Talk:Cincinnati Union Terminal

Infobox error
Hi, I saw mention of this article and some recent back-and-forth about it at wt:NRHP. Perhaps the "discussion" so far was only in edit summaries? Could the issue be discussed explicitly here please?

To try to start it off, I gather one aspect is that the "date=" field in the NRHP infobox is being used abnormally, so it puts the article into an error category, which is bothersome to some. And maybe a date field "should" always just have a date in it. The usage here includes more, i.e. a reference number. On the other hand there is at least one NRHP error category (for NRIS-only) which has had thousands of members for many years.

Another aspect is the reference number treatment. In the usual NRHP infobox, there is a reference number in its own proper field, which is linked to a location at the National Park Service, which is a bad target for a link in my opinion. One can follow from that link to get to an actual PDF of NRHP nomination form and to actual PDF of accompanying photos at the National Park Service, _in some cases_, but IMHO it is better to directly link to those in a proper reference. And IMHO the link does not help readers, it directs them towards something mildly unhelpful, or very unhelpful if the PDFs are not available there. For this article, I am not sure how bad that link would be. Here, instead, the link from reference number (oddly located in the date field) links directly to a copy of the NRHP document at the National Archives. This is an idea which could be taken back to NRHP infobox design possibly.

My 2 cents: reference number in date field is bonkers;  linking more smartly to NRHP doc is better than usual practice. --Doncram (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

By this edit, I returned to usual usage of date fields in NRHP infoboxes. This edit lost the second reference number; i am not immediately sure how that should be included in the infobox. --Doncram (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi I am reworking this article, and found that the NRHP infobox was/is lacking in several respects. When I began the infobox had:


 * NRHP reference # 72001018 [2] (ref is )


 * ==Significant dates==


 * Added to NRHP October 31, 1972


 * Designated NHL May 5, 1977


 * This has a myriad of problems, especially for readers who are not used to the Register. What is a reference number? Why does that matter? Where do I find the nomination form? Both the link and the ref are dead links there. The ref is a generic link to the NRHP website. There is an NRHP link and refnum but not an NHL link or refnum. The "added to" is different from "designated" unnecessarily. One of the most irritating parts is that this all doesn't fall under one section for designations. The reference number is in a different section from the dates, which makes no sense to me.


 * Hi, thanks for responding here. I don't think you get to respond once and change things back to the way you want, just on basis that you responded, because that is edit warring, and editors should reach consensus in a proper discussion instead.  But okay for the moment, I won't immediately revert you back, though someone else might choose to.
 * About the reference to NRIS database: One unlucky fact here is that the website linked from "National Register Information System" in the standard NRIS reference is _temporarily_ broken. This has been noted and is being addressed centrally;  see wt:NRHP.  That's not reason to drop the reference to NRIS at this one article;  it will be fixed centrally.  But I will grant that I dislike what the standard NRIS reference displays, and I think it should be revised, and I am taking action on that, in that discussion at WikiProject NRHP that i just linked, which will morph over to Template talk:NRISref soon probably.  You are welcome to participate in that discussion.  But anyhow, in this article, the NRISref is being used as source for the reference number and some other info in the infobox, so it should not be deleted without sensible replacement.  Please discuss. --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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." As well, the NPS file is wrong, it actually has the 1977 NHL form, not the 1972 NRHP form. The National Archives has it correctly and has files with many, many more supporting documents as well. ɱ  (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You may have some good points here. The NPS website has often been down (although National Archives not perfect either, including about slow loading times); i am also aware of NPS website sometimes linking to wrong document.  The NRHP infobox doesn't link to NRHP nomination documents by default though (except imperfectly through linking from the displayed reference number, which I happen to think should be dropped);  maybe your points only apply to links from inline references?  I dunno I guess you are thinking that all official NRHP documents should be linked from the NRHP infobox?  Not immediately sure that serves readers.  Also I am not aware at all about what you mean by "many, many more supporting documents";  can you point to examples?  --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * NARA website has 239 pages (63 NRHP, 176 NHL), while the NRHP website only has 11 (NHL only). ɱ  (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You say "both the link and the ref are dead links here". What link or ref do you mean, besides the link from "National Register Information System"? --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at my above recreation of the infobox. There's two external links, both nonfunctional. ɱ  (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay by the other link you are referring to the link from the displayed reference number, going to https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/72001018. That is functional in that the target comes up for me.  But it is taking the reader to a place where they can browse down and choose to open a PDF of the nomination document or a PDF of the accompanying photos, rather than directly linking to them.  I happen not to like that;  i would delink that. (Not applicable here, but for archeaological sites and some other cases what is displayed there is something like "NRHP document has not been digitized" even in some cases (all the "featured listing" cases) where the NPS does in fact have a digitized version of the document available elsewhere. --Doncram (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay now that link is working for me, but it took forever, much much longer than NARA. Yet when I first replaced them, they both showed error/server down messages. And yeah they seem to never have New York NRHP noms while New York's state office of parks and recreation did have the noms (though I think that source went down, perhaps permanently). ɱ  (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * About New York State, the situation is lousy: The NPS never had most of the documents, and the state site changed from functional and delivering all NRHP documents well (even ones for archeological sites that it was not supposed to deliver), to being impossible a couple years ago... their staff denied responsibility to keep links working ...all our Wikipedia article pages' links are broken.  However I am not aware of National Archives stepping in yet there.  That is not relevant for this Cincinnati Union Terminal case anyhow.  About each states' documents, I and others have help page wp:NRHPhelp with state-specific advice.  Including about using National Archives, and for Michigan, for example, the National Archives is the only way to get to the NRHP documents, and is used in all articles indexed under List of RHPs in MI.  Without perceived need for changing infobox.... :) --Doncram (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You say there is "not an NHL link or refnum". Well in general there is no such thing as an NHL refnum;  all U.S. National Historic Landmarks are listed on the National Register of Historic Places with NRHP refnums.  Sometimes a place is listed with one refnum (and with or without simultaneous NHL designation, and then a listing expansion or other change happens and there is a second refum.  Maybe what you say is the same as me saying I don't immediately see how the infobox is supposed to link to the 2nd refnum of the site. --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is a 2nd refnum of the site, I am not sure.
 * By the way your presentation is presenting the National Archives number for the document, which is NOT the NRHP reference number that is used widely (in Wikipedia English and German and other languages, in Commons photos organizing, in National Park Service, in numerous private websites that are effectively mirrors of public domain NRIS database. See wp:NRHPHELP about relationship of National Archives to NRHP refnums, including that one can search National Archives by NRHP refnum, though it stores the documents by its own new/different number.  The National Archives number should not be presented to readers.  Truly no one knows what that is. --Doncram (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * However any fix cannot put non-date stuff into date fields. That really is just bonkers, you cannot win in any general review by editors if you insist on that.  Instead we should work out what you do want, and try to implement it properly. --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Now I am using the National Archives, which I see is now permanently hosting the nominations, not the NPS: here / here And now all of the designations are under one heading, without a confusing generic ref, and with direct working links to their nominations. There's still more to fix however.
 * It's fine that you noticed the National Archives now does have copies of some NRHP/NHL nominations; its coverage has been growing.  You are incorrect that NPS does not host NRHP/NHL nominations;  it certainly does, and it hosts most of them, including at least the one here associated with refnum 72001018:  ( With   This should be referenced in the article, not necessarily from the infobox.)  Since the National Archives coverage has increased, though, and because also there are some state websites serving up some of the nomination documents, I do think it could be good to provide for links to nomination documents at those sites in the standard infobox.  Even just to provide an alternative web source, in case one or the other website is not working.  The National Archives versions of many documents are poor though, being huge documents (i suppose scanned badly, or perhaps their servers have been bad) which take 10 minutes or more to load, vs. 5-10 seconds for National Park Service versions of the same.  That may be changing too though.  Offhand, I would support adding a National Archives document link option, at least to most inline references to the NRHP documents, maybe also to NRHP infobox, I am not sure.  In usual NRHP infobox, the refnum is linked to a location at the NPS, which in some cases is bad, and I would support the refnum not being linked at all probably.  Maybe you and I have some similar perspective here.  It may be good for elsewhere, that you are pointing out National Archive link usefulness here. --Doncram (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You are further commenting you don't like the layout of the NRHP infobox, for having listing dates in one subsection, separate from other stuff. I dunno, that seems pretty clear to me.  But it could be something to discuss about revamping the NRHP infobox.  Should this point be moved over to a new discussion at template talk:infobox NRHP?  I would like to capture what you have to say about improving the infobox layout properly somewhere, rather than approve of non-standard changes in just one article. --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Edit: I was working on this response when you reverted me. Why? ɱ  (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I was supposing that you were not going to respond, because of lack of explicit discussion on a Talk page before. Sure seems to have gotten your attention!  And you apparently have reverted another editor, so this is verging towards being an edit war, with you making more reverts than any other editor. --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Great. Why would I not respond? I've been highly active here for 10 years. I was in the middle of a response. Next time ping me or write on my talk page, don't get me agitated/continue MB's and my edit conflict. It's clear I didn't agree with that version. ɱ  (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The idea that this is problematic because it populates an error category is ridiculous. It benefits the reader, and is not an error. The fact that it is in the error category, is itself, an error. Also, the fact that other details can't be in a date section makes some sense, but it's still better than how you have it. Can I rewrite the heading to say "National designations" or "Historical designations" or similar?  ɱ  (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, will reply later about changing heading, I am not immediately sure whether good or not or whether already possible or not. --Doncram (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm looking into abandoning Infobox NRHP in favor of Infobox historic site, which has a much clearer way of laying out these designations. Someone with infobox editing skills and the user right has ought to modify Infobox NRHP at some point. ɱ  (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the NRHP infobox serves pretty well; probably it could be improved, but also you probably don't have widely informed perspective about all aspects, maybe something you think is an obvious improvement in this one case is in fact not desirable, due to good reasons.  Do let's keep talking about details, please respond to my inserted comments/questions above.  cheers, --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * We come from different places. I don't understand how you don't see all of the problems with Infobox NRHP. I listed them all clearly. Infobox Historic Site has none of those problems, so I will use that in this article, perfectly allowed and acceptable. If you want to improve Infobox NRHP or use it for all NRHPs/NHLs then I recommend taking my advice. Good day. ɱ  (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well you edit conflicted with me adding the following, about using historic sites infobox instead (and about not being too wp:OWN(?)-like):
 * The Template:Infobox historic site was adapted from the NRHP infobox by an editor no longer active. Perhaps it does handle some things better somehow, I would be glad to understand what you think, and perhaps support bringing of its ways back to the NRHP infobox. But the NRHP infobox does handle many things special to NRHP situations, not good to cover in generic historic sites infobox. (I have to grant that NRHP infobox is not required to be in articles, and it would be okay here to use historic sites infobox, with customizations for the NRHP listing and NHL designation, and a bit more effort to make sure all the same stuff is conveyed. The NRHP WikiProject certainly wants some NRHP stuff to be covered in an article about NRHP-listed places, but I grant it doesn't dictate everything about how stuff should be shown.
 * Your reply seems pretty dismissive, are you really saying you wont discuss anything because everything is obvious to you and you wont explain? Well, anyhow I wouldn't mind seeing how you would prepare a historic sites infobox instead.  It might or might not work out, and you do not own this article either. --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Tighten the intro
Hi, (Oh, first: nice work sleuthing the "Tiffany" clock at GCT!) That was an admittedly bold edit by me that you reverted. Mostly, I was looking to remove needless wordiness. Let me lay out my thinking and perhaps you'll agree with some of it.

1) I don't think we need a separate "Name" section. First off, the abbreviations CUT and CIN, as common appellations, belong in the very first graf, per general WP practice for transportation hubs. Second, the text partially duplicates text in the intro. By moving the abbreviations to the lead graf and moving facts from the Name section to the Intro, we can delete the Name section and add this:
 * The Cincinnati Union Terminal Company was created in 1927 to build a union station to replace five local stations used by seven railroads. Construction, which lasted from 1928 to 1933, included the creation of viaducts, mail and express buildings, and utility structures: a power plant, water treatment facility, and roundhouse. Six of the railroads terminated at the station, which they jointly owned, while the Baltimore and Ohio operated through services.

2) We can reduce the wordiness of the text about the murals, from:
 * Its Art Deco design incorporates several contemporaneous works of art, including two of the Winold Reiss industrial murals, a set of sixteen mosaic murals depicting Cincinnati industry commissioned for the terminal in 1931. The main space in the facility, the Rotunda, has two enormous mosaic murals designed by Reiss. Taxi and bus driveways leading to and from the Rotunda are now used as museum space. The train concourse was another significant portion of the terminal, though no longer extant. It held all sixteen of Reiss's industrial murals, along with other significant art and design features.

...to...
 * Its Art Deco design incorporates several contemporaneous works of art. Among these are two of the 16 Winold Reiss mosaic murals depicting Cincinnati industry that were commissioned for the terminal's train concourse, now demolished. The two murals now hang in the Rotunda, the building's main space, while former taxi and bus driveways are used as museum space.

3) We ought to treat the station's construction in a different paragraph then its use — and reduce its wordiness at the same time. I propose to change this:
 * The station was underutilized at its opening, though it saw peak traffic during World War II. In the next four decades, passenger traffic decreased significantly, spurring the terminal to hold several attractions to provide income, offsetting declined transit use. Train service fully stopped in 1972, and Amtrak moved service to a smaller station nearby. The terminal was largely dormant from 1972 to 1980; during this time, its platforms and train concourse were demolished. In 1980, the Land of Oz shopping mall was constructed within the interior. Its last tenant left in 1985, and two Cincinnati museums decided to merge and utilize the terminal, creating the Cincinnati Museum Center. The museum center renovated the terminal in the late 1980s, opening in 1990...

...to...
 * Initially underused, the terminal saw traffic grow through World War II, then decline over the following four decades. Several attractions were mounted over the years to supplement railroad revenues. Train service fully stopped in 1972, and Amtrak moved service to a smaller station nearby. The terminal was largely dormant from 1972 to 1980; during this time, its platforms and train concourse were demolished. From 1980 to 1985, the Land of Oz shopping mall operated in the terminal. In the late 1980s, two Cincinnati museums merged and renovated the terminal, which reopened in 1990 as the Cincinnati Museum Center...

4) While I believe that changes 1-3 will definitely improve the piece, here's one change that I'm less attached to: removing from the intro the names and descriptions of the museums, which are given lower down in this piece as well as in the linked Cincinnati Museum Center article. We can therefore turn this:
 * The building's largest tenant is the Cincinnati Museum Center, a group of three museums, a library, and a theater. The Cincinnati History Museum, Museum of Natural History & Science, and Duke Energy Children's Museum are the largest components of the museum center. The Cincinnati History Library and Archives maintains collections of Cincinnati and Union Terminal history.

...into this:
 * The building's largest tenant is the Cincinnati Museum Center, which includes three museums, a library, and a movie theater.

Your thoughts? PRRfan (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to readd some edits, one at a time; holler if there's something you'd like to discuss. PRRfan (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have about 40 tabs open and a full-time job, so this will be a while, and this subject has been off of my priority list for a long time as many people have reviewed and perfected it. But you basically re-reverted me now? ɱ  (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Perfected", of course, is an odd word to use for any WP article. In any case, after I explained the changes, as you requested, I saw you'd been active on WP for a few days without raising more specific objections, so I thought (foolishly, it turns out) that I'd been wildly more persuasive than is apparently the case. I also wanted to break up the edits, allowing you (or anyone) to address any particular edit directly. Anyway, I've made more edits than the ones you objected to, so please (of course) feel free to review any and all. PRRfan (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yup, as you might have seen, I am in the middle of looking through dozens of New York Central magazines for useful images and text, looking for an answer as to when Grand Central's main information booth was enclosed, and writing an article on the Main Concourse to split off text from the massive main article. Among other real-life projects! ɱ  (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your fine work in these endeavors is much appreciated. PRRfan (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok so here goes
-- ɱ (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I wrote the article to mirror Grand Central Terminal, where I established a new layout for train station articles, with new section headings that make sense, especially for architectural landmarks like these are. One of these is a "name" section. I like including etymology as a point of interest, and to distinguish the place from similarly-named places. Most casual readers wouldn't know why it's called a "union" terminal, nonetheless why it's called a "terminal" at all. I like keeping the abbreviations out of the lede given that there are multiple.
 * 2) Even starting this out there's too much to express, too many little details that really come down to the writer's style and preference of organization. Like I want to make it clear up front the details of what are usually called the "Winold Reiss industrial murals". Your text also shows you don't fully understand the topic - these two murals are not the same as the two that hang in the Rotunda.
 * 3) Can you call or skype me? I am finding it difficult writing out swaths of text to go over every little detail I have tried to convey in the article text, some of which are removed with your rewording.
 * - pinging you about this. ɱ  (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ɱ Sorry, MJ! Just getting back now. How shall I find your number? PRRfan (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)''
 * I can share my number via email if you email me at ematwikipedia@gmail.com, or can try to set up a skype audio and/or video call, message me there, my username is ematwikipedia! ɱ  (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)