Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Oregon

Untitled
doncram (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * New listing of Young, John Quincy Adams and Elizabeth, House, should this be John Quincy Adams and Elizabeth Young House suggesting 2 different last names (as had been added to the old list) ? Leaving at the NRIS-system version Young, John Quincy Adams and Elizabeth, House suggesting one last name for the both, for now.  Redirect should be set up from other, when article created.
 * In Forest Grove, what is proper name of what was, on old list, Benjamin, Jr. Cornelius House? Perhaps should be Benjamin Cornelius, Jr., House?  Put in that way for now.  Redirect should be set up from other, when article created.
 * It should be Benjamin Cornelius, Jr., House. With the first, I think John Quincy Adams Young House is best, as that is what the owners and media generally refer to it, and it helps remove some confusion since the guy had two middle names. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Benjamin Cornelius one is done then. Also, if the man's last name is Young as your suggestion indicates, then also I think the current version for listing in this NRHP table is correct.  It properly suggests that Young is his last name, unlike the other version.  Certainly it can be a redirect to a differently named article using just the man's name.  Aargh, maybe i should just create the article that way then and put in your helpful references.  Will do. doncram (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

COTW sources
Some sources:
 * Boundless Oregon (note images are not public domain)
 * State Parks Dept. listings
 * Oregon Historic Sites Database
 * National Parks Service
 * Maybe the Washington Co. Museum
 * Newspapers: Portland Tribune (which includes the other local Pamplin papers in their search), The Oregonian (includes the Hillsboro Argus too, but with both only goes back a year or two), and rarely Willamette Week.
 * Other, Google Books/News, a regular search, maybe Oregon Home magazine, and if near a library:
 * And to make searches easier, add to the talk page. You can also do  by itself, but doesn't work so well if there is a dab in the article title or a combo of names of the structure. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweek house - Aboutmovies (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweek house - Aboutmovies (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

about finding NRHP document sources
Hey, how are people finding NRHP documents for Oregon NRHP-listed places? For example, the list-article now includes a reference to an available PDF for the Young, John Quincy Adams and Elizabeth, House (aside: there was some back-and-forth edits about how to format it best, about which I have no strong opinion at all. Current formatting fine by me). But how would you find that? I tried searching on "Quincy" at http://heritagedata.prd.state.or.us/historic/index.cfm?do=v.dsp_main, which allows me to get to some info about the place (at this page), but that is a database output page that is very inferior to a PDF file of the actual NRHP nomination document. I just wonder if there are a lot more good PDF documents that could be found. doncram (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above places are the usual spots, but with the nomination documentation it is hit or miss. More recent listings will have more info on the state site, and sometimes the Univ. of Oregon site. I have also come across some here from a person who is a reliable source. The main part of her site has some links, but if you manipulate the URL on the other one you can go through the other listings (i.e. change the 43 to 42 to 41, etc.). Hope that helps, otherwise it is just luck. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Oregon SHPO posts PDF nomination docs/photos and HTML summaries for the most recent listings in the state here &mdash; in theory it covers only the most recent 6 months, though what's up there as of today goes back over a year. That's where I picked up the noms for JQA Young House and Painter's Woods for example. For others like Beaverton Downtown HD that aren't available over the web, I've been requesting copies via e-/snail-mail from the NPS (instructions here) or the SHPO, though NPS is more responsive and more likely to use e-mail. (Which is saying something given how technologically 20th-century NPS is overall.)
 * BTW, Kimberli Fitzgerald is certainly a solid, authoritative resource, but I note that parts of her web site are a bit out-of-date. Just something to be aware of when gathering info there. &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm copying some info here to the tips for Oregon section at wp:NRHP.  Thanks! doncram (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

41 vs 42
The lead section of this article states that there are 41 NRHP buildings in Washington County, but I see 42 listed. Am I missing something, or should the lead be updated? Thanks,  Little Mountain  5   02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just updated the number. A new one was added in June, but the lead wasn't updated. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. My mistake - I added Painter's Woods but failed to increment the counter. Thanks for the catch and the fix. &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes by Nyttend of 2010-09-09
I have several concerns regarding Nyttend's edits today, which I detail below and regarding which I have invited Nyttend to a discussion. &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All of my changes are attempts to get this list toward a standard format that's followed by most or all other state lists; they're attempts to correct deviations from the standard, rather than being deviations from a standard. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I begin to sense the roots of our difference in viewpoints. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but your perspective is that the way a certain aspect of the NRHP tables is handled in the majority of states should be applied to the remainder of the states without a great deal of consideration whether that minority approach may have merits of its own. My counter-perspective is that some variation from a standard is acceptable when a case can be made that the variation makes sense in the context of the individual article. Note that I'm not saying that a standard is in itself a valueless exercise; indeed, I believe there are cases were the minority approach ought to be propagated to the majority of articles as the standard (e.g. the "landmark" issue below). Good-faith discussions should lead to a balance between adherence to a standard and recognition of acceptable local variations, yes? &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ipoellet's last sentence, for sure. A good example is the National Register of Historic Places listings in Hawaii main page and subpages, where major changes from the more usual table formatting were implemented by agreement, somewhat tediously won, at its Talk page.  There, as in Oregon, there exists an active group of good local editors, but there were further differences that seem truly specific to Hawaii (mis-match of legal counties vs. island geography; use of okinas and other Hawaiian language marks).  Here, of the issues stated i don't see anything particularly different about Oregon or its Washington County.  Some of the aspects of a "standard format" should perhaps be revisited and the standard changed, for everywhere else.  There are several discussions on other aspects of "standard format" currently open at wt:NRHP or just-archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 44.  Since Ipoellet has taken the time to politely open discussion on several aspects here, I think it would best to discuss these ones here, with notice given to wt:NRHP, which i will post. --doncram (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All right, no one has commented in a couple days, so I'm going to propose a conclusion to this particular discussion. If no one objects by–say–tomorrow, then I'll implement this conclusion in the article.
 * ''Retain the "site" column header in preference to "landmark", but encouraging a continuing discussion toward nationwide consensus since neither of those appears to satisfy everybody.
 * ''Per Doncram's suggestion, delete the in-cell references to Google Earth and "adjusted by editor", and replace them with a note in the column header. Retain other pre-existing in-cell references.
 * ''Delete the "approx" note with regard to the coordinates for the 3 HDs in Washington County, which are not linear in shape. Leave the discussion regarding linear districts for elsewhere.
 * ''Retain the "vicinity" note in the City/Town column where it appeared as of 2010-09-08, but with the understanding that editors with local knowledge might remove the note on a case-by-case basis later.
 * Copacetic? &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I support Ipoellet's implementation, as in this edit and subsequent refining edit(s). In that edit, Ipoellet, was it perhaps inadvertent for you to slightly change the actual coordinates for 3 or 4 sites, besides just deleting separate reference for their having been adjusted?  I support use of best, adjusted coordinates.  I defer to your judgment on what those are, as you may indicate in your making further refining edits or in not doing so.  Thanks. --doncram (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The coords that were previously used on those 3 listings were just me eye-ing in a placemark based on visible features on the ground – very subjective. What I did was reset those 3 coords to those given by a Google Earth software search on the street address provided by OPRD – somewhat more objective. The new wording in the footnote provides for editors using the more subjective approach if it's needed to attain a semblance of accuracy, but I don't think we should rely on that more than absolutely necessary. (I did, however, retain the more subjective coords in one case - the Fanno Farmhouse.) &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) Column header change from "Site name" to "Landmark name". The "landmark" locution should be avoided with reference to the National Register due to the potential for confusion with the National Historic Landmark program, a similar and closely-related &mdash; but different &mdash; heritage register in the US. I think "landmark" came into widespread use in other National Register lists because the NHL program was assembled into Wikipedia table lists first, then the NRHP lists were modeled on those. It's not necessary that "site" be used in the NRHP lists, but "landmark" definitely should be avoided.
 * These are still landmarks, despite not being NHLs. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, in an extremely generic sense. However, it seems to be rather poor presentation of material to knowingly select verbiage that could lead to misunderstandings by readers. And this applies both here and in all other NRHP lists: "landmark" is unduly vague and should be replaced by a different word to avoid confusion. Just because the current "standard" employs loose writing in this fashion does not mean that the few lists that use a better approach should be returned to the lesser approach. &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion about what is best, but it is worth considering and would apply more broadly. As far as i know, there is no "standard" for this point for NRHP list-articles established by any Featured List candidacy or even any peer review (there has never been a FLC or a PR for a NRHP list that is not a NHL list, i believe).  In the absence of a pretty-well-considered consensus, I tend think local editor(s) decision to deviate from the "standard" should be accepted indefinitely.  Assuming no magical consensus appears here, i think it should be up to NRHP nation-wide NRHP editors (like Nyttend and me) to allow keep note in a central tracking workpage, for continued revisiting later.  If/when some great new wording is invented, or a solid consensus established, we could come back to revisit this here with the local editor(s) who implemented a different-than-standard approach.  My point is the onus should be on nation-wide editors seeking to make a standard, for a non-obvious nuance.  But, maybe a consensus for one wording or another could be established here. --doncram (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(2) Deletion of inline citations in individual cells throughout When this table was compiled, each column (with the exception of the photos and the narrative summaries) drew on one or the other of two comprehensive sources: the National Park Service's NRIS database, or a PDF catalog produced by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. To avoid having to reference these sources in every single darn table cell, a single reference was placed in each column header. However, if the information in any one cell was derived from a source that wasn't the one in the column header, then a citation was required in that cell. Deleting those in-cell citations effectively leaves us with a false citation: the table states that the information came from one source (cited in the column header) when it in fact came from a different source (the in-cell citation).
 * The default data for all National Register lists is the NRIS; after all, this is a National Register list, not a list of sites on an Oregon register. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this is not a National Register list, this is a Wikipedia list, the U.S. Park service does not own this or any page on Wikipedia. Additionally, see WP:V, we can use any reliable source, which in many instances the NRIS does not pass due to a rather large number of errors (for instance almost all coordinates collected prior to about 1988). As has been discussed in the past, the NRIS is a source, not God, edited by people who as they say are imperfect - or to say it another way, there is no such thing as Bcola in Oregon. And in general to your arguments, just because all your friends do stupid things doesn't mean you should too, instead, debate on the merits, maybe the others need to change. I'm not saying they do, but simply arguing the others are that way means nothing as I could just as easily go in and change the other 49 states (plus maybe DC just for fun) to my own format of something completely different, but that would mean it was right. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oregon does not have its own register separate from the National Register. The OPRD list I refer to is the list of National Register sites in Oregon, but for several listings provides clearer or more accurate locational information than the NRIS. That is why for certain columns, the OPRD list was a better default source than the NRIS. Once again, just because the "standard" lists out there don't use sources other than the NRIS doesn't mean we shouldn't use alternate sources that provide better information when such sources are available. In any event, many of those in-cell citations referenced other sources yet that were neither NRIS nor OPRD. All those references got deleted despite the fact that WP:RS would seem to require them. &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Deletion of specifically formed in-line references seems in general unhelpful! I note one that was deleted, though, was a reference to Google Earth which applied in several places.  The reference is: I note that in general the NRHP editors have allowed/encouraged local editors just to fix coordinates to what they should be, largely because of the very uneven initial quality of coordinates info from NRIS.  For other NRIS fields we go through some trouble to record and track and try to give feedback to the National Register to get their NRIS database corrected, in the system of wp:NRIS info issues pages, but we haven't bothered with coordinate fixes.   And, I haven't seen anyone else much bothered about any urgency to provide sourcing like this GEarth footnote for every coordinate.  I personally wouldn't want to differentiate which ones came from where; we're way past knowing, for most NRHP list-articles, everywhere.  How about this:  the header row cell for the column could indicate that coordinates are from either NRIS or from Google Earth or from other sources, and specific identification should be dropped? --doncram (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While it hardly makes me jump for joy, I can see where Doncram's approach would be pragmatically necessary, with regard to the Google Earth references only (and with a quick prayer muttered to the god of WP:IAR). &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(3) ''Deletion of "approx." with regard to coordinates for historic districts'' I dislike this because point coordinates do not adequately describe a whole district, but it's not an issue I'm overly concerned about with regard to the 3 HDs in Washington County. Some districts elsewhere, however, are so nonconforming to reduction to a coordinate point that removal of the "approx." would be simply misleading (linear districts like the Historic Columbia River Highway, for example).
 * Is the coord point within the district? If so, that's all we need; no other states' lists use such an element.  Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I say, it's not such an issue with regard to Washington County. Counties such as Wasco will be a different issue. So we'll drop the "approx." qualifiers from the article here, and take up the matter there where I believe it matters. &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a general issue here. Other counties in Washington and many lists nation-wide include linear districts that are very poorly represented by a single point coordinate.  In some New York State list-articles, the point given is even outside the area of the county or New York City neighborhood that is covered in the list-article.  Some way of briefly noting the oddity/imperfection of the point coordinate representing location is worth figuring out.  Also there are plantations and other historic districts whose point coordinate was originally some calculated geo-center of its boundary corner points, when pointing directly to a main building would make more sense.  I would not delete an "approx" note unless some better wording or a footnote is provided. --doncram (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(4) Deletion of "vicinity" where it appears in the "City or Town" column As I note above, the information throughout this column is directly based on the information provided in a specific source: the publiched OPRD catalog list. That source uses "vicinity" to distinguish certain places that are not actually in the stated town. Removing the "vicinity" is fine, if there's a reliable source cited that places the listing actually in the stated town. Without an alternate reference, the reference we have needs to control the information we present.
 * Throughout the country, we use this column to indicate the nearest community; "vicinity" isn't used in any other states' lists, although the NRIS occasionally indicates it. No good reason to deviate from this practice for just one state.  Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No good reason other than that's what our source says and we want to avoid OR. In any event, if you take an example like the Young House in this article: the NRIS lists it as "Portland vicinity", which is accurate though not too informative. However, it's actually quite a bit closer to Beaverton. To interpret Portland as the "nearest community" is simply incorrect, in addition to being unsupported by a reliable source. Look, I'm not convinced that the way it's done for 26+ other states should necessarily control here, but the way the "vicinity" tag is used in the NRHP program overall (i.e. in the real world beyond Wikipedia) is somewhat inconsistent and confusing. So if you feel that strongly that "vicinity" should be eliminated from these lists, I'll back down. &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Nearest community" is very subjective, and the NRIS info is outdated in many cases. There are more extreme examples, like several places in Suffolk County, New York, where "Montauk Point" was far away but listed as the nearest community (or maybe it was the other way around, that a few places out in then-empty, now populated Montauk Point were indicated as being in vicinity of some very far away community).  Local editors' expertise should be used to correct these!  Where more specific info is not available, "Vicinity" is essential to keep or to add for "nearest to" situations, I think, unless and until someone really knows where the place is located and makes a more positive location statement.  Simply deleting "vicinity" is random and would usually be introducing inaccuracy. --doncram (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the NRIS, the city/town stated for each listing and the use of "vicinity" is very inconsistent, with no apparent rules used to define how to apply this geographic descriptor to each listing. As far as I can tell, for most (all?) of the history of the NRHP the matter was left up to the discretion of the author(s) of each nomination with very little guidance from the NPS/HCRS or SHPOs. Thus we end up with weirdnesses like Doncram describes at Montauk Point. In Oregon, I've found the OPRD list to be slightly better than the NRIS with regard to geographic description (address, city/town), but still kind of scattershot. But regardless of which key source is used (NRIS and/or OPRD), I hesitate to use "local knowledge" to amend the information we get from the source, unless a different reliable source is cited. Or maybe I'm being too stiff-necked (as Aboutmovies suggested in the past on this very issue :-), and this is another case for invoking WP:IAR. &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just some quick personal preferences here - plus I'd like to say the Nytend and Doncram are both doing good work in 1) getting some sort of standard applied throughout all NRHP lists and 2) allowing some flexibility in and discussion about that standard. My personal preferences on the issues expressed here: 1) Don't like "Landmark" here when it is used in another related context - but you know I never really noticed this before so it's not a big deal - maybe use "Historic site" instead. 2) Individual cell refs should be allowed, but I'd be completely against any standard that required that all individual cells be referenced! 3) I don't like "approx" at all, since no HD can be - even in theory - precisely described by one point. But I hate the usual descriptions (which I've more politely expressed in other places).  There's got to be a better way.  Isn't there - or counldn't there be - a "circle" pointer on coords, e.g. 40 37' 25" +/- 45"; or maybe just use 3 coords to describe a triangle. 4) I'd keep "vicinity." Hope this helps Smallbones (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Historic site" unfortunately would suffer from the same sort of issue as "Landmark": see here. But the brainstorming should continue! &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Oregon. 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/20090324110702/http://www.thprd.org/facilities/historic.cfm to http://www.thprd.org/facilities/historic.cfm

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) 19:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)