User talk:Ammodramus/Archive 3

Madison
Please don't think that I'm trying to pull rank on you or trying to feel superior or anything; I'm simply trying to hold this article up to being like others. I'm sorry if I've sounded offensive in some way. Thanks for your help; input from those who know an area is always helpful: there's only so much that I can know, sitting 1000 miles away :-) Two more things: (1) Check out how I've modified your citation of the Nebraska Public Power District website: I recently discovered how to make these citations simpler.  (2) Do you have a camera?  There are many sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Nebraska (statewide list) with no pictures (including St. Leonard's Catholic Church in Madison), and as all National Register sites are eligible for articles, it's quite likely that a picture you take and add to the list will also get used for an article on that site.  Thanks!  Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! First off: you're replying at the right place.  Some editors prefer to reply to comments where they were first made (i.e. if you were one of them, you would reply here, rather than at my talk page), but it's less convenient for others, since I wouldn't be likely to think to look at your talk page for a reply.  The Tyson plant would be a fine subject to illustrate the community, since it's likely more important to the community as a whole than the church is.  And yes, there's nothing wrong with removing the reqphoto: while you're correct that we shouldn't remove comments from talk pages, the banners at the top — whether reqphoto or wikiproject banners, such as WikiProject Nebraska that's currently there — are for maintenance purposes, not for discussion, and quite open to editing or removal if appropriate.  Don't remove the wikiproject template, since the city isn't likely to stop being a Nebraska-related topic :-) but it would be helpful to rate the article if you want, and the whole point of a reqphoto template is to attract attention so that it can be removed.  It's like a cleanup template on an article (for example, the  template) that shouldn't be removed when it's needed, but should be removed as soon as it's not applicable anymore.  Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, have you encountered the Wikimedia Commons? If you want to upload your own free photos, you should upload them there: a photo uploaded to the English Wikipedia can only be used by the English Wikipedia, but a photo uploaded to Commons can be used here and at all other languages' editions of Wikipedia (for example, at the six other languages' articles on Madison), as well as at other Wikipedia-related projects.  While you shouldn't upload pictures to Wikipedia without putting them on articles, a photo on Commons doesn't always need to be in use at Wikipedia.  It must be educationally or informationally useful, but it doesn't need to be used as such at any specific time.  I've recently been photographing communities around me, getting all the public buildings I can find: town halls, post offices, courthouses, fire departments, churches, etc.; and if you wanted to do the same with Madison or any other community, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it.  Not to say, of course, that there's anything wrong with not doing that if you don't want to :-)  Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're quite correct that I'm quite interested in NRHP sites :-) You don't have to include more information than an NRHP category, but it's always good to have enough description to identify an image, so I'd advise you to give the name and address of a site in its description, and the more categories the better.  Don't add parent categories (for example, if it's a house, adding Category:Houses in Nebraska is good, but don't also add Category:Buildings in Nebraska), but adding different relevant categories is helpful.  You can find a little more information about a property from the NRHP database, which is easily accessible from this page: type in part or all of the name of the property, and it will normally give its architectural style, date of construction, etc.  If you'd rather not spend all day finding tons of categories, I'd say that the most important category would be the county or municipality category: it's always obvious that a building is a church or a house or whatever else, and someone who knows what s/he is doing can tell the architectural style, but if you don't add a category for where it's located, it's quite hard to find.  Still, I'd advise you to try to add date, type of building, etc.  If you want to see how I do it, look at this picture.  Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as the server accepts a file, it's not too large. It's possible to view them as smaller thumbs, so download speed isn't that much of an issue.  Pages can become too large because of too many images, but we fix that issue by splitting them or removing images; that's why, among other things, why many Nebraska counties have their own NRHP lists.  High-resolution images aren't required, of course, so if you have a slow connexion, don't think that you have to waste your whole day if you want to upload images.  By the way, I should note — please don't use nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com as a source.  It looks like it's the official website, but (after encountering problems) we've discovered it to be full of errors, so it's best to go with a reference to the official website; check out the Elwood article to see what I mean.  One question — what are moiré patterns?  I've never heard this term before.  Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just discovered our article on moiré pattern. Do you mean the vague lines that you can see on brick walls in pictures such as this church, especially if you click on it?  Please understand, by the way, that the don't-delete-content-from-talk-pages doesn't apply to your talk page; feel free to remove anything from it, especially if the picture makes it take ages to download.  Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I've never before heard of aliasing or anything else; I've observed this pattern on some pictures (especially this one; of the photos I've uploaded here, it's my favorite), but didn't know if there were a term for it.  I don't know how/whether you can cite a cornerstone, but you can cite a picture.  Try uploading the picture and then cite it for a statement of "According to the cornerstone, ..."  I've cited pictures a few times; for an example, see the final couple of references at Merrill Lock No. 6.  More advice will come if more advice is requested :-) Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your change for First UPC. While I investigated the situation, I discovered that you were correct, so I restored it to how you'd done it.  Thanks for fixing this; if you hadn't, it might have gone months or years without correction.  Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good! Blue sky is always the best for photography in my mind...especially since, having gone through several weeks of almost constant clouds, the blue sky is quite appealing to me right now :-)  I don't think that the cars are a big deal: they obscure almost nothing, and of course they're not something that we don't expect to find in that setting.  You may want to add links to the image descriptions, although of course you shouldn't feel obligated to.  If you want to add links, it will likely be easier to link to Wikipedia, because Commons doesn't have pages on many subjects: to do this, add "w:" before a link (i.e., [[:w:Madison, Nebraska will have the same result on a Commons description as Madison, Nebraska will here), or put the link in a template: .  Because you uploaded several pictures of the courthouse, I made one significant change: I've created a category for the courthouse, and at each image I've replaced almost all categories with the courthouse category.  I'm also planning to create a category for the church.  A good rule of thumb for categories is always to have multiple images in a category: while it's possible to have a category with just one image, it's a bad idea, since it adds a step to the image-finding process unnecessarily.  However, when you have two or more images of the same topic, it's helpful to create a category, since that way you can concentrate the images without making someone who wants an image to search through irrelevant images.  Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] By the way, if you expect to continue contributing pictures on Commons, you might want to create a special category for pictures that you've uploaded. I find it helpful to do this, as it helps me keep track of my pictures. Don't think that you'll be the odd one out if you don't do this; as you can see at Commons:Category:Pictures by author, only a small percentage of Commons users have their own categories. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A section break would be useful here
Yes, you can watch your images; I watch all images that I've uploaded (both my own works and a few that I moved from Wikipedia to Commons), so I can see what's going on. It won't let you know when they're used, but you can always find what's happening with them by going to the image page and clicking the "check usage" tab at the top of the page. If it's working (which occasionally it isn't), it will run a check of all Wikipedias and related websites and conclude by telling you what's linking to the image. Try this on the straight southern view of the United Presbyterian Church: it will tell you that it's in use at one English article, the NRHP list. You can also click on the "en" tab at the right side of the top of the page; when you do this, it will send you to the English Wikipedia's image page, and once there you can scroll down to see all the places that it's used here. If someone decides to use it on another project, whether another Wikipedia or something such as Wiktionary, you'll have to use the "check usage" to discover it. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have an account at the German Wikipedia, but I don't speak German; I had to use an online translator, and I hope that it didn't make any errors :-) I've never understood hidden categories.  Someone else made my category hidden, and I don't remember how it was done, let alone the real benefit of so doing.  Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Karl Stefan building
I like the airport building photo :-) Is that style of architecture common in rural Nebraska?  I was quite surprised to see that it wasn't the old brick building I had expected.  Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the problem isn't as simple as you think. Some errors here at Wikipedia are matters of entry by Wikipedia editors: the NRHP lists First UPC in Madison, but when it was added to the list, someone accidentally put in Norfolk.  However, a much more significant problem is errors in the NRP database.  Check out WP:NRIS issues — it's a log page of errors that we've found in the database, and there are surely plenty of errors that we've not yet caught.  There are sometimes errors in the nomination forms from which the database information is derived, and there are sometimes obvious typos in entering data from those forms.  US 163/136 is a good example of this (I can't imagine the Nebraska State Historic Preservation Office people making this kind of an error), as is the Phillip Gaensslen House: the NRHP lists it at 3056 Prospect Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio, but the address over the door (which you can see in the photo on the article) says 3050.  Just keep fixing away; the NRHP has said that they'll do their best to correct errors, and they've fixed some issues in their database that we've reported in the past.  Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, that's what you have to do. The NRIS issues page was set up to list errors in the NRIS database; if you look there, you'll see that I've already logged the ones you fixed.  One other type of error, by the way, is harder to catch: things that were correct when the property was listed but aren't anymore.  Perhaps the most significant example of this is demolished properties: buildings aren't automatically removed from the Register if they're knocked down (it has to be reported to the Register people, and they have to check with the State Historic Preservation Office people), and it can often take years before a property is removed.  Check out the Shelby County, Ohio list — two schools and a church have been knocked down, and a bridge burned twenty years ago, but they're still listed.  If you ever reach a site and find that the building is gone, I'd advise you to photograph the site anyway: the picture will be the closest we can get to having a picture of the building, and it will be good evidence that the building really is gone.  Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I like it how you're getting photos from so many angles and uploading them: the Platte County Courthouse set is especially good. Keep it up, and thanks for the help :-) Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

County fully illustrated
I don't know if you've seen it, but there's a list of fully illustrated NRHP lists here. I've added both Gosper and Harlan counties to this list. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope you use the link a lot :-) Actually, I think it's not the best idea, because neither the NRIS nor Google Maps shows names/numbers for these roads.  Perhaps you could use the Atlas and Gazetteer?  I believe that it's a good idea to imporve descriptions when possible; for example, you can see that I did this for the Logan County Courthouse at National Register of Historic Places listings in Ohio.  Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Construction date
Wow, fifteen pictures of this courthouse! You're producing great coverage of these buildings and structures, much more than even the HABS photographers generally have! Don't think that you're bugging me; I quite enjoy looking at your pictures and seeing what you have to say.

I would advise you to go with the cornerstone date. If you didn't have a photo of the cornerstone, there would be no reliable source, but you can always cite the photo itself. The date given by the NRHP database (you're correct; Elkman's information is taken directly from the NRHP database) is different for different buildings: sometimes it's the year when construction started, sometimes it's the year when the building was completed, and sometimes it seems to be another year for reasons that I can't understand. Assume that it's correct if you don't have other information, but if you have contradictory information from another reliable source — and the chance that a cornerstone would have the wrong year is, I'm sure, very small — then go with what the other reliable source says. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just realised that my wording is awkward: I meant to say "If you didn't have a photo of the cornerstone, there would be no way to use it as a reliable source, but..." Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nelson Farm
See here: the problem was Wikipedia editor error in copying information from the NRIS recent-listings page, which gives the site as "1139 M Rd.", not "1139 M St." I've fixed the problem. Nyttend (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Minden post office
First off, I don't think that the mural is the only thing: it was listed on the Register partially because of the mural, but the entire post office is included. I believe that the NRIS lists Bunn as the architect because he's listed first in the "Architect/Builder" section on page 4: you can see that Louis Simon is also included. I would advise you to treat this as an error, because the nomination form lists a different person as the architect. I would guess that the date is 1939 for the following reason: the post office is listed under Criterion A for its architecture and Criterion C for the artwork, and 1939 is the earliest date when both architecture and artwork were present. Treat the cornerstone as authoritative for the date of construction, but 1939 is not an error, because the date Elkman gives for construction is what the NRIS lists as a significant date, which isn't always meant to be the date of construction. As for the mural, I'm going to post a request for advice at WP:MCQ; I believe that the mural is public domain and thus freely photographable because it was made as the result of a contract with the federal government, but I think it would be best to wait to upload photos until we hear from those more familiar with copyrights than I. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

nice pics
Hi, i noticed your adding a pic to Lincoln Hotel (Franklin, Nebraska), and then i see you've been busy adding others too. Glad you're on board, hope you will keep up this good work! doncram (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, if you haven't already, you might consider joining (by adding your name to its list of members) the WikiProject on NRHP, at wp:NRHP. And you're welcome, either way, to comment at its Talk page wt:NRHP and also to post announcements of your new articles or pictures in the corresponding announcement boxes at wp:NRHP.
 * FYI, I'm a "he", not a "she" :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the details on the Sweetwater bridge; keep it up :-) Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, impressive picture for the interior of the cathedral in Grand Island! Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. It's always good to have additions for such a sparsely-populated area; a pity that there aren't more rural photographers like you!  I don't think that I'll be able to help with the architectural style; despite my experience with lots of pictures, I'm often confused about a building's style and surprised when I find what style it actually is — for example, I never imagined that the Brumback Library in Van Wert, Ohio (pictured here) was somewhat Gothic Revival.  You'd do better to post a request for help at the Humanities Reference Desk, where there are plenty of people who know their architectural styles better than I do; I've gotten help in this manner several times.  Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And to address something else you said — like with several other states, I watch all county and community articles in Nebraska, except for communities with populations of 10,000+. I once watched all of them, but there are so many edits for the larger cities (and they're watched by more other editors) that I was doing nothing except catching up on my watchlist.  Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Train & Columbus
I appreciate the struggles you're having with sources - I have run into the same situation repeatedly writing about North Omaha. I struggle to discern the validity of sources throughout my writing. I find Train to be an interesting study himself, and can't find much definitive work about him, despite the essential role he played in NE and other states... Larsen, et al really provided the most thorough and reliable academic study of Omaha's history up to the point of their original printing. Andreas' History seems to be based on a lot of conjecture and second-hand accounts, although it has a unique amount of breadth for its time period. At times I've ended up resorting to court documents or plat maps or other official items... Best luck to your work, and please let me know if there's anyway I can be of use to you. I have hard copies of almost all the NE history books, and access to some different sources, so if you need a 2nd pair of eyes or anything I'd be glad to help. • Freechild   'sup?   00:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard Burr, Environment
I replaced the relevant text that you seem to have a problem with. Unless you can ground your objection more in Wikipedia policy and less in personal preference, it should stay. In response to your comment on my talk page, I'd say every editor makes an inadvertent mistake now and then, but it's no excuse for incivility or bad manners. DanielM (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

On my talk page you claim I said defended my edits with the words "Show me a rule that says I can't." This is a misquote. Please don't do that. If your attempt was to paraphrase, please spell out that you're paraphrasing. But it wouldn't be an accurate paraphrase either. It's a distortion of a generalized comment I made about how individual editors bring a chaotic element to Wikipedia. DanielM (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Harlan County, Nebraska
I have included 2 sources for the naming of Harlan County, NE. One is the Nebraska State Historical Society, and one is a history of Harlan County written in 1967. These seem to me more reliable than NACO as a source. Another editor has removed my edits, again citing NACO. For the record Sen James Harlan of Iowa is the great uncle of Thomas Harlan. We have an extensive family organization that can be found at "harlanfamily.org. The book mentioned by another party is The Harlan Family Geneology.  My wife and I had it reprinted for the 300 year  reunion in 1987.  It is still available through the assoc.  If I have to continue trying to get the record right, can you tell me how to dispute the present writeup which is not adequate if you editors keep changing it.  thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotwhiscot (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry i don't understand all the subtilities, and nuances of how to edit. all i want to do is add some facts to make the site more accurate. i can hardly figure out how to respond to those who would disagree. starting to wonder if wikipedia editors are more interested in protocol or facts. at this point i wonder if wikipedia is worth the time i'm spending to make it more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotwhiscot (talk • contribs) 04:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I can accept your most recent edit, and thank you. this should take care of it.Lotwhiscot (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

New Mexico
Hope you're enjoying the New Mexico trip! Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you know how to pronounce the name "Chadron"? Someone's left a request for pronunciation at Talk:Chadron, Nebraska.  Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hayes County
Hi, i started up St. John's Evangelical Lutheran German Church and Cemetery, and I emailed the Nebraska State Historical Society with questions about it and the other 2 address-restricted Hayes county NRHP sites. I eventually found my way to the historical society's page showing pics of the 3, now linked from article, too. If they can show pics, i think they certainly must agree to approve that we do so, too. However, there's no rush, and I'll let you know what i hear from them. In the meantime, if you'd like a copy of the NRHP doc for the church, please email me (i have email enabled). Cheers, --doncram (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Burr Edit Connection Deletion Errors
Yes, I think the deletion errors are a glitch owing to a poor connection when I connect via Bluetooth. I really didn't think the edits had gone through at all. I'll figure out some solution. DanielM (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wise-use
I agree that hyphenation of wise-use seems like a useful thing. It seems that there is a recent orthographically-unsound trend in the U.S. for every little group and "movement" to capitalize itself inappropriately (this is English, not German), one which has contaminated Wikipedia; and my opinions of the w.u. movement are irrelevant here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Way We Live Now
Why not therefore move the synopsis now in the book article to the TV series article, and leave only a brief description of the plot (I have seen the TV show, but am not familiar with the book)? Norm mit (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Old Elkhorn River Bridge


Your Old Elkhorn River Bridge picture makes me think of these two bridge pictures in Wyoming. How did you get it — is the ice thick enough that you could walk on it? Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, makes sense now. Have to tell you — I just saw your antelope picture; quite a nice shot!  Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a good point about the long column of brick buildings; I'd wondered why you had chosen it, especially after I noticed that you'd also uploaded useful pictures of the building as a whole. And yes, I did notice the blue sky...what a refreshing sight :-)  Here in western Ohio, it's been nowhere near as bad as on the East Coast, but we've still gotten over a foot of snow, and I've been shovelling almost every day for a week now.  I did get one day with blue sky, and for once I had a chance on that day to get some useful pictures — see File:Main Street Buildings in Springfield.jpg for an example — but that was essentially the eye of the storm; you can see how much snow there was (and that picture is two counties away from my home; they got a lot less snow than we did), and there was a significant amount the next day.  Now I want to come to Nebraska!  Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh well; hopefully there will be another time. I've been to Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming, but never to Nebraska; I've love to visit some time.  I really enjoy the Great Plains (I've mostly lived in wooded flat areas, where you can't see very far), so I expect I'd find the area intriguing; what I've seen of northern and western Kansas I liked, so I expect I'd like southern and western Nebraska as well.  Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not pestering at all :-) If you do any more HDs, I'd advise you to follow the pattern you did with Columbus — the names are fine (they're quite informative without being too long; no question about the addresses!), and the categories make complete sense.  No quarrels with the content, either; there's a great selection of buildings (nice to get so many of the contributing properties) and it's quite helpful to point out (e.g. at File:Columbus, Nebraska 2522-2524 13th St.JPG) which buildings are contributing and which ones aren't.  It's very often helpful to create a category for an HD within the larger municipality category, as you've done.  I've only made one change — when you put the courthouse category into the HD category, you left on some parent categories that can be cut.  Still, it's not at all a problem; it's always easier to cut parent categories from an overcategorised image or category than it is to find an undercategorised image or category and improve it.  Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to seeing the "lot more"; not many districts have such comprehensive coverage on Commons. As far as the courthouse — I've debated this issue with myself in the past regarding the Butler HD in Butler, Pennsylvania.  Three buildings in the district (the courthouse, the bank, and the museum house) are individually listed on the Register as well as being in the Register-listed HD, and for a while I had the images in Category:National Register of Historic Places in Butler County, Pennsylvania and in Category:Butler Historic District for the reasons that you give.  However, I eventually turned away from that idea for a very simple reason: they're part of the district and thus should be categorised within it.  I figure that someone who knows that the courthouse is on the Register is also likely to know that the district is also on the Register, and even if they don't know that, they're likely to notice that there's a category for an HD in Columbus, and then to go there to check it out.  Even if they don't do that, they might well go to the courthouses in Nebraska category or the Platte County category, either of which would of course get them to the courthouse eventually.  I guess the situation could be compared to how we categorise courthouses geographically: although the courthouse is directly related to the county as a whole, we put it in the city category (if there is one) because the city is a part of the county.  Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that the above comment was so long; I didn't know how to explain without such length. You know, there is another way to get another category: you could go out and get pictures of a currently-unphotographed site :-)  The county-level category split is a good idea; I wasn't the one who started it, although I split out some counties after several were done by someone else. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I like to explain more in-depth as well, but I'd rather not unless I know someone prefers it :-) Yeah, once the weather clears, I hope to get a photo trip; a short trip to the west will get seven pictures and put two different lists (Auglaize and Shelby counties) up to fully-illustrated.  Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, you might as well add Blaine, Logan, and McPherson Counties to your completed list; they have as many listings as Stanton County does. Hey, does that mean that I've fully illustrated four Nebraska counties as well?  I've decided to track (for my own purposes; I tend to keep track of my own metadata) only counties where I have at least one NRHP picture; that keeps me from padding my own statistics with 37 Texas counties, 5 Kansas counties, the Wade Hampton Census Area in Alaska, and a smattering of other counties nationwide :-)  Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Courthouse Photos
Thank you for your contributions of Kansas and Nebraska county courthouse photos. Your contributions have not gone unnoticed. --Ichabod (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone who's responded to the former Wheeler County Courthouse photos is in agreement that there's nothing wrong with these images. I'm a little curious — why couldn't you get a picture from the front steps, such as the angle you see here?  Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries :-) Artwork is considered to have been published when it was publicly displayed.  There are two possible copyright issues: (1) If the artwork included a copyright notice [unlikely; you don't often see copyright notices on stained glass windows!], it was once copyrighted, but anything published in the USA before 1923 is PD. (2) If the artwork didn't include a copyright notice, it was published without a copyright notice, and thus never copyrighted.  I don't remember when the law changed on this subject, but it was at least the late 1960s before a copyright notice was required for something to be copyrighted.  Images such as File:St. Leonard church (Madison, Nebraska) St. Joseph altar 1.JPG only ever had one copyright holder, and that was you as the photographer.  Good job with the interior pictures (especially this one); I'd like to go inside churches such as the one near the top of your talk page, but I've never had a chance.  And I have to say, I like the idea of "St. Leonard's garage" — I understand that it's the garage within the St. Leonard's complex, but it sounds as if St. Leonard is the patron of the garage :-)  Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So a tripod is how you get your pictures. All I have to hold my camera are my hands, so I've almost never gotten a good photo when the light was poor; the only night photo I've ever uploaded was File:Kittanning Courthouse.jpg, and that was possible only because there was a high concrete ledge at just the right spot.  I'm told by someone who was married here that the priest is generally happy to let visitors see inside, but I've not yet had the chance.  Hopefully this means any visitors, not just those whose mothers are parishoners :-)  Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nebraska and locations
You're wrong. You didn't cause the coding error — see for the original version of the image description, which is lacking the bracket amid several other errors.

Yes, locations are good and helpful. Of course they're not necessary, but they're useful if someone wants to know where the image was taken. Let's say that you absolutely love this picture I took yesterday and want to live somewhere that they get piles of messy, slushy snow; you don't need to look up South Vienna, Ohio to find where it is. While geocoding can help in small communities, it can help more in rural locations because there may not be landmarks to look for; I obviously can't know where to go to find this school just by looking at a map of Hamlet. If you ever get into larger cities, it will also help; if you can figure out the street system in downtown Pittsburgh without getting lost, you'll have an easier time finding the Dollar Savings Bank if you check the coords on the image.

With NRHP listings, I generally copy the coords that the NRIS provides. If they're in error or simply not as precise as I want, I'll follow the same procedure as I do with non-NRHP sites: go to http://pagesperso-orange.fr/universimmedia/geo/loc.htm and find your site; it provides decimal coords, which can easily be converted to dms format with a calculator. Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your examples are quite good. I've encountered similar coord problems with several buildings in Mechanicsburg that you can see on the Champaign County, Ohio list — the building pictured for the Village Hobby Shop is the wrong one (the shop is the dark [green? black? I'm partially colorblind, so I'm not sure] building on the far right edge), I walked right past the Henry Burnham House (thus no picture), I had to guess on the location of Hamer's because it's gone and the coords aren't precise, and I never would have found the Norvall Hunter Farm if I'd not been able to ask some locals before I left the village.
 * As far as the Kathleen Hearn Building — while it's apparently been removed from the NSHS county list, I found a cached version of the page with a description and a picture. Maybe the background of the picture could help you identify the right corner?  Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You should have gotten the St. Johannes Danske Lutherske Kirke while you were in Madison County; that would have been another fully-illustrated county :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln Highway
could use a photograph of one of the places mentioned there, and you may already have one that could be added as a thumbnail. As a fan of the Lincoln Highway, I encourage improvements on the coverage. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Raeville, Kansas
Thanks for the fix; Raeville was one of many small communities in multiple states to which the same editor added infoboxes a few days ago, but this editor consistently left off the state name that appears at the tops of most infoboxes. I had to go around and add the state name to a large number of them, and as you see, I was copy/pasting "Kansas" rather frequently. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic categories
I tried looking to see if you'd missed categories, but I can't find any. Go ahead is all I can say. Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Beginning to emulate you


See Commons:Category:St. Joseph's Catholic Church and Rectory (Egypt, Ohio); I'm trying to learn to get a wider range of pictures for sites. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's finally starting to get decent, but even yesterday there were a few remaining piles of snow just past the edge of this picture. And I've finally been able to get a driver's license :-D [I'd been on a medical disability from driving for some time], so yesterday's trip was the first chance I got to go somewhere outside of bicycling range when nobody else needed to take a trip.  However, one thing I don't have is a tripod; a large percentage of yesterday's pictures are all crooked. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I ordered a tripod a few days ago, and it came via UPS today: just $15, including shipping, and it looks to be a high-quality product. Curious, however — have you been trying to photograph sites that were once listed but have been removed?  I don't normally do this, but today I visited a massive site that was built for the Miami and Erie Canal but was removed 25 years ago after major damage, and I decided that I had to get some pictures.  I've not uploaded photos or created a category yet, but you should expect to see Commons:Category:Turtle Creek Culvert and Embankment in existence before long if you're interested.  Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, formerly-listed sites and ambiguous sites such as the ZCBJ hall are definitely notable; they've gotten plenty of coverage from various reliable sources. You're correct in saying that an article wouldn't be deleted if the subject were removed, since notability isn't temporary; consequently, you shouldn't have notability-related qualms about writing about a delisted site if you're considering the subject.  And by the way — yesterday was quite cloudy here as well; I wanted a cloudy day because one of the sites that I visited is located on private property along a long driveway on the southern side of the road; since I didn't want to go onto the private property, my only choice was to stay on the road, and a good picture would have been impossible on a sunny day.  I'm considering going out today, since it's moderately sunny, but I'm not sure.  Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem is that I have trouble finding a time when I'm able to borrow a vehicle (and evening would be harder), so I guess that I don't have as much flexibility as you. As far as shadows, it must be æsthetics; I like the shadows on the Segelke building.  The issue of leaves is more important to me when we talk about buildings surrounded by trees in general.  If I'd taken this picture (which is the house back the lane that I got yesterday) when there were leaves on the trees, much of the house would have been hidden, although not quite as bad as in this picture.  Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was able to go for a drive and get some pictures today; here's one of my favorite, the southern side of a round barn just outside of Elida, Ohio. I also got one showing the tree shadow only slightly, but in my opinion the shadow actually improves it a little.  Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

IOOF Opera House
Looking at the old and new pictures of this building, I thought it rather funny that the garbage can is at the same spot on the left edge of the picture, even though they're five months apart :-) Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely not; something that small would be an object :-) Nyttend (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben Nelson
Good job. Thanks for following through on the clean up effort. Electroshoxcure (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Brethren Church
Yes, you're right — I saw the line of text at the top. I encountered it on a fruitless search for a category of Brethren churches (I'd just uploaded this picture and wanted somewhere to put it); since there's normally no text at the top of a category, this line stood out. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like nice photography weather. We're finally getting blue skies and green grass in Nebraska.  We're also getting early-morning light on the north sides of buildings, and I'm shortly going to upload some pictures of north-facing buildings.


 * --Ammodramus (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds nice :-) I'm looking forward soon to finishing off three counties' lists out here as well.  Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Webster County Courthouse
Saw your comment at the Commons image description about the construction date being wrong (1883 instead of 1914); I think I have the answer. There are actually two contributing properties (I don't know what the other one is), and the NRIS date is always the oldest of years given in the "significant dates" column of the nomination form; therefore, I'd guess that one contributing property dates from 1883 and the other, the courthouse, dates from 1914. Thanks for the fix. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You could email nr_reference AT nps DOT gov with the note — they'd likely be quite open to changing the NRIS data since you've shown that the nomination form disagrees with the NRIS data. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean that you got a hard copy? I assumed that it was an online form.  Here in Ohio, it's possible to get forms from the OHS; however, you have to pay somewhat because they'll only send them to you on CDs, rather than by email :-(  Consequently, the only forms I have are hard-copy forms that I requested from the National Park Service.  By the way, another county's done out here; I've been trying since February to finish Champaign County, Ohio, but only last night was I finally able to get the last photos (not yet online).  You should see the Carl Potter Mound — it was the holdup, since it's back on private property and the owner has been really busy — if he hadn't taken me to it and pointed it out, I would have walked right past it, assuming that it was a little natural rise.  Definitely the smallest Indian mound I've ever seen; it's rather like the (non-National Register) O.C. Voss Mound, also in Ohio, which you can see in a picture on page 261 of this dissertation.  Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, makes sense. Out here, there are no sacred sites recognised by local Native Americans; places such as the Ross Trails Adena Circle were apparently so, but their builders were thousands of years ago.  Thinking of Webster County, if you're ever in Superior, could you try to get a picture for me of a building that's not NRHP-listed?  My denomination once had a congregation in Superior, but it closed around 1990; I'm curious if the building is still there.  Chuch records from the 1980s say that the building is located at 423 E. 5th St.  Nyttend (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I just realised that Superior is in Nuckolls County; however, my request still stands. Nyttend (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Unfortunately, many Protestant denominations don't have good categories at Commons; I've put it directly into Commons:Category:Protestant churches in the United States.  I may be able to get a construction date from our church archives; one of the archivists was the last pastor at that church before it was closed and sold to the E-Free people, so he may be able to help me even without digging into the archives.  Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, this is definitely the right building; I have access to a non-free image of the building taken when my denomination's congregation was still there, and it's easy to see that it's the same structure. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but the difficulty is with denominations such as the Evangelical Free Church of America, which don't fall into any easily defined family of denominations; they're Protestant and evangelical, but we can't easily define them otherwise. Moreover, the historic churches tend to be from the mainline denominations, all of which are either in families (Presbyterian, for example) or distinct enough by themselves (Anglican, for example), and even the historic churches from smaller denominations are often from those families.  Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here we go — after rereading the polity section of the E-Free article, I observed that the denomination is primarily congregational; the Superior church category is now in Commons:Category:Congregationalist churches in Nebraska. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect that the photos are good enough. I've emailed the link to the category to the archivists, together with directions on how to download the full-resolution images; they should be in the office tomorrow.  I worked for them a couple of summers ago, so I know them personally; accordingly, I expect some sort of answer tomorrow.  If they say that better images would be desirable, I'll let you know as soon as possible.  Thanks, as always :-)  You have a good point about reuse of churches; however, many people uploading pictures will just add them to whatever category fits what the NR listing name is; if this were listed as "Superior Reformed Presbyterian Church" and photographed by someone else, it would most likely be in the Presbyterian churches in Nebraska category, but not in either the congregationalist churches in Nebraska category or in the Reformed Presbyterian churches category.  Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Trip thru Northern Kansas and Nebraska
Hello,

I just got back from a trip that went through n. Kansas and Nebraska, and couldn't help but notice your work in this area. Keep up the good work! Mostly I'll be adding Courthouses in Kansas, 1 or 2 things from Gothenburg, Nebraska, and maybe Lincoln and Omaha pix. Any comments/corrections appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please use your judgement on the better picture.  Smallbones (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Nice blue sky with fairly high white clouds - what could be better?  Well the flip side was that it got pretty hot with the sun shining on my head all day (didn't bring my cowboy hat, but I did have a flying corncob hat)  The sky lasted all through Iowa, and into Missouri.  I think I'm done uploading in Nebraska except for Lincoln and Omaha.  And maybe a windmill (in Gothenburg?)  Should I use Warren Buffett's house for the Dundee HD in Omaha?  It's not exactly typical for the neighborhood, but has other interesting points as well.  Smallbones (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I replaced my picture of the library with yours, as yours shows the original building much better. But I did send mine to to Gothenburg article ;-)  BTW, you should put several Nebraska counties on WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places - I don't think "restricted address" sites work against you here, nor does the "one big state list" seem to matter.  Smallbones (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the "address restricted" ones do count, as far as fully illustrated lists go. There's a number in Florida like that. In some cases, they're erroneously labelled, or their status has changed, and you can get photos of them. Fort Walton Mound, the Fort Chokonikla Site and Old Haulover Canal, to name a few. For the still restricted ones, there's a few options I've thought about. Contact the historical societies in the areas where the sites are, they're usually glad to help with information. Also, find out who's administering the sites, or excavated them. Often it's the archaeology departments of state universities. Try getting in touch with them. If the sites aren't accessible, perhaps artifacts from the sites could be photographed, with appropriate permissions obtained, of course. Just some thoughts, hope they help. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

NRHP sites in Nebraska
Hi, Thanks for your message. I working right now on Allen's Opera House. I was amazed to find all the pictures you have done as well as the Nebraska Historical Society's online NRHP nomination forms. Both of these make writing articles much easier. While I'm primarily interested in courthouses, I thought I might take a try at doing all the places in one county and Dawson looks good. I certainly appreciate your offer and will keep it in mind. Thanks again and best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. The Thayer Courthouse looks interesting. I've been able to do quite a few articles on courthouses and other buildings that aren't on the NRHP. I got a digital camera recently and have managed to take pictures of historic places in Martin County, Florida where I live. There are 5 of my picture on that page: 4 recent ones and one old one I took of a Florida panther in 1992. Today I use either a wheelchair or a power chair and no longer have a car, so I have to rely on others for transportation. By trial and error, I'm learning to take better pictures. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)