Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin/Archive 1

Edgerton, Jefferson County
Is this a misplacement? or is there another Edgerton besides the one in Rock County? Tom e rtalk 16:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears there's one in Jefferson county too? - see the listing on the National Register:
 * National Register:Jefferson County Find:  Site - #78000104

— Dogears (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole list has 87,000 entries, so a few misplaced entries (and misspellings and dabs) are to be expected. So, with verification, this entry can be moved to Rock county.

Tables
It appears the list-article would be more functional with table-format lists, i was just discussing this with wisconsin wikipedian Royalbroil. I will make an effort to add tables for more counties; four counties have them already. To add a table, I first just use the Elkman county-table generator tool, but then there is some editing and careful checking to do, to ensure that previous listed links are captured properly in that.

Before doing that, though, it would be best to fix up the date-formatting in the counties already "table-ized" to use the DTS2 (date-sortable) format for NRHP dates that is now included in new tables. Notice, the first table with just two sites does use the DTS2 format. Any help doing this task would be appreciated! doncram (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sanfranman59, for doing the DTS2 conversions! doncram (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sauk County
Okay, i added table for Sauk County. I checked wikilinks, fixed one. I note that Seth Peterson Cottage is a blue-link included in former list (still in article, below the new table) but not in the table. Can it be verified that this RHP is in Sauk County? Its article says the cottage is 1 mile from Lake Delton, Wisconsin, which is in Sauk County, but i wonder if this, like some similar cases i have seen, is over a county line. Or, the table report does not include all RHPs in the county. Perhaps the table needs to be checked to see if it includes all the other previously listed RHPs. I only checked the few blue-links, did not check the red-links, so am leaving the previous list in for now. doncram (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong title for this article
There is no official listing in the United States called "Registered Historic Places."

There is the National Register of Historic Places, which is maintained by the National Park Service.

Therefore, this article is titled incorrectly and should be retitled simply, ''"National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin."

If other states' articles are similarly mislabeled, they also should be changed. This means that potentially 50 articles should be retitled to the correct terminology.

Motorrad-67 (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed you altered the List of RHPs in WI article while I was working on it. I am busy splitting out the larger WI county lists to separate articles.  Your edit dropped the topnav template List of Registered Historic Places in Wisconsin topnav, and made other changes which seems at first glance to me to be unhelpful.  From your contributions history i see you have gone and altered many, perhaps all, of the split-out, separate WI county list articles as well.  I do appreciate that you at least opened this talk section to hold discussion.  You have certainly raised an issue, and you may have a valid point about wording.  However, until it can be discussed properly here (or perhaps over in wt:NRHP where the dicussion could be moved), will you please refrain from changing other RHP list-articles in WI and elsewhere to reflect your viewpoint?  doncram (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not have a viewpoint. I am just suggesting that we rid Wikipedia of "Registered Historic Places" which has no meaning and use instead the correct terminology available in federal regulations and statutes.  That is, "National Register of Historic Places."   As a former SHPO, I think my understanding of the issue is pretty solid.


 * If you simply used the correct terminology, editing would not be necessary.


 * Motorrad-67 (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. I meant to be positive in acknowledging you may have a valid point.  It's nice to learn you may have personal experience that informs your perspective.  However, please consider the issue raised and up for discussion.  The kinds of edits you made do raise the terminology issue, but they have other effects such as eliminating the useful navigation template at the top of each article.  I was, in fact, just using that navigation aid to edit the articles, only to find it disappear.  No matter what is the best terminology, it does not appear helpful to remove the navigation template right now (although that also could be discussed if you actually do mean to take issue with it as well).  I will post notice of this discussion over at wt:NRHP which should bring in some informed others. doncram (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Motorrad-67 and i simultaneously posted over at wt:NRHP. Okay, further discussion should take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. doncram (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Research and editing work needed
Further table-izing work is needed for the following counties. This involves cross-checking the old list entries vs. the newer tables to capture any useful wikilinks and other info, and to capture any new listings not in the tables, and to update table and corresponding articles for boundary increases. I'm removing the asterisks from the main table in the article, as this is probably better as a work list here in the Talk page. doncram (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Counties needing work: