redundant, given that the city or town is spelled out at the very top of the page with the article title. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Peekskill is a short list. The other two are adequate sizes, and as RadioKAOS pointed out, having "City or Town" in that section is redundant, when neighborhoods are always available. FYI, Yonkers is the 4th most populous city in New York State. New Rochelle is the 7th most populous. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Tracking articles without NRHP nom form references

There is the process in place to track the NRIS-only articles. However, there is another set of articles that lack a reference to the NRHP nomination form but are not caught by the bot because they do have other references, so they aren't NRIS-only. But they are NRHP articles that don't reference the NRHP form. These can be places like a school or a museum that have a lot of text about the school or museum, but little about the historic nature of the building. Then can also be very short stubs but with just two refs (NRIS and something else). Some examples I've found are:

• Beattyville Grade School
• Branch Brook Park
• Burwell School
• Calfee Park
• Landis Valley Museum
• League Park

We should have a way to track these also. I assume everyone would agree that every NRHP article should reference the NRHP form that got it listed. There are currently around 1600 NRIS only. I guess there are far fewer of these but it still may be in the hundreds. MB 04:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hearst Castle

Hearst Castle, a registered Historic Landmark, is currently up for Peer Review, here. It would be great to get some US perspectives on the article, and any comments will be gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Information re: Red Rock Wyoming

A Wiki contributor added a note to Red_Rock_(Wyoming) suggesting the rock formation (listed on the National Register of Historic Places) is a town "mentioned heavily in Quentin Tarantino's western film The Hateful Eight", and provided a citation (to IMDB). The problem is, the "town of Red Rock, Wyoming" is a fictional location created by Tarantino, and the reference is misleading and inaccurate. I think it would be more appropriate to acknowledge that conflict, rather than delete the note, but I wasn't sure how to word it. Could someone take care of this for me? I have a citation: Google Books (preview) "Quentin Tarantino: The Iconic filmmaker and his work" by Ian Nathan (page 158) Thanks, CanucksGirl (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the reference since there are many Red Rocks and the IMDB source did not even mention Wyoming. No reason to mention it in the article. MB 04:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Two articles deleted

I noticed on my watch list that Henderson Manufacturing Company and James and Bertha Hooten House have been deleted. Anyone know why (too stubby? NRHP only?) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see any history for those pages showing anything was deleted. Are you sure you have the pages correct?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I had redlinks to both of them, so either they existed or I was anticipating them being created. I photographed both of these in National Register of Historic Places listings in Henry County, Georgia. Maybe I was just anticipating articles on them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

navbox volunteer for Great Fire of 1910 sites?

Anyone want to create a navbox for historic sites and anything else related to the Great Fire of 1910? This happened in northern Idaho, Montana, Washington, and British Columbia. Cedar Snags and Edward Pulaski Tunnel and Placer Creek Escape Route are two of the seven sites listed in National Register of Historic Places listings in Shoshone County, Idaho, and I assume there are other NRHP-listed sites in other Idaho, Montana and Washington counties. These are covered in North Idaho 1910 Fire Sites thematic resources document. --Doncram (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Circular referencing

Here's a first: while writing Methodist Episcopal Church (Salem, Illinois), I noticed that its nomination form actually lists the Wikipedia articles on Henry Hobson Richardson and Richardsonian Romanesque as sources! It seems to have only used them as one of several sources supporting its background section about Richardsonian Romanesque architecture, and I didn't incorporate anything from that section into my new article anyway, but that still seems like a worrying sign given how often we use nomination forms as references. If you write articles that use recent nomination forms as sources, you might want to be on the lookout for other examples of this. (And hopefully people somewhere in the nomination pipeline realize why citing Wikipedia articles directly in professional research isn't a great idea.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Butterfield House (New York, NY)

Rathfelder recently edited the infobox here to remove |nrhp_type=cp. This building is within the Greenwich Village Historic District, but if it is not a CP and has no NRHP status, then it needs a different infobox. This change has put it in Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup. If it is not a CP, then the infobox should be {{Infobox building}} or {{Infobox historic site}} since it is apparently a NYC Landmark. I don't see much NRHP specific info in Greenwich Village nor have I found the NRHP nomination form. But a NYCL would probably be a CP also? Does anyone want to research this? MB 17:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Per the nomination (warning, very large PDF), it is described as an intrusion (PDF page 8). Magic♪piano 18:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it to Infobox building. It doesn't look like it is a NYCL either, just within the Greenwich Village NYCL, mirroring the NRHP HD. Thanks. MB 19:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I know nothing about the article, but the infobox generated a spurious category - not just this, but for several other articles. So perhaps someone could sort that out? Rathfelder (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Rathfelder, I see you are talking about Category:Historic district contributing properties in Lower Manhattan. With this article, it was correct to remove the CP designation since this property was not a NRHP contributing property. But if it had been, your change would have been wrong. The fix is to add |nocat=yes to prevent the automatic categorization. MB 20:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, your change was still wrong because it caused the error above. (NRHP infobox needing cleanup). MB 20:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm just a categoriser. I dont know anything about infoboxes. But I think someone needs to check if they generate categories that dont exist. Rathfelder (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Rathfelder, I went through the edit history and found that the bogus category has existed since Sep 12, 2019 when the creator of the article (who has done almost nothing else on WP except this one article) changed the infobox from building to NRHP. They should have noticed the redlink category at the time, but you were the first to do anything about it. Thanks for trying to fix it, but in the future I would recommend adding |nocat=yes as the best solution instead of removing |nrhp_type=. MB 02:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• That worked for Peterboro Land Office. Could the infobox template be changed to incorporate it? I think its generally a mistake to generate categories automatically. Rathfelder (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Van Leer House–needs a correct NRHP ID, at least

Hey all, an article on this house at 700 Hedgerow Drive, Broomall, in the Philadelphia suburbs, supposed to be dated to 1742, had an article on it created a few days ago, but the page's creator had the wrong NRHP ID, and when I and the page creator tried to get the right information we couldn't find the correct details. Available sources are this one, which has no detailed description, this from 1962, which seems legit–but it has the wrong street address, Sproul Road, and no photo-but the area could have become more suburbanised and new streets put in since 1962, so it could be right. And this family history blog, which also digitised the 1962 source. So I'm worried if this is the right house, if it's NRHP-listed, and about the location of it, and wonder if "Van Leer House" is the most commonly used name for the building or if it's listed under another name–searches for "Van Leer Broomall 1742" etc turn up nothing.

I initially proposed it for deletion expressing my concerns about the sourcing, but on getting in contact with the page's creator Billywayne911 on their talk page and the article talk page, I've converted it into a redirect into the house's owner for now. Can anyone do better? Blythwood (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I went down an hour-long rabbit hole, and eventually found... the Van Leer House nomination form for the Pennsylvania State Register. I guess would have been easy to find for someone more familiar with the Pennsylvania system. Anyway, the house is NOT NRHP-listed, but IS Pennsylvania-listed (according to this survey), and the nom form has an image which confirms the house in question is indeed te right house. The address shouldn't be a surprise, as "Hedgerow Drive" far post-dates the construction of the house, and (as can be seen on this map, for example), the house used to be approached from Sproul Road. Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject History needs people

Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.

• If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.

• and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!

• For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section: WikiProject History needs you!!!!

• Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing {{ping|sm8900}} in your reply.

we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinates problem

Dan River Navigation System in North Carolina Thematic Resources is currently showing "Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 414: No value was provided for longitude." Perplexingly, the article was last edited in August 2016 and "Related changes" shows nothing relevant. It turns out that the reason the error has popped up (it wasn't there yesterday) is due to a recent Wikidata edit at Dan River Navigation System in North Carolina TR (Q19867057). That edit (diff) added "coordinate location" with "no value". Previously, there was no coordinate setting and the enwiki article had no error. Setting Q19867057 caused some template (presumably {{Infobox NRHP}}) to change its behavior, resulting in the error. The fix is to find the correct coordinates and add them to Wikidata, or perhaps the template if that is standard procedure and the template accepts them. I'm hoping someone will know how to handle that! Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I just deleted "coordinate location" from WD and the error is gone. If this doesn't occur frequently, I'm not sure it's worth having the template changed to validate the WD coordinates. MB 02:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination form wrong at NPS

This shows the photo of First National Bank Building (Craig, Colorado), but the accompanying form is for a prehistoric rock art site in South Dakota. I can't find the actual NRHP form for the Colorado bank. Can anyone help? Thanks. MB 02:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@MB: I found it at the National Archives, here. It's a good place to find nomination forms, especially when there is a problem on the NRHP site like your example. The more recent ones are not there yet, however. Farragutful (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried there but couldn't figure out how to search the archive efficiently. MB 17:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW, if you notify the NPS of this sort of error (nr_reference@nps.gov), they usually correct it, and will send you the missing form. Magic♪piano 21:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I sent an email as suggested. Did not get a response, but someone did fix it. MB 00:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Norumbega Castle; NRHP + NHL, or not?

Somebody listed a potential gallery of images of the Norumbega Castle in Camden, Maine in the generic "National Historic Landmarks of the United States" category. Needless to say I moved them to a category that's more state-specific, but once I finally found the article, I realized it was simply a house on NRHP which also doubles as a contributing property to the High Street Historic District (Camden, Maine). If there's no evidence that this also has NHL status, I could just move the other images to the NRHP category. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not NHL. There's definitely enough pictures there for an individual category. Magic♪piano 17:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Good. So assuming there are no other sites named "Norumbega Castle," I'll make the category. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Shell House in Glen Cove, NY, or not?

I tried to get an image of The Shell House on East Island in Glen Cove, New York, both in April 2019 and in November 2019. When I saw this house in April it was being remodeled. Google Street View shows the Tudor Revival addition before the restoration, but that could also be at the house next door (some of these places have no addresses). ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

So can anybody confirm or deny this is the house? Because I can't rely on the dead links of NYOPRHP.

I'd say you have the right house, per the nomination and pictures at the National Archive. In particular, look at the third picture (PDF page 19), which has almost the same camera location as yours. (Search the New York NRHP listings at NARA here.) Magic♪piano 22:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

St. Louis city hall

City Hall (St. Louis, Missouri) has been in Category:City and town halls on the National Register of Historic Places in Missouri for a couple of years. It's not listed. Maybe it's a contributing property to a HD? Anyone familiar with St. Louis? MB 02:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

St. Louis Historic Preservation, one of the references in the city hall article, lists the building as: "Designation: City Landmark, Eligible for National Register of Historic Places." I also noticed that the old Municipal Courts Building next door is individually listed on the NRHP. Maybe some confusion? There are no historic districts in that immediate area. I think the category should be removed. Farragutful (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I added the Landmark designation into the infobox and replaced the NRHP category with Category:Landmarks of St. Louis. MB 22:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article February 22, 2020

Valley View (Romney, West Virginia) is Today's featured article appearing on the main page. @Sm8900: this might provide an opportunity to recruit some participation in the project. I haven't found the archive of the nomination process so I don't know who to credit. The article is great to look at for an example of a well written and laid out article on a registered historic place. Best wishes to all and happy editing. MrBill3 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrBill3: excellent idea. I appreciate the idea, the tag, and the shout-out. Please feel free to promote this idea, anywhere that you wish. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Smithsonian image release

The Smithsonian Institution has released 2.8 million images into the public domain (story), with plans to release more. I'm sure some of them will be of use to this project. The collection can be found here. Magic♪piano 14:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Great! Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Nashville; March 2020

Okay, what historic sites have survived the 2020 Nashville Tornado Outbreak, and what was destroyed? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell so far, there's been extensive damage across the Buena Vista and Germantown Historic Districts, along with the Church of the Assummption. Saw a picture on Twitter of the Holly Street Fire Hall without a roof. The East Nashville HD also got hit, including the YMCA building.25or6to4 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

NRHP in Tampa, Florida

I just successfully split National Register of Historic Places listings in Tampa, Florida from National Register of Historic Places listings in Hillsborough County, Florida, but I found out my list was tagged as a potential copyright violation by some bot. Should I assume that the bot will remove this tag once the Tampa-sites are removed from the Hillsborough County list? Or is this about the sandbox? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Time Magazine article

• Reeves, Jay (February 24, 2020). "National Register of Historic Places Often Ignores Slavery's Significance on American South". Time Magazine. Retrieved February 25, 2020.

Thoughts on this?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, the Boyette Slave House isn't exactly ignored by the NRHP. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of that, do the slave cabins at Gascoigne Bluff deserve their own article? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, they probably do. You can always rewrite the Gascoigne Bluff article to include their existence, not to mention the plantation that they were attached to. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19

Just a heads up. Because of the COVID-19 virus (novel coronavirus), the National Register of Historic Places is asking states and others refrain from "submitting new submissions and requests for National Register actions..." The staff is now working from their homes. They will continue to work on the submissions/requests that they already have. The full statement is on their website here.

As they used to say on Hill Street Blues: "Let's be careful out there."Farragutful (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Whittier Field Athletic Complex

(discussion opened by Dmoore556 at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Cumberland County, Maine moved by me--boldly, hope this is okay-- to here, for more exposure--Doncram (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC))

Does anyone have a reliable source for Whittier Field Athletic Complex being currently listed on NRHP? The link provided in the article (this) is invalid. News reports online cite an indirect source within the Maine Historic Preservation Commission, such as here and here. Unclear why it's not easily found on the NPS.gov site if it's been listed since 2017.... Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, by "the article" above I mean National Register of Historic Places listings in Cumberland County, Maine. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You can find NRHP listings from recent years here. This particular listing appears in the 2017 list (a searchable PDF).

We will probably need to develop some alternative for the broken links for listings since ~2013 that appear in the NRHP lists, since the existing urls which point into the NPGallery will probably never work. Magic♪piano 00:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Discord

Hi, I'm Pokemonprime, editor of a few NRHS articles, I was curious if there was any interest in starting a a Wikiproject "Infrastructure" channel? There's a few members there already interested in tackling NRHS related pages, especially a lot of the stubs; I think a channel on the Discord could help people collaborate and to recruit more members. The plan is for the channel to be called #wpinfrastructure, as to include some other projects, such as WikiProject Skyscrapers and WikiProject Malls. If you'd like to join the Discord and see what we have to offer, you can join at WP:Discord Pokemonprime (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Historic Hotels of America, help wanted

Maybe some members here have wondered about "Historic Hotels of America", a program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which is mentioned in a pretty good number of hotel articles, many being NRHP-listed. Sounds promotional, right? But the National Trust is legit, right? And it has pretty much certified that the HHA members are NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible, and have historic authenticity.

In progress now is list-article National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America, being organized by state, and help developing out coverage of its 380 or so current members would be welcome. It currently seems to me that all members will be Wikipedia-notable. The HHA listing name is often convoluted, e.g. "DoubleTree Suites by Hilton Hotel Detroit Downtown - Fort Shelby" (currently a redlink) for a 1917-built hotel in Michigan, while an NRHP article might or might not exist about the building already, or it might be a contributing building in a historic district, or it might not be NRHP-listed but is pretty obviously historic and worthy of an article which can be started. And members should be put into WikiProject NRHP or WikiProject Historic sites.

My recent interest in this due to ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Naniloa Hotel (participation welcome) about a historic-but-not-NRHP-listed hotel in Hilo, Hawaii. --Doncram (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge MA hotel/firehouse NRHP-listed?

The Kendall Hotel, on Main St. in former Engine 7 firehouse, in the Kendall Square area, claims to be NRHP-listed. I am puzzled, note at Talk:Kendall Hotel. Is there any historic district in National Register of Historic Places listings in Cambridge, Massachusetts which it could be in? --Doncram (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This document talks about development of the area, including a new office building on a parking lot next to the Kendall Hotel. Hardly seems that there is any historic district there. Did find lots of repetition that the hotel is on NRHP in travel sites and travel news articles. MB 16:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Other architectural style

A number of NRHP articles on my watchlist are getting edited to remove "Other" from the types of architectural styles mentioned in their infoboxes. For example, see this diff, with edit summary "I have removed the text "Other" from the architecture parameter of the infobox NRHP template, so that the infobox no longer makes the nonsensical claim that the subject of the current article was designed in the Other architectural style." for Grand Canyon Village Historic District, edited by User:Kennethaw88. I agree that it is nonsensical for "Other" to lead the short list of styles in that district, or for it to be any other than the last in such a list, and lower-cased there. However, what's wrong with suggesting, truthfully, that there are more architectural styles present? At least when other such styles are significant in the district yet, editorially, it seems unreasonable to highlight the less frequent ones in the infobox's short space. For the architect field in historic district infoboxes, sometimes "Multiple" appears. Would some variation ("Multiple, including X and Y") be better, or what's really wrong with "other" at the end of a list? I hope this might be discussed, can't do more today myself. --Doncram (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Because Other and Multiple are so vague as to be useless in an infobox. Either list it or don't. If there are many architects or styles, then it can of course be discussed in the text with more subtlety, but just saying Other on its own doesn't mean anything. kennethaw88 • talk 16:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I always remove "Other" also because it is too vague for an infobox. Does it mean some style that doesn't have a common short name used in National Register of Historic Places architectural style categories (the actual NRIS "other"), or just other than the ones already listed. If "other" is the only style given in NRIS, is should be left out or replaced with something actually descriptive. In the case of multiple styles where not all are listed, I like Doncram's suggestion of ("Multiple, including X and Y"). MB 18:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI proposal to require Doncram to create articles via AFC

Please consider participating at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Historic Hotels of America. A longer notice here was deleted. --Doncram (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A longer, non-neutral WP:Canvassing notice was indeed deleted by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Header fixed. There is no proposal to "ban Doncram". There is a proposal to stop Doncram from creating directory entries in article space, a recurrent problem, while not impeding his obvious enthusiasm for Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 08:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Related-importance assessment

I've noticed this project has an option for rating the importance of an article to the project as "Related". Is there a way that this option could be added for other WikiProjects? Hog Farm (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Manzanar featured article review

I have nominated Manzanar for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The external links on the Manzanar article are being discussed. There are currently 18 of them, which is excessive. Please come participate in the discussion at Talk:Manzanar#External links. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Images without refnum is out of order

Perhaps this is a side effect of the blockage of the bot that adds images, but many of the images listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Images without refnum are no longer in alphabetical order. I just found an image that turned up on the site which already had an NRHP tag, and I had to struggle to edit the thing manually, because I couldn't find it right away. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that images that I tagged and removed from the list, were put back by the bot up to 24 hours later Einbierbitte (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jean-Frédéric: You may be better placed to estimate if this is desirable behavior. effeietsanders 04:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ErfgoedBot to get the bot back, if you want to comment Einbierbitte (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, the bot is back, but not everything is in alphabetical order. I thought that problem would be fixed. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Covered bridges on NRHP in New York

There are several covered bridges with two different infoboxes that I've been trying to merge, but I can't seem to do it.

• Bendo Bridge
• Eagleville Covered Bridge (I deleted the bridge infobox myself)
• Fitches Bridge
• Grants Mills Bridge
• Hamden Covered Bridge
• Newfield Bridge
• Perrine's Bridge
• Rexleigh Bridge
• Salisbury Center Bridge

Can anybody fix those? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I've seen this issue before, where the NRHP infobox "embed" feature doesn't play nice with some of the other infoboxes. I've found that, for some reason, it will embed properly if the last parameter listed in the enveloping infobox (the bridge in this case) is filled in. My fix here was to move one of the already-filled-in parameters of the bridge box to the end. I went ahead and merged the ones in the list with two infoboxes, but there are two or three with only one infobox, so not all are done. Andrew Jameson (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This is the version of Eagleville that had the second one, and I just realized Bendo Bridge may not be on NRHP, so I'll cross that out. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: Two others found; Copeland Bridge and Hyde Hall Bridge. Beaverkill Bridge only has the bridge infobox. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Image copyrights

Hi - I had a thought recently, and wanted to see what others think on the matter. NRHP nominations generally omit copyright notices, as far as I've seen. So for nominations in recent decades, Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart explains that they would be in copyright anyway. But what about nominations published without a notice before 1978? And if not registered within five years, it could also apply to nominations published before 1989? Which brings the question - how do we even know when these nominations were published? Are they required to be publicly available within a certain time after approval? For sure virtually all are published now, available via the NPS or NARA. If a date can be established, or if we simply use the approval date, that could mean the addition of scores of useful images of these historic sites, especially as many are hidden from public view, or have been altered or destroyed. ɱ (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any direct connection between a NRHP nomination document and the copyright owner of images used in the document (unless you can prove a image was first published in the document). MB 21:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

NRHP images are typically taken by the nominator(s) for the nomination, I don't know of any cases where they re-use images, say published in some book. I would count that as a rare exception, if even present at all. ɱ (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Then the copyright is owner by the photographer. Unless a federal govt employee, it wouldn't be public domain unless the copyright was released with a free license. MB 22:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart. There are many more cases of how media can enter the public domain, you only list two of those here. ɱ (talk)

Broken template (Template:NRHP-PA)

I am doing some clean-up work on Black Moshannon State Park which contains 3 NRHP Historic Districts and will be TFA tomorrow. NRHP nomination forms in Pennsylvania are available online through the state, but Template:NRHP-PA, which should link to the form is not working. So for example, the state web page for the Black Moshannon State Park Day Use Historic District is here, and the NRHP nomination form is here. (There is even more informaiton in the NRHP form plus the state survey here).

In any case, the template for just the NRHP form {{NRHP-PA|H088870_01D.pdf}} produces a broken link https://gis.penndot.gov/CRGISAttachments/SiteResource/H088870_01D.pdf. Anyone able to fix the template? I am going to just use the direct links in the article for now. Thanks, and nice to be back on this page - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed it - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Articles on CPs

When an HD CP is individually notable, are we supposed to tag the talk page with this project's banner, or is CP-of-NR-HD too tenuous of a connection? I know we're supposed to use the infobox (with |type=cp in the code), but otherwise I don't remember what to do. See Scott County Courthouse (Illinois) for what brought this to mind; Illinois county courthouses consistently get enough coverage to be notable, whether CPs like this, or individually listed like the Jackson County Courthouse (Illinois), or ugly 1980s buildings like the Whiteside County Courthouse, so I've gradually been creating articles for all of them. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I would if you're using the CP infobox and it's detailed in the article. APK whisper in my ear 21:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

And I need to wash my eyes after seeing that. APK whisper in my ear 21:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention for former buildings?

Is there a preferred naming style for old/former buildings which have been superceded by newer buildings? I know there are several courthouses, for example, with the title Old XYZ County Courthouse, but I was driven to ask this question when I saw Cameron County Courthouse. In this case, using Old in the title isn't sufficient, and I suspect this is the case for several other courthouses.

Separately, a pretty good chunk of existing articles (maybe 10%, maybe 20%, who knows) about courthouses are actually about former courthouses, without any modification to the article's title. If there is ever a drive to get more articles on current courthouses, there will be lots of naming conflicts, where geographical disambiguation isn't sufficient.

So this is really a two-part question: how to disambiguate former and current buildings (and whether to do so pro-actively), and how to disambiguate multiple former buildings. I think this issue could come up not only for courthouses, but for things like city halls and churches. kennethaw88 • talk 21:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need to do anything if the article is about what the building was previously called (and that is the name used on the NRHP nom). If the new place is noteable an has and article, then there needs to be disambiguation. Rather than adding a "made-up" OLD in front, a parenthetical disambiguator is more consistent with WP convention. This is one past discussion. MB 21:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Sometimes "Old" in front of the building's name appears in reliable sources, and when that happens we should go with the sources. Or the building might be reused and have some suitable alternative name. But in rare cases where two buildings have otherwise identical names, and neither one is a WP:primary topic, Cameron County Courthouse (1882) and Cameron County Courthouse (1914) are reasonable ways to disambiguate. We should never preemptively disambiguate any article, though. Station1 (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem is, if you've got an article about a courthouse, coverage of previous or later buildings should be limited. When writing about courthouses, I'll always include something about predecessors (e.g. Scott County Courthouse (Illinois), linked above, has two sentences about the previous one), but when an article is entitled "X County Courthouse" and the subject is a former courthouse, people are going to be tempted to change the article's scope so that it covers both buildings or just the new building. If the new building is notable, the article shouldn't cover both of them, so splitting is fine, but if it's not notable, the article should have a title that clearly indicates that it's talking about one building and that it mentions others only to give context. "Old X Courthouse" does a better job at that than anything else I can think of. Finally, as far as former courthouses: if there are two former courthouses in two places, "Place (City, State)" should work fine; see Old Perry County Courthouse (Rome, Indiana) for an example, since there's another old courthouse in Cannelton. If the former courthouses are in the same community, use (date), I'd say. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Map

Can someone tell me how to create an outlined map for a historic district? I remember seeing one before on a hd article, but can't find one as an example. The hd I'm working on is long and narrow, so hopefully a map is feasible. APK whisper in my ear 20:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I always find the easiest and best way is to map out the shape on OpenStreetMap and add the wikidata ID, and tag it as a historic district. In the past, you could then just use {{maplink}} on Wikipedia to map it, but that feature has been down for months. If you map out the shape I can help you put the shape file on Wikimedia Commons, and then you can use maplink. End result could be like High and Gay Streets Historic District. ɱ (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Three video tutorials later I'm no closer to understanding how to make a map. I'm headed to WP:GL/M. Thank you. APK whisper in my ear 22:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

drop down

For historic district articles, has anyone ever made something like a drop down list that includes building name/address, year built, if it's contributing, etc.? If so, can you point me to the page so I can see how it turned out. APK whisper in my ear 05:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Back when User:Awadewit was alive (just typing that makes me sad), the Joseph Priestley House used to have a "hidden" or collapsed infobox that displayed when clicked on. I found an old version with it here and it still works. Not quite what you were looking for, but may still be useful. - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. APK whisper in my ear 17:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, AgnosticPreachersKid, your request sounds like what I did for the Steele Dunning Historic District and Vinegar Hill Historic District, and what someone else did for the University Courts Historic District, all three at Bloomington in southwestern Indiana. They're not dropdowns; each one has a table with a separate line for each CP. Not feasible for large districts of course :-) but when you have a few dozen, it's a good idea because it provides in-depth coverage of the district. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

APK, you should also take a look at MOS:COLLAPSE. - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. Yeah, after looking at the MOS link and the examples Nyttend mentioned, I think a table for the 147 CPs in the HD I'm working on isn't feasible. :-) I'll just highlight certain properties. APK whisper in my ear 02:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if you want to do this, but I have been a main author of two articles which weach have an associated list article - that might be a solution here. So Larrys Creek has the associated List of tributaries of Larrys Creek (42 named tribs), while Ricketts Glen State Park has the associated Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park article (24 named waterfalls, although not a list article). - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I might try something like that, if not for the current one, then for three other HD articles with a lot less CPs that are in the pipeline. With the number of interesting structures to choose from in the current article, I'm having trouble deciding which CPs to highlight. And it doesn't help I spent several hours taking photographs the other day and have way too many pix to choose from. (only halfway done uploading them) So a list might work in the long run. APK whisper in my ear 17:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sinclair's old dinosaur-shaped gas station in Spring Hill

I just found out through a recent news report, and NRHP's official website that Harold's Garage, a former Sinclair gas station on US 19 in Spring Hill, Florida is on the verge of being registered as an NRHP site. The news report I heard though claimed it was going to be a National Historic Landmark, but I knew it wasn't that good. Two pictures already exist though.

• 
  This one from 2009 is mine.
• 
  And the other one was taken by the late John Margolies in 1979.

It should be noted though, I didn't post the part about "Ryan Carpenter riding his red Honda Elite Maxi Scooter 250cc." I don't even know who Ryan Carpenter is. Anyway, I just wanted to give you people a heads up on a pending site that I'm familiar with. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirect

I've been waiting for someone to delete the Sixteenth Street Historic District redirect so I can move a new article from my sandbox, but nothing has happened since last night despite many of the other tagged pages being deleted since then. If any admins are watching this page, if you get a chance and could help me out I'd appreciate some assistance. (not sure where else to ask for assistance since the note at WP:AN says not to ask for help with backlogs unless it's urgent) APK whisper in my ear 15:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

AgnosticPreachersKid, why not just do a edit the redirect with a cut/paste of your sandbox. There is no need to do a move because the entire history of your sandbox shows your edits, so the redirect would be properly attributed to you (albeit in one edit instead of many). MB 17:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@AgnosticPreachersKid: I screwed it up the first time (because Friday afternoon, that's why), but I got it done. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. APK whisper in my ear 18:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@AgnosticPreachersKid: Any ol' time - happy to be of assistance. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Notability dispute

An article I created, Ewalt House, has been tagged for notability a second time so I'm hoping some others can take a look at it. This is an NRHP contributing property and was also nominated as a Pittsburgh historic landmark. The Pittsburgh landmark nomination process requires extensive documentation so I usually consider these notable if there is other coverage available (in this case, the NRHP documentation and local press coverage). What are others' thoughts on this? This nomination was a bit controversial locally which I think is why it's being challenged. Thanks! Camerafiend (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It most certainly meets notability guidelines. APK whisper in my ear

Thanks for your help! Camerafiend (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for new quality rating of Thorncrown Chapel article

I revised and added new content to this article, and would like to submit it for a new project quality rating up from Stub-Class. Thanks and gig 'em! Doghouse09 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

An interesting new Multiple Property Submission

This week's NRHP updates brings an interesting new Multiple Property Submission: "Prince, 1958-1987 MPS". The first property listed under it is the original Sound 80 studio in Minneapolis. Wondering if the Paisley Park complex (opened in 1987) is going to get an exemption to the 50-year rule. Magic♪piano 19:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. "The context ends at 1987 because in October of that year, Prince opened his artist compound Paisley Park in Chanhassen, Minnesota, marking a shift in the location of the residential, recording and performing aspects of his life." APK whisper in my ear 20:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ship moved

Fire Fighter (fireboat) was in Staten Island when listed in 1989, but since 2013 has been relocated to Suffolk County on Long Island. Can someone who knows how to regenerate the tables move this from National Register of Historic Places listings in Staten Island to National Register of Historic Places listings in Southold (town), New York? MB 23:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a specific procedure for this? I've created new items for tables before, so normally I suspect it wouldn't be that hard, unless there's something else I don't know about. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not hard (pretty much copy the table row from one place to another, and then resequence the counters), but it's probably a task whose details should be described in the project maintenance guide. Magic♪piano 13:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I hope I didn't create any problems by moving it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

National Historic Landmarks are back

We have a new National Historic Landmark (and apparently more in the pipeline). From this week's updates, Nashville's Hermitage Hotel is designated for its role in the women's suffrage movement. There are more under discussion at the upcoming September NHL Committee Meeting. Magic♪piano 21:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright/attribution issue on some Utah photos

On 18 December 2019, User:Scurry1515 added lots of photos to National Register of Historic Places listings in Beaver County, Utah--basically, most of the black and white ones that are there now. There are also some photos in other counties. These are all taken from the NRHP nominations, but have Scurry1515 credited as author. Naturally, User:Farragutful raised concerns about them on the user's Commons user talk page. I joined in the discussion to try to help. What has apparently happened here is that the user was acting officially on behalf of the Utah SHPO, but did not follow the rules. It seems likely that Utah holds the copyright on the photos and intended to release them into the public domain, but this has not been done correctly. These photos are a valuable resource, and it would be a shame to have to delete them. There has been no further discussion since 7 January, and no corrections have been made. Clearly this needs to be addressed both here and at Commons. What is the best way to proceed? Ntsimp (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The user should be talked through an OTRS process if the intent is in fact to PD them. Another alternative would be for the user to upload them to a site such as Flickr under PD terms. Magic♪piano 21:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Charles Howard Lloyd

Could I please have some help with this draft? FloridaArmy (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible end to a NROHP listing

It seems people post about upcoming listings to the register. Unfortunately, I am here with bad news. The Babcock Building, South Carolina State Hospital has been on fire for over four hours now. The dome has collapsed and the interior appears to have been entirely gutted. https://www.wistv.com/2020/09/12/columbia-fire-responds-babcock-building-fire-bull-street-district/ Muttnick (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

LA cultural monuments

I ran across Equitable Building of Hollywood, which is a NRHP contributing property. I added an infobox, and then noticed it wasn't listed in Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument (actually the appropriate sub-list). This building was made a monument in 2015, and according to this list], there were a lot added in 2015-16. I wonder how many others are not on the lists. I'm not that familiar with LA neighborhoods and it would take me a long time to go through this. Just mentioning in case anyone wants to look into this or knows a better place to post this or an editor who likes to work on NRHP/historic LA stuff. MB 04:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Food for thought

There's an ongoing discussion at WikiProject Women in Red about the people associated with sites on the National Register, and specifically how we are often missing articles on them, which editors from this project might be interested in. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places by territory has been nominated for merging to Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places by state or territory

Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places by territory has been nominated for merging to Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places by state or territory. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Name change - Eastman tunnel Minneapolis MN

The Eastman tunnel is a contributing resource to the St. Anthony Falls Historic District, Minneapolis, MN. The SAFHD is on the NRHP.
Cite:
Nomination of the St. Anthony Falls Historic District to be on the National Register of Historic Places The nomination is from the City of Minneapolis to the National Park Service to place the St. Anthony Falls Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places (it was placed there).
The tunnel, in this document, pdf page 83, is called the Eastman Tunnel. That is how it is known on the National Registry of Historic Places.

This entity is incorrectly labeled the Hennepin Island tunnel in Wikipedia.

I tried to change the name from "Hennepin Island tunnel" to "Eastman tunnel".
The cite for the change is in Talk:Eastman_tunnel. It is over 6 reliable sources that use "Eastman Tunnel" as the name. The definitive one is the NRHP nomination, above. Two of them are in the Hennepin Island tunnel "References".
I could find no reliable source for Hennepin Island tunnel as the name.

I created an entry in the Talk:Eastman_tunnel page justifying the change. Hennepin Island tunnel was not yet changed, but the intent was to redirect it to "Eastman tunnel".
'Wikipedia' turned Eastman tunnel into a redirect to Hennepin Island tunnel..
The argument appears to be "This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.". That should not be a problem if Hennepin Island tunnel redirected to "Eastman tunnel". And the intent was to also change "Hennepin Island tunnel" within the article to "Eastman tunnel". Also change most of the links in Wikipedia.
This is the worst option, with the correct name redirecting to the wrong name.

Request:
1 create an "Eastman tunnel" page that duplicates the content of Hennepin Island tunnel
2 keep the "Name change" section in Talk:Eastman_tunnel
3 redirect Hennepin Island tunnel to Eastman tunnel
4 note that this article is NRHP without the usual NRHP stuff. On the other hand "Portions of the tunnel survive, but their condition is undetermined." (Nomination). Major efforts were made to plug the tunnel. Whatever remains is almost all underwater.
BudKey (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@BudKey: The correct way to do this is to request a page move by following the directions at WP:RM#CM: Go to Talk:Hennepin Island tunnel and add a new section there. Copy " {{subst:requested move|Eastman tunnel|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}} " there, and fill in your reason for requesting a move. This will start a discussion. If there is consensus for a move after 7 days an admin will move the page. Station1 (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Registered versus listed?

Is there a difference between registered with the NRHP and listed? The article Dallas, Georgia, section on historical places says "There are roughly 32 historic sites in Dallas that have been registered with the National Register of Historic Places, and over 100 historic sites registered in Paulding County" but National Register of Historic Places listings in Paulding County, Georgia only has four listings, and none are a HD or multiple-property listing. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on the reference given in the Dallas article, my guess is that whoever added that confused historical markers with sites on the National Register. Though the reference doesn't really support the intended claim well anyway, since it's a little vague on where exactly the sites are, so maybe that sentence should just be taken out. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Westchester County, New York split

Several years ago Daniel Case was working on splitting up the National Register of Historic Places listings in Westchester County, New York list between Northern and Southern Westchester County. I also wanted to split off more cities, towns and regions of Westchester County. Before this, there were already separate categories for Yonkers, New Rochelle, and Peekskill. Two other ideas I had were to split off another list for the Town of Ossining, and the Villages of Tarrytown with Sleepy Hollow and add Irvington due to the historical connection of all three villages to Washington Irving. I've had an unfinished sandbox of the Tarrytown/Sleepy Hollow/Irvington list for several years now, and making it has caused me nothing but confusion, and chaos. So I'd like to consider two possible choices; 1)Transfer the list as a general draft article that anyone can work on until the time comes to convert it into a genuine list, or 2)Tag the list for deletion. So who else thinks they can take it over? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally I don't think Westchester County needs to be split any more than it already is. My rule of thumb is that county lists should be split when they approach (or exceed) 200 listings, and both the northern and southern lists are just under 100. (There used to be a technical reason why 200 was the cutoff, since mapping services wouldn't work properly with more than 200 points, but mapping has changed enough in recent years that I'm not sure if that's still the case. Nowadays it's more about keeping articles to a manageable size, which I don't think is a problem yet in Westchester.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Another reason for splitting lists is if one community has a disproportionate number of listings in a reasonably large list, e.g. Onondaga County, New York, where Syracuse has 2/3 of 160-ish listings. But that also doesn't apply to Westchester.

On a related subject, see Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles, where I've proposed a split. Magic♪piano 17:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

One community having a disproportionately large list sounds like a good enough reason for creating National Register of Historic Places listings in Tampa, Florida. That's pretty much what I did. Okay, so if no other images or any other material will be lost as a result, I'll expose the deletion tags for those two Westchester splits. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia House, Greensboro, North Carolina

An article in yesterday's paper says it was named to the National Register in 1991 but I can find no evidence of this. I can't even find DeButts House. I don't know how to find the number to add to the infobox for my draft article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

From the article you cite: "It doesn't stand on the register alone, but as a contributing property to the South Greensboro National Register Historic District that surrounds it." ɱ (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Somehow I missed that. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem, it happens! ɱ (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, if you still want to write an article, you can just use a Contributing Property infobox. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Grand Canyon proposal

Hi there, editors at your Wikiproject may be interesting in the related WikiProject Grand Canyon proposal, which you can see and support here! Kingsif (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Not on National Register, but historically significant

Where could I ask questions about whether the building qualifies for a Wikipedia article, how much I would be allowed to quote from commentary, and what makes the building significant?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the Teahouse might be a good place to start. Generally, though: (1) Article subjects need to be notable, defined as "having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So, for example, if you can find three news articles about a building, it's presumed notable. (2) In my opinion, quoting from commentary is rarely warranted, and it's preferable to rephrase in your own words. If the commentator is particularly authoritative or well known, then perhaps a sentence or two would be a good addition to the article, but quotations shouldn't be overly long,, or make up a large portion of the article. (3) I think significance routes through notability - if a building is notable, the sources will include information on its significance. For buildings, I would think significance would be either historical importance or architectural importance. (IMO, of course) Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

At this point User:Vchimpanzee/Elion-Hutchings Building (I misspelled the name, but changing the article to a draft would have been harder when it was already a redirect when spelled correctly) relies heavily on quotes. I don't feel like I would be doing the description justice if I tried to paraphrase. I don't even know specifically what they mean. I don't even know who I'm quoting in most cases, but the source says it comes from a book and I assume the author of the book is making the statements.

I'm pretty sure the building is considered architecturally significant but it seems to defy the usual styles. One source calls it "modern" and that just doesn't explain it. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is the source that I believe will establish notability, although I think the others go a long way toward that goal. I've removed some quotes and tried to paraphrase, but like I said,I don't feel what I say myself effectively communicates the building's significance. I did cut way down on quotes by the architect himself because I realized those wouldn't be independent.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

NYC buildings

Penn Club of New York is a new article that had a NRHP infobox. I removed that, because it had the refnum of Engineering Societies' Building and Engineers' Club and I assumed that someone had done a copy/paste when creating the article. The lead also says it is NRHP, but the reference is talking about the Engineers Club building 32 W. 40th St while the Penn Club building is at 30 W 44th St. I'm fairly certain I have corrected the mix-up (the lead still needs to be changed). Can someone confirm these are two different building? Or is the Penn club actually listed under some other name (it was originally the Yale Club of New York City Building? MB 00:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

WD

Lately I've been doing pictures, and not so focused on whether it's a historic place. When in a neighborhood I don't visit often, I bring up the WikiShootMe map on my phone and snap pictures of the red dots and sometimes the green. But, the dots come from geocoordinates in Wikidata. Is someone trying to assure that every NRHP gets into WD fairly promptly? Jim.henderson (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone's doing that, even for sites that have articles; I spot-checked several articles that I wrote earlier in the year, and most of them hadn't been added to Wikidata. Sites that don't have articles are probably in even worse shape. The good news is, it looks like English Wikipedia articles show up on WikiShootMe too; it won't help with sites that don't have articles yet, but it's something (and might also help with getting those articles linked to Wikidata).

The other problem I'm noticing is that a lot of places that have images don't have those images linked in Wikidata, so they show up in red anyway. That also seems worth addressing. I wonder if there's a way to automate either of these tasks, since getting all of this into Wikidata manually would be quite the undertaking. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

On a different note, I found looking around my town that wikidata had duplicate entries (with different geo-coords) for a demolished theater building. Thanks for letting me know this exists. Chris857 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

LGBT

I saw Darcelle XV Showplace has been listed. I added an NRHP category and portal, and invite project members to make other appropriate improvements/updates. Also made me wonder if there should be a category like Category:LGBT-related National Register of Historic Places, perhaps as a subcategory of Category:LGBT historic places in the United States? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Republic Cafe and Ming Lounge

Republic Cafe and Ming Lounge is NOT NRHP-listed, but the restaurant is a non-contributing site of the Portland New Chinatown/Japantown Historic District. I've struggled a bit with how to give readers some sense of the restaurant's architectural and cultural significance without going into too much detail and conflating the business from the building. Here's a link to the form (site #16) if any project members care to further improve the article's summary of the building's significance. Thanks in advance for any suggestions or changes! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrigley field

There is news today that this was made a National Historic Landmark which automatically adds it to the NRHP as well. It has already been added to List of National Historic Landmarks in Illinois but is missing from National Register of Historic Places listings in North Side Chicago. Also missing is a refnum. Can anyone dig that up? MB 23:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Browsed for a refnum, but it doesn't seem to have appeared yet in weekly listings. Oddly, this Barron's Nov 19 piece (actually a Agence French Presse work) asserts "Wrigley Field was already on the list of National Register of Historic Places, an honor it received in 1987." Other articles speak to tax breaks the owners will now get, which seems not consistent with that. I can't immediately find any large historic district in which it could have been included. The Wrigley Field article indicates it was a 2004 Chicago listing. --Doncram (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that was a editing error in the Barrons article. The Chicago Sun Times says Wrigley Field was eligible for NRHP listing back in 1987 (...but there was no application). This also confirms the 1987 eligibility and has a 404 link to the NPS about that. MB 15:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine does have a copy of that NPS page. Ntsimp (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It is typically the case that publicity surrounding NHL designation precedes publication of the office actions, which have the details such as the actual listing date and the refnum. Expect these in either this week's or next week's weekly actions. Magic♪piano 14:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This week's (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/weekly-list-20201204.htm) list has it Einbierbitte (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Missing article

American Chicle Company Building has been around over 10 years, but it's not linked from a NRHP list (presumably it should be in National Register of Historic Places listings in Orleans Parish, Louisiana). The ref number seems to be correct, and I can't find that in any article either - so it doesn't appear to be under a different name. MB 04:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it was accidentally overwritten by a new listing. I added it back to the list. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Not listed

Innis Dye Works says it was listed in 1982, but by searching through the edit summaries of National Register of Historic Places listings in Poughkeepsie, New York it appears although nominated (and approved? since it has a refnum), it is not listed due to owner objection. So the article needs to be changed to say it is not on the NRHP. But is there a way to source that fact? MB 23:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nyttend: took it off the list on December 4, 2010. Not sure what their source is; the redacted NARA file doesn't help much. ɱ (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This seems to say it never passed. ɱ (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I've used that source in the article to say it was nominated but not listed at the owner's request. Thanks. MB 02:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the 1980 "Poughkeepsie Multiple Resources Area" study ( Townley McElineny Sharp (August 12, 1980). National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: Poughkeepsie Multiple Resources Area (Report). National Park Service. ) lists it among the 59 nominated properties, but notes its nomination was cancelled by owner objection. I changed the NRHP infobox to a Historic sites infobox, and added the MRA document reference to the article. --Doncram (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated New Orleans Mint for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Multiple register listings?

Hi all - I am posting here vs. template pages to hopefully have replies - would others agree that adding a column to {{NRHP row}} makes sense? I would like to add a column for listings in other registers, primarily for city historic registers. Take a look at Columbus Register of Historic Properties; I would like it to somewhat mirror the city's National Register list. ɱ (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that adding a column to NRHP row for that purpose is not a good idea. Mention other designations in the description field. Magic♪piano 14:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You're not stating any rationale whatsoever. This is important to link together historic places, often the only way to find relevant further information, via nomination forms or other data. And in the case of many cities, the local register is far more important, with standards against alterations or demolition. NRHP status is comparatively meaningless. If you're worried about table width, every internet-capable device has a different screen size, making standards relatively irrelevant. Mixing together factual notes with register designations seems like a poor idea, and in practice it doesn't work well, in sortability or readability. ɱ (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

please help fix template:NRISref again

During late 2019 until now, no-doubt-well-meaning editors including User:Jonesey95 have again changed the main NRIS-citing reference used in 60,000 or more articles, template:NRISref, so that it again works incorrectly in many, perhaps most, of those articles, and poorly serves readers. It has been a quixotic quest for many arriving editors to try to make the reference provide a link to online NRIS data specific to a given reference number, and assuming that is the source used by NRHP editors. That is IMPOSSIBLE to do properly, in general, because the NRIS database in fact is not available online that way.

Please see and consider commenting at Template talk:NRISref#fix template to drop linking to any URL, and to properly convey the source is an offline database. --Doncram (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

please help fix all NRHP list-articles by dropping erroneous links

Similar issue to #please help fix template:NRISref again, there are tens of thousands of erroneous links spread throughout NRHP list-articles, which should be fixed by eliminating the linkages.

Please see and consider commenting at Template talk:NRHP row#fix template to drop linking of refnum to any URL, which almost always poorly serves readers. --Doncram (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

a template for standardized NRHP and NHL document references

Anthony W. Bessey House in Manti, Utah

Ɱ has been successfully using National Archives versions of NRHP and NHL nomination documents in developing articles in Ohio, for which NPS provides very few nomination documents directly. And notes that all such documents are being moved over to NARA for all states. And calls for improvements to {{infobox NRHP}}. (Some of this was in comments more than a year ago at Talk:Cincinnati Union Terminal#Infobox error, and just now at Template talk:NRHP row#fix template to drop linking of refnum to any URL, which almost always poorly serves readers.)

I agree that refining {{infobox NRHP}} in several ways sounds like a good idea. Not sure immediately if adding a separate NARA link to that infobox helps (because why should the infobox (which is sourced from NRIS for all fields unless indicated otherwise) link to any version of NRHP nomination document, shouldn't references in the main text of the article provide that link?). But I think in general adding some link to NARA-available NRHP nomination document into every NRHP article somewhere in the article would be great. If only existing references to NRHP nomination documents were in a standardized template, then a supplemental link to the NARA version of the article could be added by a bot (call it "secondbot"). I am guessing that bot programmers could figure out a way to look up the NARA document number for each NRHP refnum, and to accomplish that. But first, how about a "firstbot" bot run to convert our articles' many thousands of individual references to NRHP nomination documents into a standardized template call.

E.g., for Anthony W. Bessey House article, convert from:

<ref name=nrhpdoc>{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=80003947}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Anthony W. Bessey House|publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author=Tom Carter |date=April 1980 |accessdate=March 6, 2018}} With {{NRHP url|id=80003947|photos=y|title=photo from c.1940 and two from 1980}}.</ref>

to be called by something like:

{{nrhpdocref
|refnum=80003947
|nps_doc_url={{NRHP url|id=80003947}} 
|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Anthony W. Bessey House
|nps_doc_publisher=[[National Park Service]]
|doc_author=Tom Carter 
|doc_date=April 1980 
|accessdate=March 6, 2018
|nps_pics_url={{NRHP url|id=80003947|photos=y
|nps_pics_description=photo from c.1940 and two from 1980
|nara_doc_code=
}}

which would create a reference "named" nrhpdoc80003947, callable by <ref name=nrhpdoc80003947/>. And, then "secondbot" could look up and add NARA's code for its copy of the document (at https://catalog.archives.gov/id/72001684), so adding "|nara_doc_code=72001684" The reference could provide the NARA version as the primary link for the document, if that is available, but would provide links to both. And to any state-supplied version of the document.

Thoughts? --Doncram (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Charles A. Miller House

Perhaps someone from this WikiProject can help sort WP:THQ#Wrong Photo on Charles Miller House (Cincinnati) page out. Based on this which is cited as a source in the article, the photo in the main infobox actually appears to be of a house located across the street. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixing... ɱ (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that Ɱ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

And thanks also to User:25or6to4 who updated the Commons photo description of the "wrong" house, in this edit at Commons. User:Ɱ, fyi, i don't know if you've done that before. The other further step to take is to request a photo title change at Commons, which I just did in this further edit at Commons. I had to look up again in wp:NRHPHELP how to do that; I wrote out section wp:NRHPHELP#Fixing Commons names and descriptions of photos there some time ago. --Doncram (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't think to move it. Moved now. ɱ (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This is about Charles A. Miller House and about the current version of Commons file/photo for the "wrong" house. Ɱ, thanks for implementing the move/rename request for the photo; didn't know you are a Commons administrator. One more rename needed. My bad, it should be something like "HouseAt1821ChaseAve" not "HouseOnFloridaAve". Both houses are on corners of Florida Ave. and Chase Ave.; both face onto Chase Ave. and this one has address 1821 Chase Ave. I have improved the coordinates for Commons pages of both and for Wikipedia article and list-article now. --Doncram (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

And Ɱ could you also please move the "correct" house's photo from File:Chase Avenue, Northside, Cincinnati, OH (39829953893).jpg to more specific File:1817 Chase Avenue, Northside, Cincinnati, OH (39829953893).jpg? Its current name is not actually wrong (so the type of rename request I used for the other is not relevant), but it's worth making it more specific now. I revised its description and added coordinates there already. --Doncram (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I see this is done, sorry, was at work. ɱ (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Imprecise coords on lists

I'm interested in making a bot request and hope to get agreement here first that it's a good idea.

Years ago, when a bot converted our wikitable-based lists to templates, it consistently rendered coordinates as degrees with six decimal places of precision, but it omitted trailing zeroes. For example, the Apollo Theatre entry at National Register of Historic Places listings in Berkeley County, West Virginia reads

|lat=39.458056
|lon=-77.9625

The omission of zeroes doesn't generally cause problems, since having either entry with six zeroes causes the template to render the coordinates to the second, but in rare cases this can cause a problem — if both coordinates are exactly on a minute, the template renders the coordinates to the minutes only. For example,

|lat=39.550000
|lon=-77.550000

produces 39°33′0″N 77°33′0″W, but

|lat=39.55
|lon=-77.55

produces 39°33′N 77°33′W. The two coordinates are the same, but if you're downloading coordinates, it can cause problems. For example, some time back I used an automated process to download coordinates for all sites nationwide, and these minute-only locations caused problems because my process assumed that the coordinates would always have seconds.

With this in mind, a proposal — is there support for someone running a bot that will (1) examine all coordinates on all lists, (2) record all coordinates that are minutes-only, and (3) add zeroes in these specific cases? Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with adding zeros, but first I would suggest that such a bot could also remove excess precision per WP:OPCOORD. Using six digits is overly precise, like trying to pinpoint a doorway. Per WP:COORDPREC, there is no need for six digits. I think four digits is sufficient for any building, although there could be justification for five digits in rare cases for something like a monument or statue.

In the example above, I think it should be

|lat=39.5500
|lon=-77.5500

or with the actual Apollo coordinates rounded to:

|lat=39.4581
|lon=-77.9625

I realize the precision doesn't matter in the list articles due to the way the coords are displayed in the tables, but these coords are often copied into article infoboxes and used with different output formatting which displays six or more digits. MB 16:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

How is the bot supposed to know what should and shouldn't be truncated to four? It can't tell what a listing is, let alone how big it is. I've seen at least one place where I went to a half-second on a building because it was so small that any location with a full second was on another building, and this was particularly problematic because the neighbouring building was also on the Register, so I had to distinguish the coords somehow, even a tiny bit so that {{GeoGroupTemplate}} didn't think they were redundant. See National Register of Historic Places listings in Wabash County, Indiana; it's the James M. Amoss Building and the Solomon Wilson Building. You and I can't know the difference without looking on the map, and the bot can't know better.

Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to reply. My point was that the bot should just reduce all to four digits as this is sufficient for almost all of the 80k places listed. If there are a handful of special cases, they should be handled manually. MB 15:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of listings do not need six decimal places of accuracy; this is, per WP:OPCOORD, a precision of about 1 meter. If four digits (8-10 meters) is insufficient, an editor should leave a comment next to the coordinates indicating the reason for the needed extra precision.

I'm not sure why a bot is needed for fixing something that's not fundamentally broken. It sounds to me like your coordinate downloader needs work instead. Magic♪piano 15:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me that "adding zeroes" by bot would be just flat wrong. However it is rendered, it would be changing the edit text put in by real person Wikipedia editors. A 2-digit decimal location only indicates a very general area, which is different than an editor having indicated a much more specific point.

Five digits in decimal representation after the decimal point is what I use now, e.g. to indicate 17 specific trees in Windsor historical landmarks, or to direct map-using readers' attention to the very center of round barns. It would seem pretty awful to me if a bot was implemented which assumed the 5-digits of accuracy after the decimal (7 digits accuracy overall?) was not intended, was not explicitly chosen by me to point to a very specific place. Requiring some additional "comment next to the coordinates indicating the reason for the needed extra precision" would be ridiculously cumbersome, requiring hundreds of thousands of edits to be put in place to protect the current accuracy from being degraded by a bot; the simple thing to do is assume the editor intended the precision they used.

Sure, 14 digits after the decimal, as comes in now when one uses right-clicking in Google maps to copy and then paste (e.g. "31.52789115939655, -87.32688049859426") seems excessive. If such long coordinate strings are in place AND actually are seen by readers, then I think that's a Wikimedia rendering/display problem...the display should be limited to just 6 digits after the decimal perhaps. But there is no relevant impact on article page size or any other reason that I see as valid to go in by bot and change any actual coordinates, at all. Why? My 2 cents. --Doncram (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

NHL designations process, politics

The article National Historic Landmark is silent about involvement of committees, and maybe too silent overall about process of NHL designations. The new NHL docs mentioned in section above are associated with a National Historic Landmarks Committee and a National Park System Advisory Board. Also I see there are notes and docs supporting two committee meetings, of September and November 2020. Can anyone verify (I'm still unclear) if there have been any other meetings since 2016? Also, were the only Trump administration NHL designations before now, of Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument in 2017, and the designation of Hermitage Hotel (about Women's Civil Rights explicitly, but i wonder, entirely speculation-wise, if it has been argued to have been advanced politically for its indirect/naming association with Andrew Jackson? e.g. The Hermitage?). Those 3 mentioned at NHLs in the News page. I wouldn't want to introduce any not-very-well-founded assertion relating to politics into mainspace, but it seems to me Wikipedia-noteworthy to mention something about low numbers/frequency of NHL decisions during last 4 years. Maybe an entirely factual chart giving numbers of NHL designations (and/or NHL committee meetings?) year-by-year through all time could be created? Here is coverage of dysfunction: "Nearly all members of National Park Service advisory panel resign in frustration" WSJ 2018, which I think wp:NRHP was well aware of, but we haven't covered in articles. There is this explaining about committees, process, linking to biographies of 2020-2024 members...where did these people come from, were they seen to have political loyalties, are any seen to be unqualified/inappropriate, are they continuing in Biden admin? Who were previous members who resigned, how qualified/appropriate/prestigious were they, were they overtly political or not? Isn't it appropriate to cover at least some of this explicitly in mainspace? --Doncram (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, did the advisory committees get padded out with political appointees, in the last days/months of the Trump administration? I've seen this asserted in news to have happened in general, probably creating difficulty for Biden administration, at least for other committees (e.g. "Trump appoints flurry of allies as presidency winds down", Dec 2020 AP). Current members listed at that webpage:

• Chair(?) Joseph S. Emert, National Park System Advisory Board Member; Member and Past President, East Tennessee Historical Society Board of Directors; Member, Board of Directors, Great Smoky Mountain Institute at Tremont; Walland, Texas
• David G. Anderson, Ph.D., RPA, Professor, Department of Anthropology, The University of Tennessee; Knoxville, Tennessee
• Julio Cesar Capó, Jr., Ph.D., Associate Professor and , Department of History and Wolfsonian Public Humanities Lab, Florida International University; Miami, Florida
• Ethan Carr, Ph.D., FASLA, Professor, Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts Amherst; Amherst, Massachusetts
• Jeanne Cyriaque, African American Programs Coordinator (retired), Georgia State Historic Preservation Office; College Park, Georgia
• Cynthia G. Falk, Ph.D., Professor of Material Culture, State University of New York College at Oneonta; Cooperstown, New York
• Richard Longstreth, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of American Studies, The George Washington University; Washington, DC
• Alexandra M. Lord, Ph.D., Chair and Curator, Division of Medicine and Science, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution; Washington, DC
• John L. Nau III, Member, National Park System Advisory Board; Chairman and CEO, Silver Eagle Beverage; Houston, Texas
• Vergil E. Noble, Ph.D., RPA, Archeologist (retired), National Historic Landmarks Program, National Park Service; Ashland, Nebraska
• Toni M. Prawl, Ph.D., Director and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, Missouri State Historic Preservation Office; Jefferson City, Missouri
• Adam D. Smith, Architectural Historian, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Champaign, Illinois
• Boyd C. Smith, Member, National Park System Advisory Board; Co-Founder and Partner, WSJ Properties LLC; Mountain View, California

I see the beer guy here, John L. Nau, is a big Republican donor, suggesting political appointee, but he also has long historic preservation involvement per his Wikipedia article. It would require review of previous sets of board members, for anyone to have written/published any generalizations here.
I think "The Historic Sites Survey and National Historic Landmarks Program" is an NPS internal history report of 1985, that has relevant big picture perspective, including about NHL designations filling in around NPS preserved sites not requiring more study/designation in order to further their preservation.
And per this, there's supposed to be a six year NHL progress report, not available, one can make a request for it? Maybe there have been other progress reviews?
I just think some more explicit coverage about NHL processes, including how they get tangled in politics, should be justified. --Doncram (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

What does "The Energy 202: New national park advisory board includes 3 big GOP donors", Washington Post, say? And "Trump administration swaps academics for business executives for National Park Service advisory panel", also in Washington Post?

Less useful: This "sourcewatch" wiki-type article about John Nau's donations appears to be incomplete/outdated, reports news sources not later than 2012, and this has some speech texts for/about Nau. --Doncram (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Drawings of old buildings from the United States

There are many old drawings for Lowell Observatory, here is one of them:
File:Lowell Observatory, Clark Dome, 1400 West Mars Road, Flagstaff, Coconino County, AZ HABS ARIZ,3-FLAG,1B- (sheet 2 of 4).tif
And for Griffith Observatory and for Lick Observatory and for Fallingwater I never got the drawings from Historic American Buildings Survey :-(
Can anyone find and upload drawings of the Griffith Observatory, Lick Observatory, and Fallingwater to Wikimedia Commons? — LibreOffice User ( messages ) – 15:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR nomination of Baltimore City College

I have nominated Baltimore City College for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Lots of NHLs

This weeks Weekly List has 15 NHL designations. The most that I have seen in a while Einbierbitte (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought the committee was not ever allowed to meet, under the Trump administration, in the same way that many other advisory committees were not allowed to function. (Is that so, have there been any NHLs since 2016?) Anyhow, I guess pent up demand burst through, to get some very deserving NHLs declared, perhaps at insistence of staff. All of these were NHL-listed on January 13, still in the Trump term:

1. Monroe County Courthouse, Monroeville, Alabama, Monroe County, Alabama, NL100006236, 1/13/2021
2. Colorado Fuel and Iron Company Administration Complex, 215 and 225 Canal St., Pueblo, Pueblo County, Colorado, NL100006242, 1/13/2021
3. Pan American Union Headquarters, 17th St. between C St. and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, D.C., NL10000625
4. Dudley Farm, 18730 W. Newberry Rd., Newberry, Alachua County, Florida, NL100006234,
5. Fort Ouiatenon Archeological District, Address Restricted, Lafayette vicinity, Tippecanoe County, Indiana, NL100006239,
6. Surf Ballroom, 460 N Shore Dr, Clear Lake, Cerro Gordo County, Iowa, NL100006243,
7. Tolson's Chapel and School, 111 E. High St., Sharpsburg, Washington County, Maryland, NL100006233,
8. Minong Copper Mining Historic District, Address Restricted, Isle Royale National Park vicinity, Keweenaw County, Michigan, NL100006259
9. Scout's Rest Ranch Headquarters, NW of North Platte off U.S. 30, North Platte vicinity, Lincoln County, Nebraska, NL100006250,
10. West Point Foundry Archeological Site, Address Restricted, Cold Spring, Putnam County, New York, NL100006260
11. Grant Cottage, CR 101 N of Rte. 9, Mount McGregor, Saratoga County, New York, NL100006247,
12. Hueco Tanks, Address Restricted, El Paso vicinity, El Paso County, Texas, NL100006241
13. Lower Pecos Canyonlands Archeological District, Address restricted, Comstock vicinity, Val Verde County, Texas, NL100006256
14. Stabler-Leadbeater Apothecary Shop, 105-107 S. Fairfax, Alexandria, Virginia, NL100006254
15. Patsy Cline House, 608 S. Kent St., Winchester, Virginia, NL100006248
16. University of Wisconsin Arboretum, 1207 Seminole Hwy., Madison, Dane County, Wisconsin, NL100006237,

Also numerous NRHP listings, additional documentation accepted, and i see that the Marion S. Whaley Citrus Packing House has been delisted. --Doncram (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Is NR-listed as Old Monroe County Courthouse.

2. Is NR-listed (at least in part) as Minnequa Steel Works Office Building and Dispensary, Colorado Fuel and Iron Company.

3. Is NR-listed as Pan American Union.

5. Is presumably the NR-listed Fort Ouiatenon.

I image some of the other redlinks (or dabs, as #1 is) are also listed under different names. Magic♪piano 04:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is super-obvious, but I asked the NRHP staff about documentation on the Michigan listing, and was pointed to this page and this page, which contain all the nomination forms and other information on these listings (and I think there are a handful more to come?) Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume that Lower Pecos Canyonlands Archeological District is the same as the NR-listed Lower Pecos Canyon Archeological District, but we don't have an article under that name either. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Lower Pecos Canyonlands appear to be a discontiguous agglomeration of numerous sites. It definitely includes all or portions of Seminole Canyon Archeological District, the Lower Pecos Canyon Archeological District, the Rattlesnake Canyon Site, and Mile Canyon.source Magic♪piano 21:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see connections made to existing articles, etc.! To revisit about article naming practices for NRHPs and NHLs in wp:NRHP: at least many years ago, I believe the general practice was that we would rename/move an article, and update the NRHP infobox, to use the NHL name, when an NRHP gained NHL status. I don't know exactly how formally decided our article naming practices were that way, but I do recall explicitly asserting them to be that way at some wt:SHIPS discussion, one time when wp:SHIPS editors were inclined to erase or change the NRHP names displaying in embedded NRHP infoboxes about ships. Ships often have had many names...I was explaining we want readers to be able to see that "this article" is the one which covers the ship listed on the NRHP (or NHL) as "this name", even when current ship name and/or article title is quite different. So I would suggest (if there are not objections):

• moving old article Pan American Union Building over to new name Pan American Union Headquarters (this would be a move over a newly created redirect)
• moving Old Monroe County Courthouse to Monroe County Courthouse (Monroeville, Alabama) (or a similar name showing "Monroe County Courthouse" and perhaps conveying this is not the current courthouse of that name, what about "Monroe County Courthouse (old one, Monroeville, Alabama)" ... argh about this one please discuss at Talk:Old Monroe County Courthouse#Requested move 30 January 2021)

Another bureaucratic-type gnit, about indication of new documentation in NRHP infoboxes: for the several items of updated or expanded documentation, do we / can we be sure to note those in NRHP infoboxes somehow? I'm not sure how consistent we have been about these, and about how consistent NPS is, like whether it sometimes issues a new refnum or does not. Either way I think it's important to note into infobox but maybe not obvious how to do so. Does it require inputting a custom note? Will give a shot on this for Irvington Historic District (Portland, Oregon), which got just got additional documentation under original refnum.

Not super-obvious at all, about the webpages and docs for NHL advisory committee meeings, thanks! Adding mention at wp:NRHPHELP, specifically at wp:NRHPHELPNHLS, please feel free to expand/revise.

--Doncram (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Doncram, It'd be nice to have an entry for the Irvington Historic District instead of just Irvington, Portland, Oregon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A partial infobox was recently add to new NHL University of Wisconsin Arboretum, which (according to our list file for Dane County, Wisconsin) was listed in 2019. So I put in the refnum (16000518) and date, as well has the NHL type and date. But what about the separate NHL refnum (100006237). I don't see a field in the template for that. If there is a number for a state/city designation, we have a way to put those number in. Do NHLs not normally get assigned a different number? MB 02:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Multiple refnums can be added to the refnum field as a comma-separated list, when there is no other obvious place to put it. NHLs have not always historically been given new refnums for properties already NR-listed; this batch appears to have been assigned new ones. Magic♪piano 14:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This week's list of actions has five more NHLs. None appear to be individually listed as such.

1. Klagetoh (Leegito) Chapter House, Klagetoh, Apache, Arizona
2. First Presbyterian Church (Stamford, Connecticut), Stamford, Fairfield, Connecticut (aka the Fish Church; possibly listed as part of one of Stamford's historic districts)
3. Frieda Fromm-Reichmann Cottage, Rockville, Montgomery, Maryland
4. Western Railroad Stone Arch Bridges and Chester Factory Village Depot, several towns and counties in western Massachusetts (parts of which are already NR-listed)
5. Mary Baker Eddy House (Lynn, Massachusetts), Lynn, Essex, Massachusetts

-- Magic♪piano 22:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Archeological sites on NRHP in South Dakota

For South Dakota, there exists a state-wide report on status of archeological sites which seems perfect for supporting Wikipedia treatment, and there is already-existing Paleontology in South Dakota where I have recently been building out a table covering the NRHP listings. And creating redirects from the county list-articles' to bring readers for some info, in a wider context. For any given NRHP site, perhaps one of few in a county (such as "Archeological Site No. 39PO205" within National Register of Historic Places listings in Potter County, South Dakota), it is something to see "it's a rock art site" which could be conveyed in the NRHP county list-article. But it seems better to bring readers to somewhere they can see that is very limited, while a whole lot more is publicly known for many other sites, especially the ones that are NRHP-listed and are #1 in the site numberings of a county. Or to see this is one of how many apparently similar places in a wider geographic region that extends beyond its own county, etc.

In the process so far, it has emerged that:

• There are some major South Dakota sites for which articles are needed (and available materials justify): Ludlow Cave and Lightning Spring, probably Lip's Camp (now bluelink redirects to their rows in the table), more
• Some individual archeologists and museums and regions and related topics in South Dakota need articles: W.H. Over Museum (see Draft:W.H. Over Museum, W.H. Over, Sandstone Buttes, North Cave Hills (currently redlinks), more
• There must be relatively few connections to some big North America-level information topics, because there weren't anchors and redirects set up for Early Archaic (North America), Late Archaic (North America), Late Prehistoric (North America) (now bluelink redirects)
• It seems there are big gaps in Wikipedia coverage about official eras, periods, traditions, patterns, complexes, etc. that are currently redlinks: Pelican Lake Complex, Avonlea Complex, Hanna Complex, Plains Woodland (to extent that has different emphasis from more general Woodland period), Middle Missouri Tradition and Middle Missouri (must be covered somewhere but I don't know where yet), McKean Complex and how to generally reference "McKean sites" (as opposed to the one McKean Site which is an NRHP article already though not very satisfying IMO). There needs to be explanation of Midwestern Taxonomic System and Phase-Tradition-Horizon System of which those phases etc. are parts.
• There are gaps in Wikipedia's coverage about major other archeological-type "things" that are much more general than South Dakota: Duncan points/Duncan projectile points (redlinks which probably could be developed about within Projectile point article), more

I think my current tactic of developing out a state-wide list of NRHPs within a pre-existing state-level paleontology article is working okay. Comments welcome. How can this be done better? Can/should this be done in more states, possibly in conjunction with other Wikiprojects? I don't think WikiProject South Dakota is very active, simply don't know if there are editors in archeology-type wikiprojects who would be interested in such detail about any one state's sites. --Doncram (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for your work on this Doncram. The rule of thumb I go by is that any archaeological site that has been excavated can be presumed to be notable and deserving of a standalone article, because a typical excavation will produce multiple in-depth reports etc. and quite often a book at the end. If it was a CRM rescue excavation (as opposed to a university research project) these sources can be hard to find, but they're usually out there somewhere. The exception is sites that have only been surveyed and not excavated, where the only published information might be e.g. "a rock art site". It could be useful to collect these into lists of sites in a particular region in addition to the state-wide list.

We do seem to be missing a lot of core articles on Plains archaeology (including that one). I don't know anything about it, but the taxonomic systems used in the plains look to be a lot more formalised than usual, which should make it easier to create lists, categories, etc. and highlight content gaps. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Issues with the standard templates

So in nominating National Register of Historic Places in Linn County, Kansas as a featured list, I found out that there are several issues with {{NRHP header}} and {{NRHP row}}. So essentially, it's going to be very difficult to bring lists of NRHP sites to featured list status using those two template in their current standards. Just using color to indicate listing type runs afoul of MOS:ACCESS, the fact that the tables will sort on images and descriptions is a bit awkward, as there's no real logic behind attempting to sort tables by image or free text, and the automatically generated footnotes in the headers were viewed as awkward by multiple reviewers. It looks like I'll probably drafting a replacement table for the Linn County, KS list in my sandbox to try to get this to FL, but I feel like its worth noting here that the current standard template usage is going to be difficult to get through the featured list process. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've likewise had problems and would be glad to provide input if someone is capable of modifications. I agree with you almost entirely, except that sorting descriptions may be useful - I've used this field to indicate locally-listed sites or demolished sites, something that sorting divides into existing-demolished and/or listed-unlisted. There can likely be other examples of this usefulness sorting. ɱ (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point about the locally-listed or demolished sites. With the table I was using, they were all pretty standard things, so the descriptions were things like "The Mine Creek Bridge is 110 feet long ..." and "Built from 1882 to 1883, the Prescott School ...". If we can get ahold of someone with the know-how, maybe they could make the sorting for the description optional. That could serve both cases where sorting is advantageous and where it isn't as much. Hog Farm _Talk 04:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, there are several lists of National Historic Landmarks that have featured status (e.g. List of NHLs in MI). Symbols were added to to the number/color field as an indication of listing type. As far as I know, they all use {{NRHP header}} and {{NRHP row}}. This does not necessarily mitigate the issues you raise, however, because standards may have changed since they achieved their status. The image column should not be searchable, at a minimum, and we should have a standardized accessible way for differentiating listing types. Magic♪piano 17:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, the Michigan NHL list is great; I'll implement some aspects of it into my work... ɱ (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

If the description column is sortable then it needs to have a key to allow the readers to understand how it sorts. If there's a hidden sort on "demolished" then readers should be told that. And the key should appear with the table, not on another page. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much everything sorts alphabetically/numerically, would that not be clear? Do you have examples of tables describing how they sort? Wouldn't that only really be needed for a case of unusual or unexpected sorting methods? Anyhow, we need to include {{NRHP former header}} in our discussions, a template that seemingly doesn't sort at all even though it's supposed to. ɱ (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I said "the description column", did you miss that? I haven't even started the discussion on how e.g. "location" sorts. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Mount St. Helens for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Guidance About Notability

Would it be possible to put a link, or, even better, a box, on the project page containing guidance about notability of historic buildings and historic districts? As a reviewer, I would like to see a comment to the effect that they are considered notable, or a comment about when they are considered notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Basic notability guidance is that anything listed on an official cultural historical register (of which NRHP is one instance) is considered sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, because registration typically requires documentation sufficient to meet WP:GNG. (This has been repeatedly litigated at AFD, and objections are now usually SNOWed under); see also WP:NBUILD. This means that all NRHP listings can theoretically have a standalone article written about them. In practice, sources can sometimes be hard to come by for restricted listings, and listings made as part of a Multiple Property Submission may have at best sketchy documentation. Magic♪piano 18:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Magicpiano Is there any guidance for contributing properties of a NRHP district? Is there any guidance on their notability? Eccekevin (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Eccekevin, I don't currently see where any formal guidance is written up (having quickly checked wp:NRHPHELP, wp:NRHPFAQ, and wp:NRHPMOS). But frequently in AFD discussions, I and others have stated that a place being a contributing resource in an NRHP-listed historic district does establish that it is correct to state that it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, that the place is entitled to post a standard plaque stating that. And the NRHP nomination or registration document about the historic district might have a lot, some, or very little info about the place. It may be important in causing the historic district to be notable, or not. It is often reasonable for contributing places to be covered first as list items or table row items within an article about the historic district, or to be covered within a list of their type of thing (bridges, hotels, city halls, fire stations, or whatever) then split out to separate articles if/when size warrants. But there are also many places which are notable based on wp:GNG and have substantial articles, and it is just a secondary fact that it is also included in some historic district. Any article about a separate place can include an NRHP infobox which links nicely to any separate historic district article and provides reference numbers and dates and so on, per instructions on "contributing properties only" at Template:Infobox NRHP. In my own recent wp:AFDSTATS history, there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Townsend First Baptist Church, an AFD about a fairly nondescript church for which it could be confirmed it was within an HD but there was almost nothing known about it, and it was not mentioned in the NRHP document. I and others went along with "Delete" decision. More commonly WikiProject NRHP members such as myself are part of supporting "Keep" for contributing buildings, such as my "Keep" !vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlevoix Building despite it being destroyed (an AFD which ended "no consensus" so was kept). Most often, but not always, if a place is a contributing building in an HD and someone wants to write more about it in a separate article, they can. Hope this helps somewhat. --Doncram (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

NRHP docs reference providing links to both National Archives- and National Park Service-published versions

For the record, here's how I currently think NRHP referencing can best be done which accommodates both the National Archives-published version and the National Park Service-published version of NRHP docs, in application to article Coronado Hotel (or Draft:Coronado Hotel):

The above is what is displayed from the reference constructed as follows:

<ref name=nrhpdoc>{{cite report|type=none|url=https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75610434 |title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: Coronado Hotel|publisher=National Archives |author=Dennis Ceizyk |date=September 1982 | accessdate=March 14, 2021 }} Includes architectural plans/drawings, and four photos from 1982. ({{NationalArchivesNote}}) (That document is also available from the [[National Park Service]] in two parts, as {{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=82001622}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Coronado Hotel |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author=Dennis Ceizyk |date=September 1982 | accessdate=March 16, 2021}} (includes architectural plans/drawings) plus {{NRHP url|id=82001622|photos=y|title=accompanying four photos from 1982}}.)</ref>

Note in this case the National Archive's version is almost exactly the same as the National Park Service's version, with the National Archives version only having one more item that is not worth mentioning. Sometimes the National Archives version will also include copies of correspondence or copies of local/state nomination documents or other materials which are worth mentioning. I am very open to suggestions how this can be improved, formatting-wise or otherwise. --Doncram (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing you and I will never come to agree on this point, but I've come to really admire how the MLA prefers succinct references, simply just with the information needed for a reader to find the exact source. Therefore - the URL containing what is being cited (inventory or nomination), title, original publisher, author name, date, access date - and that's it. So my reference for something cited from the Coronado Hotel nomination would be:

{{cite report|last=Ceizyk|first=Dennis|title=National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Coronado Hotel|publisher=National Park Service|url=https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75610434|date=September 1982|accessdate=March 19, 2021}}

(Could add a "|via=NARA" if desired.) Not personally a huge fan of {{NationalArchivesNote}} - when streaming services load, they don't warn of this, nor does NARA. It's silly - modern devices are very quick, and if you know you have an archaic device or live somewhere remote, you should already know any resource-intensive task takes forever... --ɱ (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Not against being succinct. But maybe i evolve slowly, coming from experience of NPS-published documents being generally quick to load, though the NPS site was often down, while the NARA documents were scanned badly and/or their servers were poor, requiring 20-30 minutes sometimes to load in 2018 or so, astoundingly bad performance for that era requiring some note IMO. Maybe NARA is now more clearly reliable than NPS, and maybe download times are better? If reliable enough now and fast enough, then the alternative NPS stuff could be dropped. Note at least I put the NARA version first, expecting it to be the future. --Doncram (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Since 21 March I have encountered numerous cases where the National Archives' versions load quickly enough, and the briefer form preferred by User talk:Ɱ would work pretty well. But a complicated situation for Corazon de Trinidad (article currently in Draftspace in this version) illustrates my struggling here. For this historic district in Colorado, the National Park Service-hosted text and photos documents are insufficient to explain the listing, as they omit maps and NPS review documentation and correspondence and Trinidad newspaper clippings which really are crucial, but which are included only in the National Archives' documentation. That is a 170-page PDF document which for me does not download within 15 minutes (although some other documents that long have downloaded much faster), and I do think a "slow to download"-type warning needs to be given. Does downloading take excessively long for others, for this one? And another issue is how to describe the National Archives' collection of assorted items. For now I have it titled as simply "Colorado SP Corazon de Trinidad" which is what appears at National Archives' webpage offering the download, while that is not a title within the eventually-downloaded document. Suggestions welcome. --Doncram (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Doncram, do you have a full URL for the 170-page pdf? The ref in the draft just goes to https://catalog.archives.gov/id/. Schazjmd (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Now fixed in article. Links to https://catalog.archives.gov/id/84131477. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that devoured resources! Took ~6 minutes, but my computer was useless for anything else during that time. For the title, maybe "Colorado SP Corazon de Trinidad National Archives collection", just to be descriptive for the reader? Schazjmd (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's another option, about National Archives linking:

For Cactus Hotel in Texas (NRHP-listed as "Hilton Hotel"), compare https://catalog.archives.gov/OpaAPI/media/40973597/content/electronic-records/rg-079/NPS_TX/84001999.pdf, a link seemingly direct to the NRHP document (using its reference number as well as the NARA catalog number) vs. https://catalog.archives.gov/id/40973597, a link to the National Archives page (using the catalog number) which gives a window to the NRHP document. The former linking was done by User:Vami IV; i didn't know linking that way was possible. Vami IV or other, how does one find that link? --Doncram (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I linked to the file one gets sent to when they click "Download" on the National Archive item for that file. I have had to do this, by the way, because the NPS's website does not have any of the documents for National Register properties in my county available (except Fort Concho). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)