Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Essex County, Massachusetts

Ordering
I don't understand the structure on this page. Why is National Register of Historic Places listings in Andover, Massachusetts the only list that is broken out for a direct link? Now that I have created National Register of Historic Places listings in Methuen, Massachusetts should they not be removed from the table and the table reordered? it sounds very clunky. One would think that the table on Essex county would be complete and also include Andover. color me confused. EraserGirl (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Andover has, if I remember right, the largest number of listings of any municipality in the county. It was split out simply to reduce the size of this overlarge article.  There's no reason that other municipalities can't be split out, so doing Methuen was correct, and you're right in saying that its table should be removed here.  Please replace its table here with a notice like Andover has.  I can get it later if you can't.  Nyttend (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing i don't GET is the numerical sequence. If I were to remove all of the Methuen listings i would have to reorder this entire list by hand. Which is not an attractive prospect. I need clarification of the third footnote:"Numbers represent an ordering by significant words." From what I can see the numbering is merely sequential. EraserGirl (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it has to be by hand. We've tried to find some way to automate it, but there isn't one.  No complaints; I'll do it.  As for significant words: it's sequential based on a modified alphabetical order — alphabetical for these significant words.  Typically, it's the first word, although some minor ones are not included ("the", sometimes "old", minor words like that), and properties named for individuals are alphabetised by the person's last name.  Am I making sense?  Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a method for renumbering tables pretty quickly by copying the table out to Excel and manipulating the information there. I'll be happy to do so for you anytime. Just ask. --sanfranman59 (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think I'll do that next time...I had to do it all by hand just now. Thanks for the offer!  Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well NOW I feel bad, as this was my chore to do and you all did it for me. Seriously babe, i would have done it. I save this kind of repetitive task to do when i want some busy work while i' on the phone or something. Some people do crosswords, i do this. Thanks for your efforts. I am off to go shoot some more images while the sun is out. In New England that's an oddity. EraserGirl (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I reiterate, I don't understand the ordering on this page. the numbers are meaningless and in fact hinder editing. I extracted Lawrence in order to begin working on that series of articles and reordering the list with arbitrary numbers was tedious for no real apparent reason.  I would propose that the numbers be removed from this table as they hold no real value. alphabetical ordering should suffice.EraserGirl (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi E-Girl and thanks for all of your efforts. Like you, I'm a bit of a photo bug and have photographed a bunch of sites here in the SF Bay Area as well as many in Stark County, Ohio. I enjoy the challenge of hunting down the sites. It's kind of like a treasure hunt.


 * If for no other reason, the numbering is useful for quickly knowing how many listings there are in the table. These counts are used in a variety of other articles. While I agree that they're tedious to update and are a pain when you're extracting listings from an overly large table, they do serve a purpose. The current content and structure of these tables was arrived at through a painstaking consensus-building process at WP:NRHP. If you feel strongly that the numbering should be abandoned, I encourage you to make your arguments there. In the meantime, I'm happy to number/re-number tables for you. It literally takes me about one or two minutes (tops) to renumber even the largest table by copying the tables out to Excel and manipulating them there. Just leave a note on my talk page if I may be of assistance. --sanfranman59 (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

September 2009 Scan

 * Scanned the links and made around 4 dab corrections. Found about 4 photos that I put on the Essex page KudzuVine (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

missing
Lynn Fells Parkway is missing from the Essex County list. --Polaron | Talk 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)