Talk:Twin Oaks (Wyoming, Ohio)

Duplicate help, please?
'''The following text was copied from the "Duplicate help, please?" section of this version of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)'''

After walking around in Wyoming, Ohio today, I've discovered that one house appears to be listed twice: Twin Oaks (Wyoming, Ohio) and the Robert Reily House. What should be done about them? The houses are both located at 629 Liddle Lane, with the same coordinates, same date of construction, etc. Moreover, "Reily, Robert, House" is listed as an alternate name for Twin Oaks, while "Twin Oaks" is listed as an alternate name for the Robert Reily House. Besides the names, the only differences I can see between the listings themselves are (1) the address — Reily is listed on "Liddle Ln.", while Oaks is listed on "Liddle Lane"; (2) Oaks has an architecture style given, while Reily doesn't; and (3) Reily has an area of 0.6 acres, while Oaks has 0.9 acres. If you put the reference numbers into the Ohio Historical Society's NRHP search page, you'll find that Oaks (75001438) has an entry with a picture (clearly the same building as in Greg5030's photo), while putting in Reily (86001640), whether by name or reference number, yields nothing. Since Reily was listed after Oaks (August 25, 1986 and May 29, 1975 respectively), should I treat Reily as a boundary decrease of Oaks? Both have just one contributing building, so it's not as if a little outbuilding was removed in 1986. All I can guess is that whoever completed the Wyoming MRA (which included Reily, but gave as its alternate name "Twin Elms") failed to notice that the house had already been listed under a different name eleven years before. Advice, please? Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For now, I would write the NRHP folks and point out the possible error / duplication. Can the Reily House be made a redirect to Twin Oaks, with a note on the talk page? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd merge the two articles and add a double NRHP infobox (similar to one in PRR 4859). I'd only mention each time it was listed without going into why it was listed twice (WP:OR?). ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 03:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me - I do think contacting the NRHP might help (not OR if they change it ;-) ) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which name should be redirected to the other? Both are stubs with almost nothing other than the infobox, so there's virtually nothing to merge.  I'm leaning toward redirecting Reily and keeping Oaks as the article, but I'm not sure enough to do that now.  Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would keep the older name and make the newer name a redirect. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice; I've redirected Reily to Oaks. Niagara, thanks for the double-infobox advice; you can see that the article now has both infoboxes.  I wasn't planning to include anything about why it was listed twice — I only said it here to explain what I thought should be done.  Nyttend (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about copying this whole section to the article's talk page by way of explanation there? I suggest that rather than linking because this will be archived, but we could relink it after the archiving.... . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting in 2012
This came up in discussion at wt:NRHP. I commented there that the embedded infobox does not work. It does not work; if you are not going to change the NRHP infobox code to support embedded NRHP infoboxes, it should not be restored. I revised it; Nyttend reverted to restore the coding that does not work;  I have reverted to my version plus reincorportated some other edits by Nyttend. Also, by the way, I think rewording to avoid a 3 or 4 word quote including "impressive" is not needed, especially if the rewording changes the meaning ("substantial" is not the same). I suggested in edit summary that discussion continue at wt:NRHP, but am open to discussing here, instead. -- do ncr  am  06:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)