Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 8

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

Navboxes, part 2

I spoke about possibly cobbling together some navboxes to make it easier to navigate between articles about Registered Historic Places on a county-by-county basis, and have put one together on my sandbox page, here. I'd appreciate any comments you might have on the format; if you think it works then I'd like to start working on these for various other counties. I think they'll make inter-article navigation easier. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 19:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is to create one for several properties of a county, like Template:Dakota County, Minnesota.--Appraiser (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Something like that would possibly work, too. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting Maryland

I've copyedited about half of the List of Registered Historic Places in Maryland; I got as far as Charles County before succumbing to my headache. Anyone want to tackle part of it? I may try and do some more when I get home tonight. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 20:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I take it that you are asking for some feedback? Explicitly you ask for someone else to jump in and continue what you were doing, which would be one form of positive-only feedback. Looking at your copyedit though, at Albert's copyediting before vs. after, it raises some NRHP style questions for me, and I am not sure whether the majority of your edits are improvements or not. I'm not sure what basis I would have to say that your edits are wrong, but I also don't know on what basis I could say they are improvements, either. Maybe we need to establish some guidelines (or reestablish them, was this done before?) on a few issues.
  • "Name, location" vs. "Name (location)" in filename of NRHP articles?
  • "Name, location" vs. "Name (location)" vs. "Name" in link display for reader to click on
  • "Name, location" vs. "Name (location)" vs. "Name" in leading title within the NRHP article that is linked to
  • Strive to adhere strictly to NRIS system name for an NRHP site, or not?
    • Necessary exception: when multiple sites have same NRIS name, for example "Main Street Historic District"
    • Possible exception: when site NRIS name is unique in NRIS, but likely to apply to non-NRHP sites as well: "Lancaster County Jail"
    • Possible exception: when site is also named a National Historic Landmark, and the NHL name for the site differs from the NRHP name. (Perhaps use NHL name, or use the name of the more recent designation?)
  • Ship names, in filename: downcase or UPPERCASE or use what NRIS uses
  • Ship names, in link display
  • Ship names, in leading title within article
  • Archeological site names: keep the site number if that appears in NRIS, or strip it out?
  • Boundary increase items (keep as separate list item, pointing to same article which reflects refnums of original and increase? don't delete boundary increase item if article is not created and show both the original and increase?)
  • Boundary decrease items (this has happened, do we keep track of it?)

Those are just a few of the issues that come up for me, looking at your edit. I think there oughta be an WP:NRHP style guideline to keep track of the consensus views on these issues, too. doncram (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that a manual of style would be a good idea. One thing I have noticed with churches (whether nrhp or not) is the naming convention of "Name (city, state)" e.g. First Baptist Church dab page.--Appraiser (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


That's pretty much why I posted this here - I didn't think I was stepping on any toes, but better to play it safe.
Couple of things:
  • Name (location) seems to be the norm, from what I've seen, which is why I decided to stick with it.
  • I'm keeping ship names in lowercase, because that's what convention would appear to dictate (see navy ship names, etc.)
  • I don't see much need for keeping listing numbers in the designations for archaeological sites.
Those are the only three issues that really come to mind for me. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 00:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that downcasing shipnames is needed in article filenames. As the article title, i don't particularly care, you could use whatever might be the common name for the ship. However in NRHP infobox I believe it is appropriate to show the NRHP or NHL name just as it appears in the NRHP or NHL program, all uppercase if that is how it is. Also, in a list of NRHP's, it is appropriate to display the NRHP program name, which may be in all caps, although linking to a common named article. In a list of NHL's, it is appropriate to display the NHL program name for the ship.
    • Also, replacing displayed name "CHESAPEAKE BAY BROGAN MUSTANG" by "Mustang" is just not an improvement, it loses the idea that the item is a ship entirely, besides losing the historic NRHP name for the item. I would prefer the original, in caps.
    • Going from displayed name "HELIANTHUS III (yacht)" to displayed name "Helianthus III" is also not an improvement, in my opinion.
    • Going from displayed "OLIVER'S GIFT (log canoe)" to "Oliver's Gift" also is not an improvement.
    • I don't see the value of stripping out archeological site numbers, and in my view it is preferable to use the NRHP program name for a site in a list of NRHPs, even if it includes a number, that can be part of the NRHP name for a site I suppose. And I definitely would prefer you did not strip out archeological site numbers without ensuring the number does appear in the article (so don't strip if there is only a red-link).
    • Considering it all more, I don't think it usually helps for anyone to go through stripping out information or "improving" the wording of red-linked article names, if you are not actively creating the articles themselves and bringing fresh information to bear on what names should be, from sources used in creating the articles. Having the existing wording in place, sometimes awkward-looking or ungrammatical, is sometimes helpful when creating articles, providing clues what to search for in google or otherwise in finding sources, I find. I know you are actively working on creating NRHP articles in Maryland, but this seems to me like you might be getting out ahead of yourself here. But, really, it does not matter so much, I didn't mean to get all negative like this. It's just not how I prefer to work, when I am working through a list of National Historic Landmarks which is what I mostly do.
    • A final thought: You are investing in editing a list of RHPs, when that entire list might better be replaced by a new table, generated from a new report off the NRIS database. See Elkman example table report, mentioned in a different discussion thread. doncram (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Again, couple of points.
  • "Mustang (brogan)" isn't just mine; the Maryland Historical Trust lists the ship like that. Personally, I think it's better, as listing it as "Chesapeake Bay Brogan Mustang" can be confusing - none of the other ships are listed like that (i.e., "Mystery (log canoe)", not "Chesapeake Long Canoe Mystery").
  • I think it's important to clean up lists before creating articles within them, because it helps to lay groundwork for a proper orthography. Better to catch and fix the mistakes early, and then chase them down across the board, than to pick up on them as they crop up. Well...that's how I like to do it, at least.
--User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break here. A NRHP style manual would be a good idea. We'd better get going before we get to 10,000 NRHP articles that have to be redone! WP:NRHP has got to be one of the largest WPs around! My comments: I like "Name (Location)" over "Name, Location". Archaeo site numbers are the "official" designations - at least for archaeologists - the site names are unofficial nicknames. I say use both, if that is what the NRHP uses. Einbierbitte (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

B to GA

FYI, there are currently 343 B-Class NRHP articles. I'm sure there are some that are GA ready, or close to it. Just another idea to occupy the free time, for those who have a mind in that direction. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Two such articles are The Tower Building of the Little Rock Arsenal and Marshall Field and Company Building, which are under Good Article review right now, at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Art and architecture. The first one could use some editorial help with its references; the second appears to await a reviewer to evaluate it. doncram (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I went through and fixed all the refs in the Tower Building article, it sure could use some non-online sources, but that might just be my bias. Murderbike (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Category question

User:Hmains has suggested that the state categories under Category:Protected areas of the United States should be exclusively for "natural" or "land" areas, excluding most nrhp sites. My view is that "protected areas" is a broad concept including both. Anyone else have thoughts on the topic?--Appraiser (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the World Conservation Union (IUCN) definition at Protected areas article, protected areas are natural conservation areas. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas uses that definition and developed many articles using the Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas/Infobox that has been applied to some NRHP sites that I have encountered from time to time. However, now that I look at some of them, i think the "Protected areas" label has been misapplied sometimes. The IUCN definition includes 5 categories, including "National parks" and "Natural monuments". Somewhere someone seems to have misread the word Natural as National, and then gone through all the U.S. National Monuments applying the Protected areas infobox. For all 5 National Monuments in New York state, that seems to me like a missapplication. For example, I was remarking to Hmains that African Burial Ground National Monument, in downtown New York City, has no naturalness whatsoever to preserve, that it is a paved area with buildings and a physical monument and at best a patch of grass, which may in fact be astroturf. It is labelled "Natural Monument". For Fort Stanwix National Monument is labelled a "Seascape/landscape", when in fact it is a fort. On the other hand, perhaps all eight of the National Monuments in California might be natural places, such as Pinnacles National Monument. However, in general, National Monuments seem sometimes to be named for historical, un-natural places and the Protected areas infoboxes ought to be removed. The infobox seems to apply a Protected areas Category to articles in which it is used, automatically. I don't suppose there is a list of World Conservation Union designated protected areas to refer to, is that right? In that case, the use of "protected areas" in wikipedia seems to have some subjectivity in the application decisions. doncram (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The sites using the IUCN infobox and associated categories may or may not belong there. They really need to be looked up in [1] to make a determination.--Appraiser (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability

Some of our more knowledgeable members may want to join in at the discussion for this new proposal as it would have a huge effect on our project if it were adopted: Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation). Just thought I would give a heads-up. Altairisfartalk 18:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is the proposal?--Appraiser (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The link IS the proposal. Murderbike (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Duh. Thanks--Appraiser (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Couple questions

I'm working up the tables for the King County, Washington list, and came up with a couple things. First, do we have a set agreement on what to do about all these boats that move around? I've got several listed in Seattle, that don't actually exist in Seattle anymore. It seems like the listings should stay, and have a note to where they are presently if possible, so that somebody looking for a boat listed in Seattle doesn't get confused by its absence from the list. Second, should we have a guideline for when it makes sense to put a city with a ton of listings into a table separate from the rest of the county that it's in? Murderbike (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In your List of Registered Historic Places in King County, Washington, I count about 85 NRHPs in King County outside of Seattle, and about 166 in Seattle. If you are moving towards doing full list-tables, then you need to split it into two list-articles simply due to the looming page-size issue. Note in NHL list-table-articles, Philadelphia is split into separate article from rest of PA, and NYC is split from rest of NY, due to page-size issues. 166 is pretty many, but you may be able to keep those all in one article for Seattle alone. doncram (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
About the ships that have moved from Kirkland, WA into Seattle, WA and vice versa, and other within-state moves, I think it makes sense to list a ship in its current "permanent" location, but I don't personally think it is all that important to keep a record in the list-table where it would have appeared if it were still in its old location. For Nantucket (lightship), an NHL ship that moved from NYC to Oyster Bay, NY, we haven't bothered to keep a record in the NYC NHL list-table (although we do mention the move from the old location in the article about the ship itself). Within-state moves don't really make a difference in reconciling to the National Park Service list document of NHLs, which is organized at the state level. Unless there is some prominent list of NRHPs in Seattle to which you wish to reconcile, a ship move seems non-notable to me. If there is a list to reconcile against, you could do that in a footnote, anyhow, you don't need to keep a full entry on the ship in its old location. My 2 cents. doncram (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's at least one (the previously discussed Fir) that HAS moved out of state. And for the lists, I'm definitely having the King County list be organized by Seattle and non-Seattle tables. I was kind of thinking about the issue more because of countys like Spokane or Whatcom where there is definitely a town that has the majority of sites, but not necessarily as unbalanced as King or Pierce Counties. Murderbike (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Mewonders, why ask explicitly about Seattle vs. King County, if u r already decided, then? We discussed this with respect to Tacoma and whatever its county is, already, too. If the city-list-table and the rest-of-its county list-table can fit in one article, then fine, leave them in one article, though in 2 lists (and the city list to describe localities as neighborhoods, while the rest-of-county list to describe localities as townships). cheers, doncram (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, so I don't have to make a decision every time I do a county's tables. It seems like there should be a standard, not just me making decisions on what I think it should be. I was trying to get some consensus. And I'm not just talking about when a county has its own article. I didn't plan on spinning Whatcom County out of the Washington list, but Bellingham has a greater number of sites than any other locality, and am curious if it would be silly to be put them in separate TABLES, not separate ARTICLES. And this applies to a ton of other counties, not just Seattle and Tacoma and their respective counties. Murderbike (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Colors

I think consistency is a good idea. I did the little chart below to see what we're talking about - interesting to see them all together.

  1. I'd suggest that columns 1, 11, and 12 should all be the same color; so all lists of National Register of Historic Places should head the columns with the same color that most nrhp infoboxes lead with. And the template should also be changed to match. This is a great time to decide this, before 1000s of lists are created.
  2. All Lists of National Historic Landmarks should head their columns with the color from column 3. Most are currently either white or black - these should be brought into consistancy.
  3. Columns 8 and 9 should be different colors (it's not like there's a shortage).
  4. Maybe some of these should be changed to more pleasant colors. I find some of them "less than ideal."
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
NRHP color HD color NHL color NHLD color NHS color NBAT color NMEM color Subtitle color CP color NMON color Template color trial color
top of most nrhp infoboxes Historic District National Historic Landmarks Historic Landmark Districts National Historic Site National Military Park National Memorial Subtitle Contributing Property National Monument {{Registered Historic Places}} Color I tried in Dakota County List

If we want to change any of them, here are some possibilities:

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Fortunately since these are in templates, the amount of work to make a change is minimal. List the numbers of the ones you like and don't like here and sign. And add more colors to the suggestion table if you want.--Appraiser (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So, in a list of all the NRHPs, how would we separate out all the different classifications of sites? Murderbike (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
They are determined by the "type=" field in the infobox, but other than the nhls, many (most?) of them are currently blank.--Appraiser (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I can't tell if I'm confused or not. What i'm wondering about is in the list of NRHPs, which includes NHLs and HDs and whatnot, will the list/table separate them all by color? If so, how? Murderbike (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just thinking about colors in the infobox, the template, and the top row of the List articles. Rows of the Lists could be colored, either in column 1 only, or all across, but it's against the WP:MOS to use color alone to convey information, due to monochrome users (see Wikipedia:Colours).--Appraiser (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In the Dakota example list now, the 3 historic districts are color coded, in their first column, differently than the color coding of the other 30 regular NRHP rows, for illustration. Thank you to Appraiser for figuring out how to do this! doncram (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's cool. But, are we gonna go with the blue instead of that weird brown for the RHPs? Sorry if I'm just buggin' ya while you're still working on it. Murderbike (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Whut, u no like brown? I think/hope this is no problem per Wikipedia:Colours, the text info that some rows are historic districts and others are not is there. The colour difference helps the majority of readers. P.S. the way it is done now in Dakota example is hard coded with the color information, but an appropriate transclusion or template could be devised so the color would not be hard-coded. That way the preferred colour for NRHP historic districts, say, could be changed in just one place, and all list-article pages having historic districts would be re-colored automatically. doncram (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not necessarily that I don't like the brown, but that I think it should be consistent with the infobox. Does this violate WP:COLOURS? Does it not seem like a good idea? Murderbike (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
By Appraiser's first point, he is saying he agrees with you. I agree also. We all like consistancy, if not spelling courectly. :) The brown should be converted to the blue, or vice versa, or we should go with another colour altogether. doncram (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) How does List of NHLs in NY look now, trying it with current color coding scheme for regular NHLs vs. NHLDs? doncram (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break (index number)

I think Don's idea of changing the first column (with a small index number) in NRHP and NHL Lists to match the infobox color is a good one. And yes, Murderbike, I'll replace the beige (color #12 above) with color #1 in the header row of nrhp lists. I'll also change #11 to #1 for consistency (better spelling?). Looking at the colors in NHL NY, I find the turquoise (#4) next to #3 rather hideous. How about if I replace #4 with #22 in the infobox template? (And also in the first column of nhld in the nhl lists). Also, I'd like to replace #8 with #23 and #9 with #26, just because that apple green hurts my eyes. Any objections?
Don, I love the idea of using a template to put the colors in the first columns and first rows, so that we can change them easily later. I'll try that on the Dakota County List when I get a chance.--Appraiser (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, that pink (for NHLDs) clashes way too much with the aqua. I like the idea of the colors being in the same general blue-green range. Maybe some of them could be different shades (I think the current NHS one doesn't work; teal is very difficult to work with in this context and I could go for #29 instead) but we should stick with the cooler colors (however, I have no objection to the NMON beige). Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your input. I really didn't like colors (3) and (4) interspersed with each other in the NHL NY. As an experiment I switched (4) to (22), trying to make the relationship between (3) and (22) sort of similar to the relationship between (1) and (2). An alternative might be to change (2) into the blue/green family and maybe tone down (4) somewhat for a better appeal. Thoughts?--Appraiser (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounding good. I like blue-green colors, but am keeping in mind the colors are secondary to the information. I suspect that common colorblindness may have trouble with these colors, and darker shades make black text harder to see. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I switched (4) to (29); this looks OK (see NHL NY). I also created templates for 1, 2, 3, and 4, which should make future color changes easy.--Appraiser (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
What are these templates you speak of? Should I be using them? Murderbike (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I just created {{NRHP color}}, {{HD color}}, {{NHL color}}, and {{NHLD color}} for use in the List articles (both NHL and NRHP) and in the infobox templates. I'll eventually create one for all the types (colors 1-12 above), so if anyone ever wants to change the colors, it can be be in just one place. You can look at the Dakota Co. list and the NY NHL list to see how they are used. The idea is that the top-row color matches the color in the infobox for the type of list, and the color in column 1 of each row matches the color for the specific type of property that it is (e.g. Landmark, Memorial, Monument, etc.)--Appraiser (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I like the color changes, especially to the navbox. Only... why is the name field in the infobox no longer centered? Altairisfartalk 19:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
example?--Appraiser (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The name field/title is no longer centered in the Infobox nrhp template. It was before the last change to it. Altairisfartalk 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see what you're seeing. For example, in the infobox in Dakota County Courthouse, the title looks centered on the sky blue field at the top of the box. Does it look off-centered to you? If not, wikilink one that looks off-centered. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the title text is on the left in the NRHP infobox for all NRHP articles that I've taken a look at, both in Firefox and Explorer. It's weird if it's only like that for me, it changed from centered to left after your last edit to the template. Altairisfartalk 19:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I hit a snag, what do I do when something is both a Landmark and a Historic District? Which color should it get? Murderbike (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That's an NHLD = National Historic Landmark District, #4 on the color chart above. doncram (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)I'm thrilled to see the NYS NHL list got redone with use of new NHL color and NHLD color templates, thanks Appraiser! And Alistairisfar(sp?) did Alabama NHL List... Neat how this whole discussion has been going so productively, good work everyone involved! Here's a question about the templates though, because actually the number of characters used matters in the larger lists, and the numbering has been wasteful in terms of cranking up pagesize. Can the color template for each row also include the small number? I don't know if including an argument in a template is easy. But what I would like, to replace "((NHL color)) | (small)17(/small)" (with parentheses substituted for the necessary squiggly brackets or angle brackets, just to make this readable) would be something that would just be like "((NHLnum|17))" or "((NHLcolor|17))" or "((NHLsm|17))" for NHL color plus use of a small number, trying to use a name that is descriptive enough and also is compact. doncram (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Aside from hard drive space, what does the pagesize matter? For a regular article, you can't the actual text for size, not the size of all the code. Murderbike (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Pagesize becomes visible right at the beginning of an edit when you edit a larger-size page, like List of NHLs in NY (which we split into NYC vs. rest of NYS already). And i think pagesize also is visible in edit history. Pagesize nearing 100kb generates warnings; there are guidelines for good articles and featured articles that would not allow a larger-than-100kb page. It is my impression that the pagesize measured corresponds to the number of characters in the page-document, and that you can "trick" that by transcluding in text from elsewhere. I could be wrong, i am not positive. doncram (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
NHLsm template created. Pagesize space matters I created template NHLsm, which is template "NHL color" modified to include a pipe and "small". It saves 13 characters per line when used in list-articles that use small numbering. In the NY NHL list, using it 135 times or so cut the article filesize by more than 1%, which happens to be very crucial right now, as the article is pushing 100kb. The filesize reduced to 100,189 bytes from 101,958 bytes by that one change. doncram (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm. It certainly is less work to insert {{nhl color}} than to include the index number in the template (from an editing standpoint. Using search and replace feature in my browser, I added all the color to List of National Historic Landmarks in Alaska in about five minutes. The hardest part was figuring out which ones are districts.) Since every template slows the article load time considerably, I am a little concerned about adding all these color templates—but having the ability to change the color scheme on 1000s of articles later seems worth that drawback. Concerning file size issues, I'd say if a county has more than about 200 nrhps, I'd look into further breaking it into sub-lists, either by locality or some sub-topic, rather than worrying about a dozen characters in each entry—that's pocket change.--Appraiser (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the NY NHL page, I don't think the colors for NHL's (3) and NHL districts (4) are different enough. It looks a little like we were trying for the same color but messed up. They look different enough here in th table, but not there. Maybe a lighter shade for 3?Lvklock (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Better now? I changed it back to coloe #4 above. I'm using a differet momitor today and it looks better than it did on my other one.--Appraiser (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, better now. Definitely can tell them apart better--on whichever monitor I use.Lvklock (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of putting the numbers in the color templates, is it possible to just put a "#" in there, so that as new sites get added, I don't have to renumber the whole list? Murderbike (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think not. Once created, the list won't change often. Somewhat of a pain editing wise, until it settles down. doncram (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it safe to assume that any site that includes "District" in the name is either a "Historic Landmark District" or just a plain ol' "Historic District"? For example, in the SF list, there's the "Lower Nob Hill Apartment Hotel District". I'm color-coding it as a Historic District unless someone educates me otherwise. Also, don't we need another category for "National Historic Park"? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The "HD" abbreviation is unfortunate, I think it should be changed to NRHD for National Register Historic District, or something like that. A historic district is a general term used by other levels of government, such as New York City which has declared many that are not also listed on the National Register.
For List of NHLs in NY, I note that I need to use NMEM, NHS, NM which are, happily, covered already unambiguously, but I take it San Francisco is already more complicated? doncram (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break (more labels)

In addition to NRHP regular and historic district flavors, the color scheme arguably should be expanded handle all 9 categories of Naptional Park System units automatically included on the National Register. These are (per Appendix C of the National Park Service's NHLlist PDF document, p.110, using the National Park Service abbreviations): IHS, NB, NBP, NBS, NHS, NHP, NMEM, NMP, NM. The color scheme currently covers perhaps 4 of those: NHS, NBAT (ambiguous as to whether corresponds to NB, NBP, NBS and/or NMP), NMEM, and NMON (corresponds to NM). For consideration, I tabulate our coverage of these, ordered by rough counts of the number of each site (counts for several by quick inspection of List of areas in the United States National Park System:
our current abbrev & color NPS abbrev suggested abbrev count of sites what it means
NRHP NRHP 79,000 National Register of Historic Places
HD NRHD ? National Register Historic District
NHL NHL 2,400~ National Historic Landmark
NHLD NHLD 200? National Historic Landmark District
NMON NM NM 80-100? National Monument
NHS NHS NHS 90~ National Historic Site
NMEM NMEM NMEM 45? National Memorial
NHP NHP NHP 42? National Historic Park
NB NB NB 11 National Battlefield
NMP NMP NMP 9 National Military Park
NBP NBP NBP 3 National Battlefield Park
NBS NBS NBS 1 National Battlefield Site
IHS IHS IHS 1 International Historic Site
NBAT ? ? ? ?

Am I missing NHR? Murderbike (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve to which you refer is a NPS area, but I think it is not an NRHP, so we don't need to cover it. It is the only "National Historical Reserve" listed in the List of areas in the United States National Park System. BTW, searching for "Ebey" in the Elkman NRHP infobox generator coughs up Central Whidbey Island Historic District, which appears to be included in the "Ebey's Landing National Historic Reserve" (Aside: note uses "Historic" not "Historical"). doncram (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, weird. Murderbike (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I created templates for each of these categories.--Appraiser (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please add descriptions of each of the acronyms to the above table? Among San Francisco's sites is Fort Miley Military Reservation. Which acronym applies here? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Appraiser added a descriptions column to the table above, which has been transforming rapidly. Fort Miley Military Reservation is not a National Park Service administered area. It is a regular Registered Historic Place or Registered Historic District. "Military Reservation" is just part of its name, like some places are called Forts, and there is not a separate category for Forts, either. doncram (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
How do you tell whether it is a regular NRHP or a historic district? That's a good question. Maybe we should not go into color coding and categorizing these, if we don't have a definitive way of determining what type every site is. The National Register of Historic Places article describes how there are 5 categories of historic places: Buildings, Structures (includes ships), Sites, Objects (e.g. a monument), Districts, and in a footnote gives link to big PDF NPS article "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation". Why distinguish Districts vs. other four categories? And, if you wanted to color code using all 5 categories, again how would you determine which each one is? I am not aware of the NRIS system directly supporting that or not; it doesn't come out in the Elkman report anyhow. doncram (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The aforementioned for-profit NRHP website separates Historic Districts into their own page. That's how I coded the Pierce County listings. Murderbike (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break (color meaning)

(unindent)How do we let readers know what the different colors mean? Do we include a legend in each list article, perhaps somewhat similar to the above table? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Anybody home? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not resolved what to do. For the NY NHL list, i am not eager to add a big legend table. On e reader did question at Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City why its second row is colored differently. I noticed the color did not appear in the corresponding article, and fixed that. Is it enough that the color appears in the corresponding article, so a clever, interested reader would be able to figure it out? I'd rather not state the obvious. And, per wp:SELF the list-article should be about the historic sites, not spend time talking about wikipedia. For the NY NHL article, space is a big issue already, too. Sanfranman59, why don't you try adding a legend table to the San Francisco RHPs list-article, and let's see how well that works? Be bold :) doncram (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I definitely think that it would be good if a key was invented, it seems like a bad idea to have to depend on users to click on an article and then deduce from the infobox what the colors mean. Otherwise it just looks random. Murderbike (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the color templates could accept a parameter, which would usually be the number in left column of the list, and emit both the color code and HTML to link that number to the explanation of the standard NRHP table format (including the color key). -- SEWilco (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, part way along those lines, the NHLsm template now accepts a number argument, and displays that number in small font. This is now implemented 135 times or so throughout the NY NHLs list. Another version, more fully implementing SEWilco's suggestion, could also wikilink the number to a Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend. In a list-article, I suggest that only the first instance of a new color should be wikilinked to the Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend. doncram (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, new NHLsmlegend template now accepts a number argument, and the number is wikilinked to Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend. For example it is used in just the first row of List of NHLs in NY, and it is pretty subtle, especially as the number 1 that the user must find and click on is in small font. Not sure that this actually helps general readers very much, but perhaps they will find it. doncram (talk) 07:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And on the lists with red and white stripes it shows Waldo. -- SEWilco (talk) 07:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Even better, newer NRHPlegend template accepts/requires 2 arguments: the NRHP type (e.g. NRHP, HD, NHL, NHLD, NMON, etc for which colors are defined), and a number which will be displayed in small font and wikilinked ot Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend. I used this to give "legended" numbers to the first row and all the unusually colored rows in List of Registered Historic Places in Dakota County, Minnesota as well as in the NY NHL list. Also, new NRHPsm template takes just a number argument, and is used in most regular NRHP rows in the Dakota County list. doncram (talk) 09:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (number legend)

(unindent)While I like the general idea of adding color to our lists, I doubt that many (even curious) people are going to know to click the number to bring up the legend. At least I don't find it intuitive. Nor do I like the idea of adding a legend to each list article. How about adding a reference to the column header that links to the legend page as I've done with List of Registered Historic Places in San Francisco, California? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that with a design based upon the table that making the legend available on the table (such as in the upper left corner) makes sense. However, I used a design based upon the reader's focus upon different colors to come up with the idea of linking the colored leftmost column to the legend. We can't link a background color and adding an icon didn't seem necessary, as we had an unlinked number over there which we could overload with a link to a table key. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a footnote in the upper left cell of the table would be appropriate. I think an expanded footnote text is needed, in fact, to explain also that the numbering is semi-alphabetical, based on first significant word in the landmark name. So Sanfranman59, I tried expanding on your example footnote in the San Francisco list, and I also tried adding similar footnotes to top left table cells in List of Registered Historic Places in Dakota County, Minnesota and List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. doncram (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, Doncram. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Adjusting colors

The NMEM color was "WhiteSmoke" which showed no effective difference to no-color background in the default Wikipedia view for me. I chose just now to change its color to #cccccc grey, which was being used by NHP, and I gave a new lavendar color to NHP, picking that out of a list of colors that are "web-safe". Grey is somber and goes with the nature of a National Memorial. Hope this color change is okay, and that it ripples through every it is supposed to. I literally just changed the color given in "Template:NHP color" and in "Template:NMEM color". Also I used the dark Salmon color in a new "Template:NHR color" for the one National Historic Reserve, now added to Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend. doncram (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I just got a headache from one random non-historic page's choice of table colors. There are enough editors in it that someone will find some better colors. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the nod. I should say the NHL list-tables for each state which you produced en masse back in September or October have been working out very well. As I mentioned elsewhere, the NHL lists are now 80% complete (in terms of having better-than-minimal stubs for 80% of articles). Getting this far is building on those list-tables. Further, I think the colors are working well; they are an enhancement also building on the same list-tables. Thanks again for your good work back then in producing them. doncram (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with the change too. You will need to go into the templates at [2] to update the colors too though.--Appraiser (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, i likewise updated "Template:Infobox nrhp/NRHP nmem" which should take care of the NMEM color change, consistent with "Template:NMEM color". However, I can't find a "Template:Infobox nrhp/NRHP nhp" to change to implement the other part of color changing for NHP, and in fact I begin to think NHP is not yet a valid argument for nrhp_type in NRHP infoboxes, although it should be as NHPs are automatically NRHPs. By the way, the "Template:Infobox nrhp" documentation describes just eight available nrhp_type arguments:
   * cp - Registered Historic District Contributing Property
   * hd - Registered Historic District
   * nbat - National Military Park
   * nhl - National Historic Landmark
   * nhld - National Historic Landmark District
   * nhs - National Historic Site
   * nmem - National Memorial
   * nmon - National Monument
The documentation and/or the actual coding needs to be changed to accomodate NMP, NBP, NHP, IHS, NHR and anything else covered in Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend, and, in my view, NBAT could be dropped. Missing throughout is any accomodation for what might be termed NHLCP, for National Historic Landmark District Contributing Property. Also, multiple editing situations are coming up where it would be helpful/essential to have a 2nd nrhp_type for a second subtitle row in the NRHP infobox, perhaps "nrhp_type2", so that, for example, a property which is both an NHL and an NHS, can properly show both of those types and colors. For example, in List of National Historic Landmarks in Washington, in the NHL table we are currently showing NHS color for some rows. The articles for those sites should show both NHL color and "National Historic Landmark" subtitle, and also show NHS color and a "National Historic Site" subtitle. doncram (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I know there's a lot to be done in organising these different types of properties, but I haven't tried to do it myself because I often don't seem to have information that tells which category a particular site should be in, other than "nhl", "nhld", and "hd". Don, go ahead and create the ones we are missing and hopefully at some point we'll find documentation that will allow us to sort them. And a subtitle line which would allow a second color would be good too.--Appraiser (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There need be no guess-work. There are, I believe, exactly 293 instances of NPS designations higher than NHL (NHS, NMEM, etc.) and these sites are listed explicitly. Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend provides links to lists of each type, and now provides exact counts by type that total up to 293. Revising the NRHP infobox code in Mediawiki language to implement the missing types, and to add the optional nrhptype2, is more than I can manage, unfortunately. :( doncram (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_8&oldid=1051966721"