Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Mahoning County, Ohio

development
Hey BFDhD and Nyttend, I noticed your recent edits on my own, and Nyttend also called my attention by a note at my talk page. It seems BFDhD must have local knowledge and also has paid attention to available sources, to add great stuff about the amusement park (apparently closed / vacant) and about the seven places covered in a Thematic Resources document. I just tried revising the list-article to recapture some of that added by BFDhD which appears to me should be in the article (in some cases with "citation needed" about sources being needed eventually, though I assume BFDhD is correct about the facts).

And I also revised the list-article to support some info that Nyttend was restoring, such as the Burt Building listing (for which I added a specific reference footnote supporting it). It appears that some difference in view between you two may derive from BFDhD relying upon www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, which you may or may not know is a private website that repackages public domain data from the National Register. Its most recent update was apparently based on the 4/2008 database that the National Register made publicly available (and hence does not include the Burt Building, listed later). Nyttend and I rely first upon a different interface, supported by User:Elkman, which also reports the National Register's database, but a more recent version, using the most recently available download from the National Register (from March 2009). Nyttend is very experienced with these sources.

Could you two please look at the current version, edited by me, as some kind of compromise, which I think captures all the most relevant info? And, let's discuss further changes here, if they would involve any changes back to previously included info, please. I hope this is helpful.

Oh, about the seven sites covered in the Thematic Resources study, I'd like to replace the sort of long note in the description column for each one of them, by a footnote, like used in List of RHPs in Syracuse to cover all the entries in that list that are in one architect-specific study. Would it be okay if I implemented a corresponding change here?

Anyhow, it's really great that you both are contributing. I'm not sure if either of you have been considering your interactions to be a "conflict" or not, but it's definitely good for the wikipedia article to have people bringing different info to bear, to be sorted out. Cheers, doncram (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I meant to say, info like the fact that the amusement park was demolished, and any other errors in the National Register information, is info that Nyttend and I very much want to learn about. We and others have identified a lot of individual errors in the National Register data, which we're trying to report systematically to the National Register. We record demolished-but-still-listed, and other types of errors, at wp:NRIS info issues. Please add! doncram (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's true that I have local knowledge, which can be a blessing and a curse, as the phrase goes. I'm glad that you appreciate my inclusion of the TR listing; I would've included more information, but one has to sleep occasionally. . . . Let me address your points:
 * First, I should note that I was incorrect about the demolition of the Rayen school. A different Rayen school was demolished recently, but it was not this particular structure. I have made this correction.
 * It is "Yellow" Creek, not "Yello" Creek. (As I indicated on your talk page, I'm sure you've noticed typographical errors from the NR in other instances already.)
 * "Poland Village" is actually the same as Poland, Ohio.
 * There is no such thing as "Canfield-Boardman" Road (Conrad Neff House). It should either be "Boardman-Canfield" Road or Ohio State Route 224.
 * The proper street name is "Federal Plaza West," never "West Federal Plaza," and it should not be confused with "West Federal Street," which is a different place altogether.
 * I like your suggestion of emulating Syracuse's NHRP list. I didn't see any footnotes there, but I presume that you are talking about linking the TRs and MRs to other pages (yet to exist) in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, a lot of the buildings on this list are in either a TR or an MR (virtually all of the buildings on Federal Plaza West and its neighboring streets are in an MR) with long names, like "Downtown Youngstown Multiple Resource Area." When these buildings were submitted for inclusion in the NR, the Ohio State Historic Preservation Advisory Board suggested that several of the buildings had the architectural and historic merit to stand on their own as individual designations, but no one ever changed the submission, and they were lumped together. Do you think there may be a better way to list them here . . . maybe list the name of the TR or MR, then link to the buildings in the summary?
 * By footnote, I didn't mean a regular wikipedia reference. What I meant was to follow the use of the footnote symbol (†) following selected place names, and use of a key defining it at National Register of Historic Places listings in Syracuse, New York.  In the Syracuse case, it's a "MPS" = Multiple Property Submission document about architecture of Ward Wellington Ward, covering 20 or so NRHP listings, quite similar to the TR document supporting 7 listings here.  I just revised the key there a little bit for clarity, too, so please check again.  In the Syracuse case, I had created a separate article about the MPS.  There's been some discussion at wt:NRHP since, and now I would not create such an article, because it really just amounts to an article about a one-time study, and we don't usually find individual studies/newspaper articles as individually notable, we just use them as sources.  It should probably be merged into the article about the architect, instead.  But, it would still be good for the NRHP list-article to identify all the listings covered by that one study. I don't knwo if your TR merits a separate article or not. doncram (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. The footnote symbol is a great idea! I am also in agreement that the TR & MR in this county don't really merit their own article, because the buildings were all designed by different architects and the true common link was their geographic location (and the fact that they're buildings).--BFDhD (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your trusting me with the facts I added (though, admittedly, I was marginally wrong about Burt and Rayen). I have added several citations, per your suggestion.
 * I don't believe that Nyttend and I have a conflict. I think we can all work together.
 * I'm not sure that I like the idea of having a picture of a vacant lot instead of an historical picture and a notation in the "summary" that says the listed property was demolished. Some people might be interested in seeing what the structure looked like, but I'm willing to go with whatever practice is deemed most popular on other NRHP list pages.
 * Thanks for the information on the NRIS issues page! You should expect me to be a contributor soon (I'll add all of the above relevant entries) !
 * --BFDhD (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! By the way, among reasons for reporting the items like Yello vs. Yellow Creek to the National Register, is that it should eventually remove the incorrect info from other sources like NRHP.COM and other mirror sites, which might update occasionally, and thence reduce future editors wish to change back to the incorrect info, with reference to those sources.  Also it provides us a record to communicate quickly with such editors.  Also, in cases where we are pretty sure but not positive about a change we are making, it should eventually bring confirmation or correction to our correction, from the National Register staff.  BTW, also, I just got back a report from the National Register confirming 66 reported items. doncram (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. the Elkman system tools available, which you might check out if you're not familiar with them all, include:
 * Infobox generator
 * Query by city
 * Query by county
 * Query by architect
 * Query by Multiple Property Submission
 * County list generator

Idora Park Merry-Go-Round
One site in question is the Idora Park Merry-Go-Round, which I listed as a "former" NRHP in the county. I also started a stub article on it, and for now describe it in the article as a former NRHP.

Actually, I am not sure of its status. It is listed in the National Register database with code "RN". I have put in an email request to the National Register to get clarification on what that code means. It may mean that it was removed from the National Register (which happens sometimes when changes are made to a property, such as moving a covered bridge from its original location), or it may mean that the property was deemed eligible for NRHP listing, but at the last minute the owner filed an objection to it being listed (which happens sometimes, and which prevents the place from being listed). The "NRHP.COM" site does not make any distinctions about these other types of situations, and just presents all National Register data as if they are currently listed. I'll report back as soon as I get a response from the National Register. doncram (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I indicated, it has not been delisted to my knowledge. You may want to contact the Ohio Historic Preservation Office to get information from them. Additionally, I'm not sure if the NY State Historic Preservation Office would have any info on it, considering that it has been moved to Brooklyn, but you may want to contact them, too. I look forward to your findings!--BFDhD (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Register of Historic Places listings in Mahoning County, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723030430/http://www4.vindy.com/content/local_regional/329914099112664.php to http://www4.vindy.com/content/local_regional/329914099112664.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)