Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Alabama

Untitled
As of Dec 27, 2005, all blue links link to articles on the actual historic site, rather than disambiguation pages, or articles concerning other sites with the same name. Dsmdgold 00:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am replacing this with a county-by-county list, but have preserved all the blue link fixes. --SFoskett 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Standardizing lists
A discussion has been started on trying to standardize the format of the lists with tables and whatnot. It can be found here. Murderbike (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

showing split out city-list links
In these edits i tried showing links for the separate Huntsville list article in the top navigation section and in the Madison county section below. Is this okay? Can this be done also for Birmingham and Mobile and any future split-outs? I note the nice state-wide navbox at the bottom does include the 3 city lists separately. --doncram (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They originally were shown, but were removed. I've put the other two back, as consensus indicates that you, myself, and Spyder Monkey believe they should be there. Altairisfar 20:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, i see you added the two mentions into the Jefferson and Mobile county sections below, but did not add them to the top navigation section, like i did for Huntsville in this part of my two step edit. Isn't it helpful to have the cities show up in that top list?  I imagine most/many readers are trying to zero in as quickly as possible onto the city or county of interest.


 * There was some similar discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Minnesota about showing Minneapolis and St. Paul at top of its page, too, recently. Those cities are not split out;  it was just an informational note to help readers find the right counties for them.  Nyttend thot differently than i and some others there did;  perhaps he has modified his views now.  There would be different formatting ways to present these, perhaps could justify a central discussion about formatting at least.  Or i am happy to have it worked out at each state list.  I mainly think that major cities should be shown at top, one way or another, to help most/many readers. --doncram (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed that. I agree.  I think that having the navigational links is very helpful (and at worst not harmful), so that readers don't miss the split-out lists.  Altairisfar 22:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see the argument if there's no separate page, but if there is one, it definitely should be there. Probably, if there are enough sites in a city that you'd want to add a note, it deserves a separate page.  --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 01:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

coordinates of Cleburne County High School
Hey, User:Magicpiano, "wikiblame" finds this edit by you adding Cleburne County High School. Hey, I was puzzled to find that the coordinates put in by that edit were the same as the NRIS2013a coordinates for the Cleburne County Courthouse, which i encountered because I started the article with a NRHP infobox generator copy of the courthouse. It's a simple error, derived from your copying the Courthouse line in the table to start a line about the high school. And I have now fixed the coordinates in the new article and in the county list-article. But, FYI, whenever I am starting NRHP articles I am faithfully checking the coordinates in the county-list-article and using those if they are available and different from NRIS2013a version coordinates. Because I figure anyone who changed the coordinates in the list-article did so because they thought/knew the NRIS-supplied ones were wrong. Which I think usually is correct for me to do, but it gives me pause that occasionally I might be introducing/propagating an error, if the list-article coords are wrong. I do assume/believe that you are usually looking up exact coordinates, yourself, when you are adding items to NRHP list-articles, right? Anyhow, again thanks for your maintaining the list-articles. --Doncram (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Nationa Register of Historic Places listings in Alabama" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nationa Register of Historic Places listings in Alabama. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 17 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC  678  20:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)