User talk:Doncram/Archive 12

Cleveland Heights church
So I finally don't have to scroll down, down, down, etc. :-) Curious your opinion — what would you think about rereworking the Cleveland Heights church article into the core of an HD article, instead of having it simply about the church?  Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I apparently noticed the church article just after User:Elendil's Heir created it and added it the same day to the corresponding dab page. I edited there just to help out in a small way, and then it was on my watchlist when the AFD came up.  As you saw i added references that came up in the AFD.  I don't care about having the NRHP CP infobox in the article or not.  (By the way, i didn't fix the coords in the infobox.  It shows the HD's coords which are accurate enough on a map of Ohio but are not specific to the church's address.)


 * To respond to your question, it's hard to say. The church as a whole is notable.  Although that doesn't require it to have a separate article, someone thought enough of the church as a congregation and institution to create the article.  The corresponding HD article, so far is a spin-off of the CP, rather than the other way around.  It seems likely that this church is more widely known than the HD which includes it (I haven't checked but suspect that google hit counts would bear that out).  I guess i personally would not want to plan to force a complete merger into an HD article focusing n just the architecture and history, because that would involve stripping out the congregation/minister/etc. information that at least some think is legit in a church article, and i wouldn't want to get into an argument about that.  If a good HD article were created, I doubt I would then see the urgency of eliminating the separate church article, even though it has directory-like qualities now.  If eliminating this one church article was part of a consensus-based systematic sweep of church articles, then it could be appropriate.  But if I recall correctly, the mention in the AFD of previous discussion on notability of churches, was referring to previous, unresolved debates.  Bottom-line I guess my position on churches is that i support having articles on ones with architectural or historic significance, and I myself don't mind the directory-type info that also gets included for those ones.  I don't want to spend time arguing about the directory-like other churches.  To get involved in the CP -> HD merger could go over into the directory-type arguments, and there are multiple sources about this church in particular, so why go there? :) The way is open for you to develop the HD article at least. doncram (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Homestead
I moved the disambig page to Homestead Historic District (disambiguation). Also, I put in a request at WP:RM to move the historic district article to Homestead Historic District (a hatnote pointing to the disambig page should suffice). The historic district is located outside of Pittsburgh and crosses into the boroughs of Munhall and West Homestead, which are on either side of the borough of Homestead. -- Niagara  Don't give up the ship 19:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:WHS2 color
I don't like the color....I find it a little jarring. No better colors available? Something in a deeper gold or orange, maybe? Lvklock (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. Lvklock (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WHS3 one is not quite distinct enough. A touch greener maybe? Lvklock (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Numbering's screwy. Missing 152.  296 between 287 & 288, and 296 in appropriate place.  Extra 204 between 202 & 203.  That would make the total 439.  Supposed to be 440? I'll look again. Lvklock (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Cool.  So, you added five, which would bring us to 244.  Good. Lvklock (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More than half renumbered. Lvklock (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of David and Maggie Aegerter Barn
Hello! Your submission of David and Maggie Aegerter Barn at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Grsz 11  03:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Greyhound Bus Station
Could you create this? I've so far found three listings that could go here: Greyhound Bus Station (Cleveland, Ohio), Greyhound Bus Station (Jackson, Tennessee), and the Greyhound Bus Terminal in Evansville, Indiana that I've rendered as Greyhound Bus Terminal. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Greyhound Bus Station created. doncram (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, i think the Evansville one should be at its NRHP name plus (City, State), as in Greyhound Bus Terminal (Evansville, Indiana), or at least that NRHP-based name should redirect to any different actual wikipedia article, so i started it. Its NRHP name and alternative are "Greyhound Bus Terminal" and "Greyhound Bus Depot".  If you have reason to think its common name is Greyhound Bus Station, go ahead and move it, and update the dab or let me know so that i would update it.  Greyhound Bus Terminal and Greyhound Bus Depot redirect to the dab. doncram (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When I asked you this, I had no reason to say that Station is more common; I simply thought that consistency was helpful, and that "station" and "terminal" really were quite interchangeable. Greyhound's website, however, calls it "EVANSVILLE GREYHOUND STA"; is this significant enough in your mind, or does the listing name still take priority?  Please don't expect me to do anything about this right now; I'm about to be gone for a few days without Internet access, and I need to start packing.  Thanks!  Nyttend (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually i prefer the NRHP name, but I don't care really and would not reverse you if you feel there is adequate other documentation of what the place is currently called. In general I think we don't have the right to impose consistency in article names, for sake of consistency in our list-articles and dab pages;  we need to conform, ourselves, to what places seem to be called.  Greyhound, in its own listing system, is free to impose consistency, and if its name becomes the common name, then that is okay in the long run.  Currently I think NRIS is the best documentation of what the place is named, as it should reflect the station nominator's view of what was the official or common name of the place at the time of nomination. doncram (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yilun Yang
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Yilun Yang. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

national portrait gallery
I'll add the museum infobox and look into the article either later tonight or first thing tomorrow. thanks dm (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I did this the other day for you. dm (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The museums infobox in National Portrait Gallery (United States) looks great. doncram (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NYS NRHPs
By the way, i notice one remaining redlink in National Register of Historic Places listings in Allegany County, New York. And I added MPS document links for the cobblestone and PO ones in Orleans county, but haven't gone thru the others. If you notice an mpsub in the infobox for a new article, you might want to consult wp:MPS and consider adding an external link to the PDF which should be available. And, about restricted access sites in New York State alone, I have copies of many/most NRHP documents which used to be available in the OPRHP system, but are no longer. I'd be willing to share to you, or if you point me to any archeological site ones in those counties I could add some info directly. Again, great work there! doncram (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You must be a midreader. I added the MPS links to POs and Cobblestone after you made the first changes. For Cobblestone, I made the links to the OPRHP sites rather than to NPS; I could never figure out how to link to the docs on the NPS site.  Thanks for the referral to wp:MPS for that direct link.  Do you think there's any problem with linking to OPRHP instead? I'll be more careful in the future and am aware of other MPS links that need to be made.  It would be helpful to have the archaeological site NRHP docs and I'll be sure to contact you for that info.  Sorry about the oversight on my part.--Pubdog (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you look at Buffalo Harbor South Entrance Light. I expected it to be U.S. Coast Guard Lighthouses and Light Stations on the Great Lakes TR.  The MPS cited, Light Stations of the United States MPS, does not appear at wp:MPS.  TIA--Pubdog (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the link and labelled it as "U.S. Coast Guard Lighthouses and Light Stations on the Great Lakes MPS", which is kind of a long mouthful. It is the actual document title plus "MPS" appended.  You could choose to abbreviate it differently in the article, if you like.  That document lists the Buffalo area lighthouses, including a South Buffalo one which i presume is this one.  The NRIS database entry for the MPS seems to have been a typo or a non-standard abbreviation entered by whoever was doing the data entry.  If you or anyone notice more errors in MPS names, i would be more interested in adding that as a type of NRIS error that we address systematically, but I'm not going to bother putting just this one into the NRIS error correction system. Feel free to add it if you want to though. doncram (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the change and for the sage guidance. Hang in there--Pubdog (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Kakari
Curious that this isn't included in Go terms - surely it should be, with a redirect to that list? I came across it when stub-sorting. PamD (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Changed from a stub to a redirect to new section within Go terms. doncram (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Roswell and Elizabeth Garst Farmstead Historic District

 * :) Lvklock (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rijksmonument (Belgium)


The article Rijksmonument (Belgium) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Rijksmonument is a purely Dutch (The Netherlands) term, in Belgium monuments are simply called "monuments" (monumenten) or "protected heritage site" (beschermd erfgoed). The site linked to is from a community which is part Dutch, part Belgian,and the section linked describes the Dutch situation only.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Re your question. I'd say it was correct. You've gotten into the Baarle-Nassau and Baarle-Hertog thing, haven't you? You can always CSD the article if you agree with the PROD. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Beschermd Erfgoed would be a good title (and cat) but you'll need a redirect from the French. In France I think the equivalent is "Monument historique" but I'm not sure of what they are called in Belgium. I have an off-wiki friend who lives in Belgium whom I could ask. Mjroots (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to use an English title for an article on the Belgian situation, because using either the French or the Dutch term will piss off the other half of the population (well, some of them at least). We could also divide it into three articles, since the designation is a community matter anyway (Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia), but then you still have a naming problem with the Brussels part :-) I've started a user sandbox list of all articles on Belgian monuments, but a more general article on the monuments nad landscapes of Belgium is of course welcome. Fram (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fram, thanks for bringing this up in the first place, and thanks Mjroots and Fram for following up here. I started the Rijksmonument (Belgium) page in August only to support the DYK of the dutch Rijksmonument (Netherlands) page, which I thought was going to be derailed otherwise.  Looking back at the DYK discussion in August and corresponding WP:HSITES discussion, i see it was just mjroots and me then believing that the term was used in Belgium too.  I would be very happy to drop this Rijksmonument (Belgium) page and move the Dutch one back to its original Rijksmonument wikipedia article name.  I'll open a requested move right now. (Followup: I was able to make the move myself just now.)  Also I see Fram's User:Fram/Sandbox and would be happy to see Protected heritage site (Belgium) or similar created in mainspace, I guess also with a corresponding List of protected heritage sites of Belgium article. doncram (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Community Place
Nice pics. Lvklock (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK submission
Hello! Your submission of Yilun_Yang at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Kieran (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Yilun Yang
Hook was:
 * ... that Yilun Yang is ranked as a 7 dan in the board game Go?

featured properties
I just added the Sept 18 weekly listing, but my bluelink is red and I can't figure out why. Lvklock (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sept. 25th one already has article, just needs infobox and sentence about lisitng, in case you might get to it before I do. I'll be away for a couple days and don't know how much computer time I'll get. Lvklock (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Old Governor`s Mansion
Hope you don't mind - I turned it into a redirect to Old Governor's Mansion, which contains the same information but a different apostrophe. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't tell the difference. You are referring to this redirect.  I guess there are two different types of single apostrophe marks, i was not aware of that.  Thanks! doncram (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are indeed - I learned that one the hard way. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

cleared
Hey, i finally figured out how to clear this board! :) If there is new or old business to discuss, please feel free to open or reopen a discussion section here.  I want to be quicker about closing things from now on though.  doncram (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just curious, what do you mean you figured out how to clear it? Don't you just move it all to archive and it's clear? Lvklock (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, sort of. I have to risk stashing away some threads that might possibly have some loose ends, though. doncram (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. I'll never be that organized. Lvklock (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

mps stuff
I have been plugging away at the mps listings little by little. There are soooooo many. I can make the announcement when the table is done. It may be good to develop it into a mainspace list at one point. I would like to see the table numbered, if possible. Einbierbitte (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears from the way the NPS created their refnums that the MPS/MRA/TR scans and refnums were an afterthought. They just put them in alphabetical order by state and then by title - and then made up the refnums (64xxxxxx). Then they started over with a new group in alphabetical order by state then by title with new refnums (645xxxxx). And then they decided just to continue on from where they last left off.

For separate articles: there has been an attempt, as I found some and linked to them from the list. Some are nothing more than lists themselves. Also, the earlier MPS documents may be more problematic as they are so short and with very little detail (and very short and sparse bibliographies).

For numbering the list, maybe at some point it may be useful to break them down by state. Einbierbitte (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You reorgnaized it. I dunno what else at this point I'm trying to juggle a few things here and it's hard to think Einbierbitte (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Question on historic photos
Hi, Doncram. I saw your question listed at Copyright problems/2009 September 13 concerning the photos for Longwood (Baton Rouge, Louisiana). We deal with copyright problems on matters of text, whereas questions about photos are handled over at Media copyright questions. I went ahead and added your question to the bottom of that page here. You and the uploader should be able to get some better advice there from the media experts. Thanks for keeping a watch on copyright problems like this. Good luck. — Cactus Writer |   needles  09:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Broad Street Historic District
Hello. You asked for an explanation as to why I put a cleanup tag on Broad Street Historic District. As you saw, I had cleaned up the page myself and noted that in the edit summary. You then reverted my changes. No problem so far; that's certainly your right and there's no problem with a friendly disagreement. Rather than get into an edit war, I added the cleanup tag so that a disinterested third party experienced with dab pages would eventually take a look. In my opinion there are numerous problems with the page and it doesn't even come close to meeting guidelines at MOS:DAB, not just the redlinks, although you're correct in guessing that's a major problem. Dab pages are merely navigation aids for getting around Wikipedia, not search engines, and confusing pages like this don't help readers do that in the most efficient manner. If you would prefer some other method than the cleanup tag, let me know. We can start a discussion at dab talk if you like, or ask some other editor to look. Station1 (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I do strongly disagree with the notion that "NHRP dabs" are somehow different from other dabs, and that we should ever "pre-disambiguate" anything. In any case I put a comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) asking for feedback. I tried to keep it short and perfectly neutral. We'll see if there are other opinions. Station1 (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

MPS cover sheets
Curious, what do you mean by the yes/no and accessibility thing? Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused: do you mean that the inaccessible ones may have been taken down because they were revealing restricted address locations? It seems to me that the ones you note as having been taken down are primarily urban ones.  Moreover, what about Monday — do you mean because that's the beginning of the workweek?  Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a section you want me to help with, or do you and Nyttend have it all under control? Lvklock (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, pending Nyttend's confirmation, per my talk page. Lvklock (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We have all states listed at the bottom of the page now except for ID, LA, MA, and TX. Do I understand rightly that you have these states?  Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo State Hospital
Could you take a look at this and the NHL Buffalo State Asylum for the Insane, which both redirect to H. H. Richardson Complex. They're included separately on the List of RHPs in Erie, but I'm sure they're the same place. I got some new pics today. Lvklock (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you had a chance to look at this? If they are indeed the same, which listing would you keep?  I would think the Asylum for the Insane one, because that's the NHL listing.  That's NOT the name currently in the infobox. Lvklock (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow up....have you had a chance to look at this? Lvklock (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Winter Island
Please take a look at my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places Thanks,. . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

listing dates in text
I've been carefully adding month, day, and reference number to all listing dates in the text of NRHP articles -- gotta be several hundred by now -- partly because I think it fleshes out the information a little, and partly because someone (I forget who) suggested it. I can stop -- saves time -- but I'm certainly not going to spend time removing them??? . . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's no big deal, fine either way. I tend to mention just year of NRHP listing in the text of an article, leaving day-date and reference number in the NRHP infobox, unless it is a new listing and then i'd mention the day-date.  One editor, Daniel Case, chooses to edit down the infobox day-date to being just the year.  I'll watch your Talk page about other issue i raised there, btw. doncram (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

updating wikilinks
What change happened that caused you to have to spend hours updating that wikilink? Lvklock (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're commenting about me updating wikilinks in various project pages and archives, towards allowing the deletion of 10 cross-space redirects. No urgency right now, it is just a general cleanup task i was getting around to do, heading off speedy-deletions that might come up as cross-space redirects are apparently somehow bad.  I have successfully but temporarily resisted one or two speedy deletes among these, while another batch went through RFD i think without me knowing about it.  Batch of 10 cross-space redirects submitted at Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 6. doncram (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Historic district (United States) GAR notice
Historic district (United States) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Saratoga Springs
Since you are a recognized authority on disambiguation I was wondering if you could help me out here. Saratoga Springs is currently a redirect to Saratoga Springs, New York and since there is also a SS in Utah, Nebraska and California (just off the top of my head) along with the multitude uses of Saratoga Springs for amtrak stations, high schools and school districts, and whatever else might have the name and possibly get a Wikipedia article I believe it might be time for Saratoga Springs to take the place of Saratoga Springs (disambiguation) before too many hatnotes are put on the top of Saratoga Springs, New York directing people to these other articles (currently two). I was wondering if you'd be able to move Saratoga Springs (disambiguation) to Saratoga Springs making the (disambiguation) a redirect to the plain page which will be the new disambiguation allowing the hatnotes to be removed from the NY page. Saratoga Springs is known for their prissy uptight self-absorbed self-promoting self-centeredness (and yes, I am from there) so if you have any problems I'll support you since this is my idea.Camelbinky (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried something slightly different, moving the NY city to the Saratoga Springs on basis that it is the wp:PRIMARYUSAGE for the term. With just small hatnote to all other usage of the term to be located at Saratoga Springs (disambiguation).  Does that do? doncram (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, one hatnote is much better than having two with the possibility of four or more. Thank you very much!Camelbinky (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

HELP
Hippo43 finally broke my back with this last straw at Albany, New York removing a subsection I started for the public library so I brought him to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, please make a comment of support regarding his disruptive behavior if you can. Many cities, including Syracuse, have in their articles information regarding their public libraries and I just started Albany's it is sourced and I believe the information is notable and clearly shows it, there's more I would like to add to it given time. So help if you can by stating your opinion, you dont have to be an admin.Camelbinky (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ida Tarbell House
Nice job merging the two refs, and congrats on making the PDFlink template display the link without extraneous brackets. I don't like working the various reference templates -- they can be tricky to work with and it's sometimes difficult to get all of the relevant details about a document to fit within the parameters of the template. I find it much easier to enter refs in a semi-freeform manner. As for the choice of "cite web" versus "citation", that wasn't my doing -- the history indicates that you set it up that way back in October 2007. (You are excused for not remembering -- it was a minor thing, and I bet you've slept a few times since then. Furthermore, it's likely that the template behavior has changed since then.)

I forgot to mention my edit of the spelling in the NPS title when I wrote my edit summary. I fixed the spelling because it looked a bit obnoxious when the NPS' misspelling was highlighted in the reference citation. Since the name was spelled correctly in the text of that page, it's just a typo (not a case of an alternate spelling). Anyway, "[sic]" is the standard way to indicate "this is an error in the original". I've never noticed that notation in Wikipedia, but I just now looked it up here and found that there's a template (Template:Sic) for indicating "this error was in the original." I learn something new every day! --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Arenas Bridge
Thanks User:Chamal N for revising hook, which in final version displaying now is: doncram (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ... that due to scarcity of iron in Puerto Rico, the Spanish government contracted for the Arenas Bridge (pictured) to be built by a Belgian firm in 1894, and shipped to be assembled in place?

Review request
I just finished an overhaul of Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York). Would you mind reading it through for me, and letting me know what you think? Leave comments on the talk, if you would please. Thanks.  upstate NYer  05:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhoods in Milton
The whole question of neighborhoods in Milton is difficult, see Talk:Milton, Massachusetts. Other than "East" and "West", which as noted there are inconsistent and fuzzy, I don't think you'll see any agreement on neighborhoods. I say, "I live next to Brookwood Farm" or "... near Houghton's Pond and don't know any better neighborhood name for here. Of course, I've only lived here for ten years. I'll just let your proto-list sit, and we'll see if anyone does anything with it. I sure don't want to wade in, as some Milton oldtimer is certain to be offended. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen the Talk page, wasn't aware of the issue. Tried to find any official mention of neighborhoods;  it seems the Town might deliberately avoid any usage of neighborhood names.  Took a shot at objectifying it by naming East Milton and other 2 GNIS populated places within the Milton, Massachusetts article.  I think it is okay to characterize a neighborhood as being relatively more working-class and Irish-Catholic, also.  We'll see.  Thanks! doncram (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

HABS
When you do your HABS scans, how do you do it? I've always gone on a county-by-county basis, using this search screen, so I never run searches by community names. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What i have bookmarked and use is this HABS/HAER query, and i use search strings like "Natchez MS", "Alcorn MS", or "Alcorn County MS". doncram (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments on the Quincy, MA thing! I was planning to ask you to chime in, but you seem to have read my mind :-)  Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Camp Salmen TOC
I do know how to force one correctly -- I gave her the link to WP:TOC -- I just threw in the extra heading to show her where it would auto-generate if the article did have four headings. I agree with you that on short articles -- less than a full screen -- a TOC is just a nuisance -- I may use more often than I have been. . . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ponce City Hall
Hello! Your submission of Ponce City Hall at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Old Homestead
There are two Old Homesteads: one in Monroe County, Mississippi, and one in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Old Homestead dab created. And also other "Old" ones:  Old Town House, Old Village Historic District, Old Union School, Old West Church. doncram (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I hope to create an article on the Pennsylvania house, once I get to the site to get a picture — I got confused when I was there before, and got a picture of the wrong house :-(  Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Another request: Grant Commercial Historic District (Grant, Iowa) and Grant Commercial Historic District (Grant, Nebraska), please? There's a free Flickr picture for Nebraska that I uploaded and put on the Nebraska state list.  Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Interestingly post-apocalyptic drive-by pic for u to add to article (or i could);  i like the raindrops on the car window. doncram (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! Yeah, but then it was taken by someone on a journey; the Flickr collection from which it comes is for a trip through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska, all over a period of just a few days.  Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ponce City Hall
Hook as reworked by User:Geraldk (thanks!) was:


 * ... that the Casa Alcaldia de Ponce (pictured) has been used as a jail, for executions, and as the site of speeches from three Presidents of the United States?

It's the lead item with pic right now, yay! doncram (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Revert to National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon
A few minutes ago you reverted a series of edits I made to National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon over the course of a week. You provided no rationale whatsoever for your action. Please explain why you did this. &mdash; Ipoellet (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * responding below

Doncram, going by the edit summary for this edit it looks like you used rollback? Which if so, you mind explaining why non-vandalism was reverted? And more importantly why was that editor's work reverted anyway (are you going to let the images turn into red links after the Wikipedia versions are deleted as duplicates of ones on Commons?)? Aboutmovies (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I had absolutely no intention to do that, and was unaware that i had until getting your messages now, morning of next day. I don't recall even looking at that page.  I do have the Rollback feature in my account though i have used it hardly ever.  My computer froze up at about that time yesterday with a memory overload error, and it would not allow me to close windows.  The best i can figure happened is this:  I was clicking several times to try to close some error window that came up in the middle of my screen, and it appears that one of these keystrokes was absorbed by the wikipedia window where my watchlist was displaying.  And this randomly hit the rollback option for that page Oregon page.  I rebooted and did not have any reason to come back.   The edit you saw was entirely inadvertent.  I apologize for the inconvenience caused.  I do see that the edit was undone.  Sorry! doncram (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's cool. Stuff like that happens. &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent moves by User:Clariosophic
Can you take a look at two recent moves by Clariosophic. They are St. George's Protestant Episcopal Church (Valley Lee, Maryland) and St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church (Baltimore, Maryland) to new entries without the "Protestant" part. He did this to reflect the current name, while leaving the NRHP name behind. Wouldn't it have been better to have redirect pages to the new pages rather than the other way?--Pubdog (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the question. Generally the title of an article is the name the entity uses or the name by which it is best known.  "Protestant" is more or less gone from the usual name of the denomination, its dioceses, and its churches, although it may remain in the formal name of some of the various corporations. It seems to me, therefore, that the moves are entirely appropriate. The NRHP infoboxes still have the official NRIS name, with "Protestant", which is our usual practice.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  00:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Pubdog, do you understand that in making a move, that leaves a redirect behind pointing to the new page? In general also you don't want to implement a move by copy-pasting a whole article to a new name;  you want to move it, so that the entire edit history is kept with it.  So far I don't see any problem with what Clario did. doncram (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okey doke. Thanks for the verification that all is well in NRHP-(Mary)land.--Pubdog (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)  Sorry, guess it was a stupid question after all.  Please consider deleting this exchange.--Pubdog (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you deleted all the stupid questions, suggestions, and actions, I've made, Wikipedia would loose at least a million bytes -- don't worry about it.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 10:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Casa Paoli
I added some more content; hope didn't erased any of yours. I have plans this weekend; if I get more advance notice I may be able to do more. Check it out and fix it as needed, if you wish. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I am very enthused about this DYK in development, as the first time ever that I have gotten photos from a non-wikipedian, upon request from out of the blue, and I am also glad for your help.  Your substantial additions did lose some bits i had just added, but no problem i will perhaps re-work some of those into your much better structure.  Actually i need to put some of those in, as i just put forward a DYK nomination relying upon them.  Alternative DYK hook ideas welcomed. doncram (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Sorry I didn't get around to helping.  I like the alterenate hooks suggested by Geraldk at DYK. Lvklock (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Don, I wanted to congratulate you in your DYK achievement(s). I can add some more content to various other sites, but would like to know the location in the Internet of the NRHP registration/nomination documents (that is, the equivalent of this one: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/feature/weekly_features/CasaPaoli.pdf), as judging from the Casa Paoli NRHP registration document, these docs would prove very valuable in adding content to NRHP articles. For example, I created and added content to Cementerio Catolico San Vicente de Paul, but am short of information that very likely appears in the NRHP registration document. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's looking good. However, do we have a tool that will rip pictures out of a pdf file into a jpg or similar format? Mercy11 (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Move procedure
Thanks for your note regarding moves/redirects. I did forget the history/talk page and will try hard to remember the next time. I was not aware of the move request page, and appreciate that. OldPine (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Pythian Home of Missouri
You might want to check the coordinates on Pythian Home of Missouri. The coordinates in the article are putting the red dot way to the left of the infobox. I clicked the coordinates and got a location in Los Angeles. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 01:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, thanks. Tried a different set of coords that shows on the MO map now, thanks. doncram (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You should be aware that there is an existing article Pythian Castle (Springfield, Missouri) on the same place.clariosophic (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yikes. Of course the new material should be merged into the older article.  Thanks for identifying that. doncram (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

infobox generator
Don, Thanks for the info re: above. BTW, I did not use a commercial site for the info but the nps.gov site itself (which, btw, is not totally reliable anyway, as it contains errors). Note also I removed the Casa Paoli nrhp#/date which I believe you may have unintentionally overlooked. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, good. I comment further about NRIS errors at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in southern Puerto Rico now, too.  Thanks! doncram (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Colonial architecture
I see that you created this category (which apparently had not existed previously) in order to restore it to an article. I added a couple more articles to the category, but I think the category should be renamed to Category: American Colonial architecture, consistent with the name of the article on the topic (American Colonial architecture). Would you have a problem with that? --Orlady (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are also Dutch colonial architecture, Colonial revival architecture, many other types of colonial architecture. I don't know which subtype of colonial architecture applied to the one case, where I was responding to deletion of the category's application.  Also I don't know if this was one of many previously existing applications, also just deleted, or if it is one of many possible future applications.  Would it come in routinely as a type of category from the Elkman-NRHP infobox generator system?  I can't spend more time on this right now though.  I'd rather this was sorted out with more persons considering.  My action was just to reverse the loss of some information in one article that i knew about.  And I asked at the deleter's talk page about it (User talk:TasseDeThe?), to try to find out if it's part of some big category cleanup campaign. doncram (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One concern I had is that the word "colonial" is not unique to the U.S. -- there are other parts of the world that were formerly colonies and may have architecture styles called "colonial." As for styles such as Dutch colonial and French colonial that are present in the U.S., they are discussed in the American colonial architecture article (I suggest you take a look at that article). (However, Colonial Revival architecture is different -- it's a later style.)


 * I can't comment on the Elkman infobox generator, but I did ascertain that the Colonial architecture category did not exist before you created it. Tassedethe was simply fixing redlinks that pointed to nonexistent category names. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Addendum: You apparently added Glastonbury-Rocky Hill Ferry Historic District to the Colonial architecture category back in June, and it remained there as a redlink until Tassedethe edited that page. --Orlady (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The National Register database lists "Colonial" and "Colonial Revival" as separate types. Just by looking at a list of properties that have those categories by date, I see a bunch of overlap.  My guess is that Colonial architecture dates back to the early days of the United States, whereas Colonial Revival is a revival architecture style popular in the late 1800s, but the National Register database might not be making that distinction properly for all involved properties.  (Or, to put it another way, when did Colonial architecture stop and when did Colonial Revival architecture begin?)  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Colonial architecture" and "Colonial Revival architecture" are definitely distinct, and distinguished by dates. The articles about them make this clear. "Colonial" buildings were built during the Colonial era (before about 1780) and "Colonial Revival" started in the late 1800s. I would imagine that the people who write NRHP noms are good at maintaining the distinction, but building owners and real estate ad-writers are likely to use the word "Colonial" for both types.
 * The only NRHP article that is currently in the Colonial architecture category is Glastonbury-Rocky Hill Ferry Historic District. The dates for that HD run from the 17th to the 20th century, so it's unclear which type is present. However, a summary description says it has "Colonial and Greek Revival farmhouses", which I suspect means "Colonial Revival" and not "Colonial." --Orlady (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The NRHP document is available online for the Glastonbury-Rocky Hill Ferry HD. I recall that a local editor found it, should be mentioned at its Talk page, i think.  Can't look into this right now, myself. doncram (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Back to my original question: Would there be any objection to changing the category name to "American Colonial architecture" (to avoid US geographic centrism and to match the name of the article about this group of styles)? --Orlady (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If the term actually used in RL is "Colonial architecture", even though that is U.S.-centric, I am not sure what is to be done.


 * In response to my question at User talk:Tassedethe, Tassdethe commented that the Category:Colonial architecture "wasn't deleted, it had never been created, so I removed a red-linked category. The article is American Colonial architecture I think that would be a better name for the category. There is also Spanish Colonial architecture and Dutch Colonial architecture, plus various revivals etc. If you create Category:American Colonial architecture as a subcategory of Category:American architectural styles that seems reasonable. You could tag Category:Colonial architecture with db-author as well. Tassedethe (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)"


 * And at User talk:Orlady, there is comment: "Just saw your comment on Doncram's talk, and I wanted to note that I don't like the idea of Category:American Colonial architecture. Your idea sounds good (better than the current system), but I think that Category:Colonial architecture in the United States would fit other category names much better.  Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)"


 * Elkman, can you possibly please assess how many cases of "colonial architecture" show up in NRIS? I believe the by-architecture part of National Register's own interface no longer works.  Me, i am not sure what is best to do here. doncram (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While I did suggest Category:American Colonial architecture as a more suitable category I agree that Category:Colonial architecture in the United States would be better. This could contain examples of architecture where the nature of the "Colonial" is vague, undefined or mixed. If there are multiple examples of American Colonial architecture (i.e that fall within the correct date range etc) then this could be created at a later point as a sub-category. Tassedethe (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we then also have Category:Colonial Revival Architecture in the United States?. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are 850 individual properties on the National Register listed as Colonial architecture, versus 3515 listed as Colonial Revival architecture. (That's not counting historic districts, which may have multiple architectural styles.)  As far as the category suggestions go, I like Category:Colonial architecture in the United States for the earlier style, but I think Category:Colonial Revival architecture probably doesn't need to be subcategorized for the United States.  I'm not aware of any Colonial Revival architecture outside the United States.  (I could be wrong, though.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take this to WP:CfD, as a better place for the discussion than a user's talk page. I don't see that Doncram would object to a different name, which is the reason I asked the question here in the first place. I am going to propose renaming to Category:American Colonial architecture. Here is some of thinking (including reactions to comments above):
 * The term used in real life by the American public is "colonial architecture," in most cases referring in fact to what is more accurately called Colonial Revival architecture. It appears to me that the article name "American Colonial architecture" represents usage by architecture experts, as is appropriate for an encyclopedia.
 * Moreover, the U.S. is not the only place in the world where people use the term "colonial architecture." The term means different things in other places where it is used, such as India, Australia, and South Africa -- each country has its own architectural styles that are called "colonial architecture." I believe it would be inappropriately US-centric to refer to American colonial architecture as "Colonial architecture," but require a geographic indicator to be appended to the names of other countries' "colonial" styles.
 * The category in question addresses an architectural style that is unique to the United States (unlike Category:Renaissance Revival architecture in the United States, this is not a category for U.S. examples of an architectural style found in many parts of the world). For consistency with other categories in Category:Architectural styles I believe the appropriate category name is Category:American Colonial architecture (comparable in form to Category:American craftsman style and Category:Spanish Baroque architecture, both of which describe an architectural style specific to a certain country). --Orlady (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay by me if you want to move discussion to a CfD. This whole discussion could be copied over but i could also place it in a separate, permanent archive page here to be referred to from the CfD.  Just say so here when a CfD is open and I will close this and archive this (at User talk:Doncram/Archive 13 colonial architecture).  About which is proper category name, i am not going to have any opinion.  I am just glad that the scope of the issue is clear (800+ NRIS entries) and that reasonable options are being considered by others.  Thanks.  (Okay for discussion to continue here, too.) doncram (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion is already created at this spot on the CfD page. I linked to this discussion; I did not copy the discussion to that page (note for example, that some of it is irrelevant to the request), nor did I link to an archive of your talk page as you propose. Would there be a problem leaving this section up for about a week? --Orlady (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem, this stays here for as long as helpful, say till CFD is closed. Please continue at Category:Colonial architecture discussion on the CfD page. doncram (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping this here; I don't think it's needed any longer. I have closed the CfD discussion. The category was retained, but it is now for colonial architecture around the world, and there is a separate category for colonial architecture in the U.S. --Orlady (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Arenas Bridge
Hi! You should verify the statement, that the bridge is still in use, this sat-image at Google indicates a newer bridge on the east for the modern traffic. Greetings. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement in the Arenas Bridge article that the bridge is still in use is supported by citation to here, where the National Park Service asserts it is still in use. But, hmm, yes, that image is pretty convincing.  Looks like cars are parked in the approach to the historic bridge, too.  Thanks!  doncram (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed compromise aimed at consensus at WP:NJ
Hi, Doncram. As you may remember, way back in August I started a thread at WikiProject New Jersey to discuss the "Federal, state, and county representation" subsections in New Jersey municipality articles, as User:Nightscream and I had a substantial disagreement on that subject. Approximately two months later, we've hammered out a compromise that we mostly agree upon, and presently I am seeing if there is a consensus for this compromise. I'm leaving this message here not as canvassing, but because you participated in this discussion previously and perhaps would be interested in weighing in on the compromise. The full discussion is here, and the proposed compromise is here. Thanks in advance for participating! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Rancho Camulos
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Rancho Camulos/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on having 37 DYK's
Judging by User:Doncram/DYK, you should be on the DYK list, which reminds me....


 * I have 41 and I am not on there :P. Mitch 32(The Password is... See here!) 21:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks dm! And, sorry, Mitchazenia!  :(  In the same theme, i noticed recently that there are _lots_ of DYKs accumulated at User talk:KudzuVine, too. :) doncram (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem, you have to add and update the numbers yourself . :)  dm (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, 25dyk awarded to Mitchazenia. As for KudzuVine, it would help if there was a specific place to see *all* of the DYK's so I dont have to search through their archives.  dm (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually i just counted 37, and checked that count, on User talk:KudzuVine, and i see that KV has never archived, never removed initial messages to the Talk page. So 37 is coincidentally the num for KV, too. :) Okay, i'll add self to that list.  Thanks for advising. doncram (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work, all of you! Lvklock (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mary Surratt
I went to this article from the boarding house one you're working on. In the last section of the article, there's mention of the boarding house and that it is currently a chinese restaurant. There's a direct link in the article to the restaurant's website. Is that usual? Seems too commercial to me. Lvklock (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the alternative hook, about eating Chinese food where conspirators used to gather. Lvklock (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work on Mary E. Surratt Boarding House. Makes me want to visit Chinatown. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Lake George PO
Thanks for the critical eye! I have reworded the hook.

I generally haven't included links to the photo sets because a) I have so many pics to create articles for that I do try to go as fast as I can while doing a good job, and b) I'm not really sure that pic sets per se really meet the WP:EL guidelines, especially given that they require JavaScript (see #8 under WP:ELNO).

I suppose I'd consider it if/when I return to some of those and upgrade them further at some unspecified date in the future.

BTW, you can add Pure Oil Gas Station, from the Saratoga County list to your little list of demolished/non-extant NRHPs. When I visited, it is clearly no longer there anymore. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for explaining. Maybe some/all of the NY ones will show up in the NPS Focus system sometime, too.  Pure Oil demolition added to wp:NRIS info issues NY. doncram (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

MPS Document
I'm looking for the MPS for African-American Historic Resources of Prince George's County, Maryland to link to for Abraham Hall. It is not on WP:MPS. What would you advise?--Pubdog (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, not all MPS documents have been made available online, or listed by us at wp:MPS. I have the impression that some MPS's have been superseded by other, broader MPS studies, but i see no obvious broader one within the available MD ones.  Perhaps also the document would require redaction of some address restricted sites, and it was not been prepared for public release that way.  Or perhaps it just wasn't scanned previously but would be right now if it was requested.  Also about this one I see the article mentions a PDF document "African-American Heritage Survey, October 1996: Properties Within or Closely Associated with Historic Communities; Abraham Hall, entry 62-023-07, p. 19", which seems no longer available from the state (the link does not work).  That is probably the MPS document, or an earlier version before the final MPS was approved.  I don't know if the state office offers to provide documents but the Federal definitely does.  So, I would advise: 1) manually adding this one to the wp:MPS list, noting no online version is available (I have added a few others like the Dayton Oregon MPS), and 2) requesting the MPS document by email request to the National Register. doncram (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the guidance. I've added the reference to wp:MPS and will request the document.  As for the African-American Heritage Survey, it was done by our local planning organization and was probably used as the basis for the MPS document.  Unfortunately, M-NCPPC recently redesigned their website.  The PDF of that document is no longer online, although there's a place for it.--Pubdog (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Other NRHP
Great! I am getting started. Mercy11 (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had used the info there to add content to various articles. I am waiting for a response from nps.  Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception Rectory
Just ran across this article, a Swampyank Massachusetts stub. I'm not familiar with any other NRHP listings of this name exactly, but there's at least one similar name: Immaculate Conception Rectory at Botkins, near me in western Ohio. Do you think we need to move the existing article, or should it stay? Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dab set up at Immaculate Conception Rectory with 5 NRHP entries. doncram (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

MPS list announcement
Hi, I'll let you do the honors for the MPS list announcement, if you don't mind. Thank you very much for all your help! Einbierbitte (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

nrhp
Hello Don, I have the photos. but do we have a tool to rip them off a pdf file? i can print them and rescan them as jpg, but want to avoid that. time consuming, paper waste, lose of resolution, etc. do you know of a tool for that around here? thanks Mercy11 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If they'll fit on your screen at max resolution, you can do a screen shot and not lose anything. If they don't fit, you can do several screen shots and paste them up, which can be finicky, but also won't lose anything. If it's just two or three, if you like, point me at them and I'll do them for you.  Otherwise, see http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/faq.html about halfway down under "Google Maps" -- I use the Firefox Screengrab suggested there which is very easy.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  14:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the idea/tips. Great! Mercy11 (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What photos and PDF file are you talking about? If it is from a NRHP application document, the photos are probably NOT in the public domain (PD).  Only if they are old enough to have copyright expired or if they were taken by a U.S. Federal employee (not a state or commonwealth employee), are the NRHP application photos PD.  For the Casa Paoli photos, I obtained separate permission, separate release of those.  We have to do the same for any other PR NRHP photos taken by Juan Llanos Santos or others there. doncram (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warnings, but I was quite well aware of everything you wrote re: copyrights. I was really wondering if you or anyone happened to be aware of the existence of a tool to ease the job. Thanks anyway! Mercy11 (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, well, you still didn't say what PDF you're speaking of. If you are referring to NRHP document PDFs made available through the NPS Focus system, the photos are made available individually, too, also through that system.  And about a tool, i think i hear of some specific tool before to take included photos out of PDF document, but i did not use it, and would only now do general google searching to find such a thing. doncram (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"The free Adobe Reader software includes a "snapshot tool" that allows you to select an image from a PDF, copy, and paste it into another application. It only works if the PDF is not protected against copying." If folks are having a hard time finding or using this tool in Adobe Reader, I can try to create some instructions. --Orlady (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I replied earlier on Mercy11's talk page. In addition to commenting on copyright, I said:

DYK for Casa Paoli

 * I missed it on the main page. Did it get in with the pic. or without? Lvklock (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

NRHP photos Public Domain?
I was fooling around with nrhp focus hoping that the nrhp sites would finally get up to speed. Well, not entirely - I can't get the pdfs there, but I can at ARCH (a PA State site) (go to search under Franklin County, Chambersburg borough and you'll get photos and text for the John Brown House.

nrhp.focus does give me the following ... ... ...
 * Brown, John, House [Image]
 * URL:	http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/70000548.pdf
 * URL:	http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/70000548.pdf
 * Publisher:	National Park Service
 * Published:	 03/05/1970
 * Access:	Public access
 * Restrictions:	Public domain
 * Format/Size:	Physical document with text, photos and map
 * Language:	eng: English
 * Note:	225 E. King St.
 * Place:	PENNSYLVANIA -- Franklin County -- Chambersburg
 * Record Number:	149640
 * Record Owner:	National Register of Historic Places

The key words here are "Public domain"

Are these files (which ARE the same files at ARCH) now considered to be public domain?

I think we clashed a year or 2 ago on the particular example of the John Brown House. It took awhile for me to understand the "not in public domain" logic for a government form, but learned to accept it. No hard feelings, but now I really don't want to accept it. Any feedback?

Smallbones (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking again. There have been several other wikipedians besides you who have been disappointed to find out that the "public domain" label there is an incorrect label applied to all of the documents and photos in that NPS Focus system.  It is a misstatement which legal and other staff at the National Park Service have acknowledged and said that they would change, but they have not changed what is displayed.  Some of this further correspondence about it has occurred since whenever you and i discussed some examples a while back.  More info at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, including a link to User:Acroterion's comments upon contacting the NPS about this in June.  And link to NPS copyright statement which clarifies that they do provide copyrighted material in their system.  Some materials in the system were created by Federal employees, and those would be public domain, but most are not.  For some PA or other state-employee created documents, the state staff may well be willing to give up copyright and put in the public domain, but that has not been done.  You could take it up with them.  The bottom-line is that a "public domain" mislabel by the NPS about a document in its system, does not change the actual copyright status of the document. doncram (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, I think the John Brown photo argument was the most polite, good natured disagreement that I've had on Wikipedia, and I would love that this discussion proceeds in the same manner. Thanks.


 * I do think that you are being over-careful on your interpretation of the NPS's non-release release. e.g. they do say that - unless otherwise noted - the material is owned by the NPS. I'd like to approach this from a different starting place however.  The NPS site says: "Published:	 03/05/1970" for the John Brown House photo.  They were not published with a copyright notice.  Anything published before January 1, 1978 without a copyright notice is public domain.  Do you agree with this logic? Smallbones (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The NPS guidance to me, specifically, was "it is apparently the responsibility of the user to verify whether or not a photograph is in the public domain before using it." That means to me that some of the NRHP images are public domain if they were shot by feds on fed business. It is up to the end user to properly determine if this is correct. I don't understand how they derive that anything published before January 1, 1978 is public domain. Since the Internet didn't exist then, there's very little material on the NPS Focus site that was "published" in any case. Residence in an NPS file isn't the same as publishing, and the general US copyright exemption date is 1923. Many of the photos of NRHP sites were shot by state agencies, who would retain the rights to their photography, as the NPS has indicated that they have never requested surrender of the author's copyrights to the NPS. The NPS can't unilaterally declare another party's copyright null and void, regardless of what they say on the website.   Acroterion  (talk)  18:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Published" means to distribute or to make public. These forms were certainly public records and were made public - i.e. shown to the public - so it seems that "residence in an NPS file" is the same as publishing, at least for these specific files when they explicitly state that they published them.  The NPS did not say that anything published before 1-1-78 is Public Domain, that is simply the law, when the publication occurred without a copyright notice.


 * The bureaucrat's statement "it is apparently the responsibility of the user to verify whether or not a photograph is in the public domain before using it," is absolutely correct and is as much as a bureaucrat is ever going to say. He won't ever say "I personally guarantee you that this is in the public domain."  But when a Federal government form is published by the government, without a copyright notice before 1978, I think we've done all that is humanely possible to do to check that it is in the public domain.  Smallbones (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, glad to hear it was civil before, i was not remembering any acrimony with you. There have been a memorable occasion or two when a new wikipedian was quite outraged, and I am irked myself to be put in the position that we are, by the National Park Service's fault.


 * Actually the two links you gave above for John Brown House NRHP documents, ( http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/70000548.pdf and http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/70000548.pdf ) in fact only link to a notice that "The PDF file for this National Register record has not yet been digitized." That is another irritating feature of the NPS Focus system, that it appears to make documents available which it does not.  So, I presume in fact you have the Pennsylvania state system's copies of the documents, instead, and that you reasonably but erroneously assumed the NPS system version was the same as a PA version (which it is for other examples).


 * Your argument that the NPS published the documents because the NPS Focus system says that it did, is novel, and I would be interested in working with that. I am a bit concerned that we know at least one other NPS system field is mislabelled, so I don't know that we should believe the "Published" label either.  I am sure that in fact what the system is showing is the NRHP application date, or perhaps the NRHP listing date, with signoff by the "Registrar" or whatever is his/her title, of the National Register.  The application was then on file at the National Register in Washington, D.C.  But if the NPS legal staff would concur that the filing of the application constituted a publication, then that could perhaps clear many of these for use in Wikipedia, which would be great.  I am not a lawyer and I am not very familiar with copyright law nuances, can't judge about 1928 vs. 1978 being important cutoffs (though I thought it was a much older date than 1978 which would be relevant). doncram (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

NRHP photos arbitrary break
"Publication" should not be a problem. They actively distribute copies of the application to the public even before it's accepted (during the comment period) and distribute copies once it is accepted. See Publication for some of the US code, and for why I bolded "copies."

Their website does directly address photographers giving up their rights, though as usual it's not 100% clear.
 * "USE OF NATIONAL REGISTER PHOTOGRAPHS
 * By allowing a photograph to be submitted to the National Park Service with a National Register form, photographers grant permission to the National Park Service to use the photograph for publication and other purposes, including duplication, display, distribution, study, publicity, and audio-visual presentations." about 5 paragraphs down

In other sections they are clear that the completed application form (including the photos) is a legal document that will be distributed to the public.

I think that establishes publication: if the NPS says they will publish and now says they have published then it is reasonable for any person to believe that they have published as of the date they gave.

The interpretation that the NPS retracted their statement that these items were in the public domain, is just that - an interpretation. Of course people are responsible for checking whether something is in the public domain or not - and nobody ever can be 100% certain that something is in the public domain (unfortunately, but that's the way our laws are written). But if the US Federal Government says that they believe that something is in the public domain (and especially if they don't stop making public statements to that effect months after a Wikipedian checks with them), then it is safe to presume that the item is in the public domain.

But I'm not relying on the Public Domain statement here. I'm relying on publication before Jan. 1, 1978 without copyright notice. See standard guide from Cornell. No copyright notice before pre-1978 publication, no copyright period. Completely safe as far as I'm concerned. Now put the NPS statement of "Public Domain" on top of that and I don't think that you can humanly be more certain that it's in the PD.

I don't want to burden you and your talk page too much with this. Perhaps it could be better to get a general discussion at WP:Media copyright questions? If you believe this argument, then about half of all the NRHP photos will become available to Wikipedia, so it's worth seeing if I've missed something. All the best. Smallbones (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Again i don't know about the 1978 date or not, but I am intrigued. It would be great to establish public-domain-ness of a big chunk of these (don't know if it would be half or not).  I'll further chime in that at least some of the NRHP application contributors believed that they were putting material into the public domain (PD), and would not object to it being determined that the materials are PD.  User:Pubdog corresponded with the Maryland Historic Association (effectively the Maryland state historic preservation office, apparently) and found they thought their NRHP applications were public domain.  On the other hand, I am pretty sure that some private writers of NRHP applications would seek to defend their copyright.  It remains odd that the National Register has not changed its guidelines to require document text and photos to be put into the public domain.  But in fact they have "realized" that the procedures in place do not require the material to be put into PD, and then they have gone on to keep the same procedures in place, to accept new NRHP applications in the same status, when they could easily change that.  Some pressure to the Secretary of the Interior or something oughta be applied, to change things going forward at least. doncram (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I am by no means a copyright lawyer, I have been in charge of IP issues many times over the last twenty years or so. It is my understanding that the general rule Smallbones puts forth is correct -- that before 1978 there were very specific requirements for copyright notice.  It not only had to be present, it had to be in a particular place.  It is also my understanding that he is correct with respect to what constitutes publication. Publication, even in a very limited way, without the right notice in the right place eliminated any hope of ever getting a copyright.


 * I think, though that his logic breaks down on a key point -- we have no way of proving that the digitized photos did not have a copyright notice when they were made public (in the NPS files) before 1978. It is entirely possible that the John Brown House photo had a caption strip with a copyright notice that was cropped off when it was digitized. Also, although I am not sure of the law here, I know that it was usual practice for photographers (including me) back then to put the copyright notice on the back of the photo. That, too, would not make it onto the digital copy. So, while the general rule is correct, I don't think it helps us without access to the original submissions. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  23:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually this is sounding pretty good for establishing PD-ness of a big chunk. Many of the digitized NRHP photo sets do include copies of the backsides of photographs, and perhaps this is done in every case where there was anything written there.  So perhaps the absence of any backside is evidence that there was no restriction placed there.  Perhaps we are getting far enough along, that it should be argued that it is okay to assume PD-ness, and it is someone else's obligation to prove copyright was preserved somehow, for cases before 1978. doncram (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to get a good test case - one where the photos come directly from NRHP focus - and the complete documents are clearly there. Easier said than done. And I'm trying to watch the Series. I'll be back after the 9th. Smallbones (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - this looks like a good test case "Athenaeum of Philadelphia " (in honor of the Phillies) at with pdfs including photos text photos 1976 publication, photos and photo credits (back of photo) included but not marked as copyrighted, and photo credit marked as "Athenaeum of Philadelphia ".  NRHP form completed by a NPS employee.  I'll recheck that there are no copyright marks and then upload an interior photo to Athenaeum of Philadelphia.  I think it's got all the elements that it can't possibly be copyrighted, but I'll certainly listen to others.  Is this page the best forum?  Smallbones (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * uploaded the file at File:AthenaeumPhilly.jpg and inserted it into Athenaeum of Philadelphia. I'll wait for comments here or on my talk page.  Tomorrow, I'll take it to WP:Media copyright questions or would the NRHP project talkpage be better?  Smallbones (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay i see that. Unfortunately i will not be able to participate much in the next few days.  Please do post for discussion at the Media Copyright questions page in WP the best place for discussion.  And please post notice at wt:NRHP.  Specific individuals to inform--if they don't chime in on their own-- would be User:Acroterion and User:Nyttend.  And also User:Ruhrfisch who handled copyright issues carefully on some PA NRHPs but who does not watch here.  And perhaps also post in Commons for copyright experts there.  I would hope for a good discussion with expertise brought to bear.  This is important.  I will leave this discussion section open here on my talk page so it can be referred to.  Please do post a link from here to the Media copyrights discussion and i will try to follow if time allows.  Thanks! doncram (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I am hoping Acroterion or others would consult with the National Park Service directly about this. I could email one or another contact of mine there but i think i did not ever get to any lawyer there as Acroterion may have. doncram (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the person I corresponded with was a webmaster or PR person, not a lawyer. They didn't provide a name.  I imagine there is an appropriate person who could answer our questions, and I'll do a little research. It would be a great boon to be able to use a greater proportion of the available images, but we should tread carefully; a cautionary story may be found here  and here, and of course at National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts.   Acroterion  (talk)  18:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a better test case, but the Athenaeum may have to do. Time for the Phils again. Smallbones (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Smallbones and Acroterion for commenting. I had not heard of that National Portrait Gallery case.  Seems interesting, including one idea in there of using lower-quality images that i personally think work fine in Wikipedia.  I also would want to work the channels with the National Park Service to do this right and to have agreement at the right level there.  I do know several people in the National Register area by name now, but no lawyer there yet, and i think what we really want them could require organized correspondence over some time, and higher level management decisions approved up high, up to the Secy of Interior if necessary.  Basically we really want changes in their policies for accepting NRHP applications going forward, we want changes in their NPS Focus site labelling of photos and documents, and we want their concurrence on PD-ness of various categories (e.g. the pre-1978 ones), and we want their cooperation in working with State Historic Preservation Offices to secure, state-by-state if necessary, release of documents and photos prepared by state staff (Smallbones, you are most interested in Pennsylvania-prepared documents, right?  I am happy to focus early on that state).  The NPS does clearly want to put out photos for public use, as seen by their regularly posting new featured listing photos and other photos to Flickr, but it does not release copyright there in way useable by Wikipedia.  If i have help in making the copyright arguments on 1978 and so on, I am willing to work with the National Park Service / National Register, i.e. handle correspondence and phone conference calls and whatever it takes, over time, to address this properly.  Note this also can relate to our requesting their making corrections in the NRIS system, and requesting delistings of demolished NRHP-listed buildings, and so on, per wp:NRIS info issues.  But I can't focus on this until after the World Series is over, too. :) doncram (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to Media_copyright_questions and suggested a bit more than I did here. Smallbones (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion continued at Media Copyright Questions and was archived at Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/November. Seems like no change in Wikipedia policy was accomplished, and I didn't see any really new information being advanced.  A key idea is whether NRHP nomination submission constitutes "publication";  while a promising idea if true, I tend to think it is not true, tend to think it is not consistent with nominators' and photographers' understandings upon submission. doncram (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

List of demolished/non-extant NRHPs
I understand from above on Oct 20 that you maintain a list of demolished/non-extant NRHPs? If so, then you can certainly add Avondale Mill to that list. Where is the list located?--Pubdog (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, i will add that one to wp:NRIS info issues. Please check out the NRIS info issues list, and please do add other reports there. doncram (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

NRHP applications
I'd like to find the NRHP nominations for the Jefferson Memorial and Lincoln Memorial. Do you know where I could get them?  upstate NYer  00:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, since they're national memorials, that probably makes them default NRHP, so they may not have nominations. But if you know of reliable, single source documents similar to an NRHP nom, that would be helpful.  upstate NYer  00:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Lincoln memorial http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/66000030.pdf
 * http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/66000030.pdf


 * Thomas Jefferson Memorial http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/66000029.pdf no photos yet

Both were prepared by an NPS employee, so are not copyrighted. Smallbones (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Big Four Depot
Just discovered two of these listings: one in Lafayette, Indiana and one in Galion, Ohio. I have a picture for Lafayette, in case that means anything. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another duplicate: Marian Apartments in Lafayette, Indiana and in Griffin, Georgia. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * doncram (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)✅
 * I just found something else out about the Lafayette Indiana Big Four Depot: It's still active, and it's used by Amtrak(http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/lafayettein.htm). That makes your article a duplicate, and should be merged. DanTD (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This regarded Big Four Depot dab and Big Four Depot (Lafayette, Indiana). Merger called for was done. doncram (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This regarded Big Four Depot dab and Big Four Depot (Lafayette, Indiana). Merger called for was done. doncram (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Another disambiguation, please
There's a St. Marys Historic District in Geogia and another in Elk County, Pennsylvania. You may also want to consider St. Mary Historic District in Lafayette, Indiana; I'm really not sure what to do with almost-the-same-but-slightly-different cases such as this. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's not entirely clear what to do. What i just did is to set up a combo dab page with 11 entries having similar names.  Thanks! doncram (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And another: Salisbury Plantation (Woodville, Mississippi) and Salisbury Plantation (Westover, Maryland). Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, I just realised that the disambiguation page already exists; sorry. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's one disambiguation page that doesn't exist: St. Nicholas Church. I've found St. Nicholas Church (Pilot Point, Alaska) and St. Nicholas Church (Nikolski, Alaska); Pilot Point has a photo and HABS profile.  Moreover, St. Nicholas Chapel already exists, but all the entries are redlinks.  Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, made combo dab at St. Nicholas Church. doncram (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And another
Springer Farm could be Springer Farm (Newark, Delaware) and Springer Farm (Uniontown, Pennsylvania). I've already changed the links in the lists, so you only need to create the pages. Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, good, done. doncram (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ECHO inactive?
Hi, browsing on translation related Wikipedia project pages, I noticed a kind of inconsistency between WP:ECHO and other pages.

Please see Category:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages page where WP:ECHO is described as inactive and Translation which says "The majority of these translation requests are invalid (that is, in general the English Wikipedia article is better).". I think your concern on the category talk page is valid, and wonder if you would like to fix them. Cheers, --Aphaia (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Museo de la Masacre de Ponce
Don, there is a message for you at Museo de la Masacre de Ponce talk page. Reagrds, Mercy11 (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don I have responded at Museo. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I further edited at the article Museo de la Masacre de Ponce and its talk page Talk:Museo de la Masacre de Ponce. I'll watch and respond further there.  Do let me know if, after several days, i have not responded to something that I should have.  I expect that I would soon remove the POV tag that i added.  You should feel free to remove "citation needed" tags after supplying the relevant citations.  Thanks! doncram (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

NHL references
You have added many references to NHL articles that are the pdf nomination forms, like in this edit, followed by this edit. They are all linked to from this site. Did you add these somewhat automatically, or were they all by hand? If they were automated and it's not too much trouble, could you please help me make sure that all of the articles on List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana properly link to their nomination forms? Thanks! Reywas92 Talk 00:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yikes, i am exposed! My process by which i've added NRHP/NHL inventory/nomination docs to that and many other NHL pages is pretty much a manual, two-step one, like you uncover.  In the first step i copy-paste in a generic reference footnote with blanks to fill out (copying from a sandbox), and only customize it with the NRHP refnum for the given site.  Hopefully that works to make links to the text and photos documents, which i bring up.  Then in the second step i fill out the blanks, getting the author and date info from Section 11 of the text document (usually several pages into the document).  I'll apply myself somewhat to filling out the rest of the List of NHLs in IN to assist you, over the next few days. doncram (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Howard Van Doren Shaw building
I'll try to stop by there and take a look. I usually only pass through that area, but this is a wierd week so probably in a day or two. dm (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!
Happy Thanksgiving! I am thankful for you and your contributions here! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Baker
Sorry about that then. The naming situation is rather odd. The nomination form does not include the word Baker anywhere. Also, the reference number of the PDF, 64000185, is different from the one given in the article, 83000055. Thank you very much for your help with the IN NHLs! I've worked on them starting from the bottom and there are only a couple left to go. Reywas92 Talk 20:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Octagon house
Thank you (Octagon house ref lifestyle pundit). Fowler is pretty funny with his theories about how everything should be done. ProfDEH (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mural copyright question
Thanks for suggesting that I join the WikiProject on NRHP. I'd thoguht that I'd already done so, but apparently hadn't. Omission rectified.

I'm trying to photograph NRHP sites in Nebraska, and have run into a bit of a copyright issue. I wonder if you could offer any useful advice--

Several US Post Offices, including the one in Minden (Kearney County) are listed, with the presence of WPA murals cited as a major reason for the listing. The registration form for Minden is available on the Nebraska State Historical Society's website at: http://www.nebraskahistory.org/histpres/nebraska/kearney/KN04-007_Minden_USPO.pdf

Would these murals be public domain, because created under contract from the US Government? Obviously it'd be desirable to have photos of the murals, since they're a major factor in the structures' historic significance. I've asked Nyttend about this, and s/he's posted a request for advice on WP:MCQ; but as far as I know, there've been no responses to that.

Thanks again for your comment on my photos--


 * --Ammodramus (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Offhand I think government-owned murals are like government-owned sculptures in public places, which in U.S. law are copyrighted at least for some period. Note we cannot post photos in Wikipedia/Commons of modern art in public places.  If the artwork is old enough its copyright could have expired though. doncram (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, government ownership does not eliminate copyright, and things made under the WPA aren't old enough to qualify for that exemption. But, the WPA employed its artists and therefore works made for it were works made by government employees in the course of their job. I'd try that on Commons and see how it flies. Note that the key here that they were not "created under contract from the US Government", in which case we'd have to see the contract, but created by employees. In that case the presumption is that it was a work-made-for-hire and that, therefore, copyright rests with the employer. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Will House
Hi there. You misspelt the word cricketer when moving the article at Will House (cricketeer). No hurry, but if you could please move the article to Will House (cricketer), this would be appreciated. Thank you. Bobo. 18:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your swift response. I see you also got to the disambiguation page before I saw. All is good. Bobo. 18:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Union Avenue Historic Commercial District
I have done some significant improvements to the article and references. I'm not the greatest copy editor and have a slight COI since this is my Hometown. Can you take a look and help make sure I'm progressing to a featured Article sts? I know it's not ready yet but maybe a few pointers about things that oculd be expanded or reworded. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of RHLs in Indiana
At the FLC for List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana, I was told not to say "approximately 1,687 properties" because that's not actually an approximation. I said that is exact but changing, so TRM said to include a date instead. Do you know if the current listings at List of RHPs in IN are fully up to date, or what I can do to find the most recent numbers? Thanks, Reywas92 Talk  19:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cox-Craddock House
Would you please look at this article and its talk? An editor appears to be saying that the absence of reliable online sources for an NRHP-listed house (including the nomination form, which isn't reliable because the owner writes it so as to get tax benefits for owning a historic building) means that it's not notable. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My argument was that there was no indication of why the house was notable nor a reliable source indicating its notablitiy in the article. I have since added a source which includes nomination information and done a page on the architect but I still am dubious about relying on this kind of info. Citing any source, online or not, which said that this was a notable house and why would be a start! (Msrasnw (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Many thanks for your note on the NRHP-listing things. I'll remove the notability tag as it is our policy to accept the listing. I think though our articles should be written in such a way as to show why properties have been deemed to be notable. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Disambiguation, yet again
Mt. Zion Methodist Church in Somers, New York already exists, but there's another one in Carthage, Arkansas. Nyttend (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done; only question, should it be Mount Zion Methodist Church? ... --Pubdog (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pubdog, for setting up the dab, and i just added some more stuff to it. And, it's not very important, but I'd prefer to have it moved to Mount Zion Methodist Church, in parallel with similar dab pages Mount Zion Church, Mount Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church, etc.  It requires an administrator to implement that move now.  Nyttend or any other administrator, could you make the move?  Or I'll post a request at wp:RM in a day or two. doncram (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do that. In return, would you create West House?  There's one in Wellington, Ohio and another in Helena-West Helena, Arkansas.  Please note that the NRIS simply says Helena — the two cities merged just a few years ago, well after the house was listed.  Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for causing the additional work. I should have checked out the Mount Zion issue before making the move. The Mt. Zion page already existed, so I guess I took a shortcut.  Best wishes and still learning here.--Pubdog (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No extra work caused, very glad you are contributing, Pubdog. I am in fact very happy to see you contributing on dab page creation.  Whatever extra i did was optional, not essential in fact, including whichever verison redirected to the other version.  I very well may not be here forever / for very long, glad to see someone else interested in filling this need.  West House done too now.  Thanks! doncram (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your expertise needed-
I'm starting a sandbox on the University Heights neighborhood in Albany and was wondering what the preferred article-naming convention was for a neighborhood. Some articles use Neighborhood, City, State (South End, Agoura Hills, California) and some use just Neighborhood, City (South End, Boston) and then there are other articles that use Neighborhood (City) (South End (Charlotte neighborhood)). Very confusing and wondering if you could point me in the right direction.Camelbinky (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree there ought to be editorial consistency on this point, but there are many different styles out there as you say. The naming standard was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/November.  I prefer the Neighborhood, City, State (South End, Agoura Hills, California) format, for reasons I tried to express in that discussion.  Actually User:Orlady's comments there in support of same, dated October 28, were the best stated IMO. doncram (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a very interesting discussion that took place and I am thoroughly convinced by you and Orlady on the naming convention being the long two comma form. Thank you for your time in showing me that. I hope one day I can repay the many favors you have done for me.Camelbinky (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

NRHP
Hey I have a question for your expertise. For NRHP articles, where do you find the nominations and listing information? I've tried to use Focus, but my current project is a bit off the beaten path and none of what I have been looking for has been added to Focus yet. In particular, I want to find the nominations because with those sites it's probably my best source, but haven't been too successful. Thanks a lot,  Grsz 11  06:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Grsz11, I can jump in here ... please visit the project page WikiProject National Register of Historic Places for state by state guidance on availability of nominations forms.--Pubdog (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of AVR 661
I have nominated AVR 661, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/AVR 661. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wuh Wuz  Dat  15:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Various categories of "National Park areas" by state

 * Besides continuing further to edit more of the items under discussion, Hmains indicates at his talk page that he sees that this "...CfD is not properly formed and will be thrown out as soon as reviewed by an administrator. You are not following any of the Cfd rules which are well established. I will not write anything there." I don't participate often at CFD and I don't know what CFD rules would rule out the validity of this CFD.  Can anyone else explain? doncram (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. None of the named (or unnamed) categories above were tagged with a to notify interested watchers of the said categories. I recommend that the reviewing administrator relist this and that somone tag each of the categories we are considering. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 14:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

St. Francis River Bridge
I've discovered two of them, both in Arkansas: one near Lake City in Craighead County and one near Madison in St. Francis County. I have a photo for the St. Francis County bridge. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now found photos for both St. Francis River Bridges. Also, there are two Illinois River Bridges in Benton County: one near Pedro and another near Siloam Springs; I have a picture for Siloam Springs.  Nyttend (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, working on St. Francis River Bridge and Illinois River Bridge dab pages....doncram (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per your comment in creating the St. Francis article — the pictures are on the county lists. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, what did you mean by saying "It's a cool bridge"? The MPS form doesn't want to download at the moment.  Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rats, i've been caught, and in only about 2 seconds.... :( doncram (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like a cool bridge too ;-> Cheers --Pubdog (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the MPS document is downloading properly right now, tho slowly. I have and can share a copy of the MPS document to anyone, from my previously saved collection.  I should update both those articles though, to include a more complete reference at least (and to document the coolity(sp?) of the one).  :) Am leaving this note as a reminder to myself. doncram (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it downloaded fine for me last night, but that left me even more confused — how is "cool" not a POV? I couldn't find anything even remotely on that topic in the document.  Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Pennsylvania", "Wilson", etc. in Indianapolis
Do I remember rightly that you were discussing property names such as these for Indianapolis listings? Someone just created "The Wilson", which I moved to Wilson (Indianapolis, Indiana), the title to which the relevant list links. Nyttend (talk)


 * Addressed; see Talk:The Wilson.  Am addressing other Indianapolis names too per discussion linked from there.  I have started and will continue over the next few days;  it takes a while because there are related articles to move and related dab pages to create or update. doncram (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. When Acroterion and I began to develop Mummy Cave in late July, I decided that I didn't want to cite the same document over and over again just because I was using different pages, and I had a vague memory of seeing a template that would append page numbers to the citations, so I went to the Help Desk and was pointed to rp.  Nyttend (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Check Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Marion County, Indiana — I've found more information on this annoyingly confusing subject. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AGF
Hello, Doncram. My revision to your edit at the disambiguation page Colonial does not mean that I am "following you around," as you alleged in your later edit summary. That disambiguation page is on my watchlist after I did some extensive cleanup there in October. If you look at the history, you will see that others did more work on the article later. The page has been problematic, which is why I kept it on my watchlist. When I saw that redlinks had been added, linking to disambiguation pages that didn't exist (with no note indicating that the pages were being created), I suppressed display of those redlinks. Please try to assume that I just might possibly be acting in good faith when I fix a problem. --Orlady (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do try to AGF. I am concerned once again about your and my interactions, which do seem to be degenerating again perhaps.  In recent edit summaries you have referred to me or my actions as being "silly" and "insane" which seem to be escalations perhaps going over the line of civility.  I myself did state in one edit summary "that is silly" directed to you.  It's a fine line perhaps, but I am concerned that civility is at risk here.


 * About your following me around or not, it is my perception that you do from time to time make a point of inserting yourself into topics and discussions that I am involved in. I am sure that each time you believe that you are being helpful, and sometimes I agree that you are.  But from all the past history between us, old and recent, it seems clear you do follow me around.  If you choose not to sometime in the future, that would be great.  In the near term, because you and I are involved in some disagreements about categories at wt:PAREAS and elsewhere, I expect that I will occasionally be checking your contributions.  It is an efficient way for me to detect whether you seem to be following me around and undoing my work.


 * About this Colonial disambiguation page, you were in fact incorrect that the relevant disambiguation pages did not exist. Both pages (The Colonial and Colonial Hotel) did exist.  All that was lacking was to sew the last stitches into place, to add redirect links from The Colonial (disambiguation) to The Colonial, and similarly for Colonial Hotel (disambiguation).  I had indeed forgotten to create those redirect links.  I do take minor offense (very minor) that you chose to assume that my edit at the Colonial page was misguided and to undo it.  I would have preferred, mildly, that you check with me about what I was trying to accomplish.  Or, better, that you would have checked whether the disambiguation pages existed at the names they are at, and then you could have just indeed fixed the problem by creating the needed redirects.  I would have understood either of those as your being helpful. doncram (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not doing a thorough research on your edit history to find -- and then correct -- your errors in linking to wrong page titles. I didn't realize that you think you need me to correct your mistakes. (But I'm glad to know that the redlinks were just the result of a minor oversight.) --Orlady (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Niagara Hudson Building
I think you cited an article from the Syracuse Post-Standard at, but you never linked to an article on their web site. If it's not too much trouble, could you go back and complete the citation? I found the new article when checking out User:AlexNewArtBot/ArchitectureSearchResult.

By the way, it's probably better for all concerned that I'm not contributing to Wikipedia very much these days, isn't it? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I added more referencing to the NiMo building article.  I was less active for a while myself, too.  I'd like to see you contributing, tho hopefully not getting involved in any issue that is too aggravating.  As u may have noticed, though, i am somewhat getting dragged down in some inane back-and-forth. :( doncram (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

NY NRHP map
Hey there, I have completed your requested NY NRHP map:  file:NRHP New York Map.svg. Sadly I can't get a similar scale to CA (ArcGIS sets its own scale breaks, afiak). From what I can tell, the southeastern 1/3 of the state would be in CA's red scale. Hope you like it! 25or6to4 (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you like the map. Had to do an insert for NYC area as the numbers got too crowded.  Doing a nationwide version would actually be pretty easy.  I just have to get the numbers into the database, which seems to be the most timeconsuming.  Updating is quick.  25or6to4 (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in New York
Hi could you do me a favor and look at the formatting of National Register of Historic Places listings in New York? I'd like to get it to look like National Register of Historic Places listings in Maryland, but I'm afraid it is beyond my page formatting skills. Thanks in advance.--Pubdog (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really an expert either, i have only just cut-and-pasted / copied others' work in doing the tables for these state list-articles. I'll take a shot at just copying what is in the MD list tho.  One feature I was liking to include, which seems never have been or no longer to be present in NY's but still appears in MD's, is to use captions for the included pictures that mentions the corresponding county name, so as to direct readers to the items in the list.  I'll revise the NY list along those lines now, too. doncram (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for formatting the county list with pics in the format of Maryland. I wish I knew enough to get the top portion looking better; I don't like the maps just floating, but don't know how to fix that.--Pubdog (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Battered corners
I don't have any closeups yet; I am planning to get up there at some point and get some more pics, possible other interior shots. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Buffalo, New York‎
Thanks for biting the bullet and combining the two St. Pauls entries on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Buffalo, New York‎. I really like the footnote you added. I can take care of the Buffalo neighborhoods when I have a chance. Best wishes.--Pubdog (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added Buffalo neighborhoods and pics for all but one site (argh!) to list. Note that some sites are outside neighborhoods as defined at of Buffalo neighborhoods.  Just left them as Buffalo.--Pubdog (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Request
Would you please find the coordinates for the Mountain Fire Lookout Tower (you started the article)? I occasionally get to Mountain (it's in the middle of nowhere), so I might be able to get a photograph if we can figure out where it is. Thank you, and Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays!  Royal broil  14:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would, but I am not sure how to interpret the "UTM" info in its NRHP nomination document. The document states the tower is Zone 16, Easting 385000, and Northing 5007200.  Perhaps that means 50.072°N, -38.5°W, but i don't think so, because that is way out in the Atlantic Ocean.  The longitude must be west, why is it labelled "Easting"?  And not sure on degrees-minutes-seconds vs. decimal, or what.  Photos in the document show it is pretty tall, but i understand it being difficult to find one of these from the ground.  I gave up once looking for a different one, despite knowing i must have been very close. doncram (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave up on one of those searches once too. One day I'm gonna go back and try with one of those handy dandy GPS's. Lvklock (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system explains how the system works. --Orlady (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Using an online conversion program, I got the coordinates: 45.2135627773657, -88.4645598267842 (LOL: you can probably get by without all those decimal places). --Orlady (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the UTM article goes on and on. Thanks for the pointer and the coords!  So will try 45.21356°N, -88.46456°W. doncram (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And actually in Google maps, map view, that shows a location just south of end of a Mountain Tower Road in the forest. Coords point to a place probably 400-500 feet south of actual location which is probably on the hilltop.  Thanks, that worked nicely. doncram (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone. I doubt I could have found it without all the help!  Royal broil  04:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Confession
I confess that I did "follow you around" to Manlius Village Historic District, where I made several edits that I believe improved the article.

For the record, I looked at your contributions list to see if you had been actively editing today. Seeing the limited extent of your edits, I concluded "has been at Wikipedia, but hasn't spent much time there." --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice pics with that district article! Lvklock (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * E-mailed another question. Lvklock (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened with the DYK? I don't see it there, and December 27 is gone. Lvklock (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just found it in the "queue" area, and noticed the hook is somewhat incorrect, and posted about that at wp:errors. It should appear within a day i think. doncram (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it just got corrected, looks okay to me now, at Template:Did you know/Queue. doncram (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ec I was just coming back to say I'd found it in the queu, too.  I didn't notice the problem...won't bother to go back to see now that it's been fixed.  Lvklock (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

CT
NPS Focus appears to have posted some or all of Connecticut. Before we go farther with discussions on CT places, I think we ought to make use of the new resource. I'm fully in favor of developing full articles as sources become available, and - voila - here they are. I haven't done a broad search, but I think we can cut the wrangling on many articles short.  Acroterion  (talk)  04:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that Alaska, North Dakota, Connecticut and North Carolina have been added.  Acroterion  (talk)  05:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And at least some MPS/TR documents, and at least some New York state ones.  How can we tell what all has been added, is there an actual announcement somewhere? doncram (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting these announcements! I just wish they would put up Ohio — all of my recent writing has been in Pennsylvania, since all their forms are online but none of Ohio's.  Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did it the hard way, entering a property in each state to see whether a nom came up. I'd looked for one of the individual Norwichtown properties for the hell of it, and the nom popped up. Stunned, I tried others in CT. There may be some states that are partially covered that I've missed, and I didn't do a wide search through each state other than CT, as it was past bedtime. This is in addition to DC, DE, HI, KY, NV, UT and WY that are already covered, plus the usual state sources. I saw an MPS/TR in the process, so maybe they're adding those where they apply.    Acroterion  (talk)  14:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Arenas Bridge
The linked page http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Bayamon:Puerto:Rico.html

says at the bottom:

This article is from Wikipedia licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Bayamón, Puerto Rico". The list of all authors is available under this link.

The economicexpert article is a copy of a Wikipedia article and therefore prohibited by Wikipedia rules from being an external link. Wikipedia policy is clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_of_Wikipedia says

Mirrors and forks are not reliable sources and may not be listed as external links in articles.

Nightkey (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for following up and explaining more. Not sure what to do here.  I am certainly not adding economicexpert as a source to any other articles;  there is not a general problem with my editing that you need to address.  There is just this one case, where I am trying to keep Arenas Bridge as a nice short, properly sourced article, and the economicexpert page is my source about suspension bridges in Puerto Rico.  Note I got a DYK for the Arenas Bridge article, and I am just trying to protect it in a good way, not in a bad wp:own way.  So, please, we don't need to blindly apply some dictum about mirror sites to this article.  I cannot use the Wikipedia article on Bayamon as a source in a Wikipedia article, and whether the economicexpert is a mirror of wikipedia in this case is not completely clear.


 * I do see that the wikipedia article Bayamón, Puerto Rico includes one relevant phrase about a suspension bridge being "believed to be one of only 3 of its type in all of Puerto Rico" which also appears in the economicexpert article. I dunno which was first, who is copying whom about that.  But the economicexpert page also mentions (and this does not appear in the Wikipedia article):  "It shall be noted, that Bayamón's suspension bridge is a pedestrian bridge only; in other words, people cross an avenue on this bridge, it was not built for automobile use."  I don't know whether that was possibly copied from an earlier Wikipedia version.  All I know is I want a source to use, and currently the economicexpert one seems separate and best for that purpose. Can you suggest a different source? doncram (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the end-of-2004 version of wikipedia's Bayamon article includes that phrasing. Consistent with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_of_Wikipedia description of economicexpert as being a 2004 mirror of wikipedia.  Hmm, rats, still no source in the Wikipedia article. doncram (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Polaron
If you need additional help with Polaron's 4RR case let me know. I have had some problems with him about 3RR. I added a comment and a link Admin. notice board. House1090 (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why both you and Polaron should not be blocked
A quick look at WP:AN3 indicates that both you and Polaron have gone past 3RR at Preston City Historic District. Please explain why the admins should not block both of you for 24 hours. Previous discussions, however sincere, do not give either of you a license to break 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i replied to you there. doncram (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See the discussion at User talk:Polaron. Polaron will accept a six-month voluntary restriction from converting articles into redirects or redirects into articles whenever an historic district is involved, if you will too. The exception is that at least one other person on a talk page will support the change. If a support is offered, whoever makes the change must place a link to the discussion at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list so that others can locate it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, that's not how I read what P is meaning and saying, in the discussion in that section at Polaron's Talk page and in User talk:Polaron. I don't read that he was seeking to impose a condition on me.


 * Nonetheless I do voluntarily agree, as I have before, to abide by restrictions within the big talked-out agreement at Talk:Poquetanuck. And further I voluntarily agree to abide by any amendments and further directions that invited mediator User:Acroterion chooses to make with finality, upon due consideration in these matters.


 * The Poquetanuck agreement does impose restrictions applicable for me, include that for CT NRHP HDs meeting a 3-part definition, I will accept redirect from HD to a corresponding town/village/section/neighborhood article. That is, unless or until someone (possibly me) judges in good faith that splitting is appropriate and chooses to obtain source(s) and develop a decent DYK+ length separate article on the HD.  What happened here on the Preston City HD case was perhaps some misunderstanding about whether I was following that procedure, compounded with some confusion about facts of Preston City.  Although I did announce at Talk:Preston City, Connecticut that I would do a DYK-length article and even get pics, and I meant I would accomplish that promptly, I started the article with first edits not meeting DYK-length, so it is possible that my intent was misunderstood.  I will try to be clear in the future in any similar circumstance.  And I will voluntarily agree, now, to stop and agree to revert myself, pending Talk page clarifications, if anyone politely enough points out that I appear to be acting outside of that agreement.  In this Preston City HD case, that might possibly have been perceived but was not communicated.  I don't take abrupt reversions of my work happily, but I am saying now that if I received an invitation to discuss the matter at a Talk page, and if the communication there was about whether I was complying or not with what I have agreed to, I would pause and talk that out, seeking others to comment on that if necessary, and revert my own work if it seemed contentious.  (Again, now in the Preston City HD case, it was not ever asserted by anyone that I was acting outside of the Poquetanuck pact.)


 * Also, technically, about the restriction you suggest, it is somewhat deficient for not banning the creation of new redirects, and in other ways, if you mean for a new, different 6 month agreemnt to replace the Poquetanuck pact. The already-disputed cases are mostly where redirects from NRHP HDs were set up systematically (many in June/July of 2008).  But as those interested work through the CT county NRHP lists, there have been new cases being added, and adding more in CT and in other areas, would be possible under the limited restriction you suggest.  For these old and new cases in CT, I think the Poquetanuck agreement suffices to provide direction and stability;  for cases in other states I am hopeful that similar guidelines can be found and imposed where deemed needed/helpful by Acroterion's judgment.


 * About Polaron's voluntary offer, which seems unconditional in fact, i do appreciate and accept that. I mean to be unconditional in what I am saying here, too.  I appreciate P's general interest in developing CT material, including as exemplified by P's recent edits in the Preston City HD article.  I hope and believe this statement should suffice to meet Polaron's request that I agree to accept his offer.  Thanks! doncram (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Poquetanuck redux
Could you help me out and compile a very concise statement of your understanding of the outcome at Poquetanuck, without all the back-and-forth? As I understand it, it comes out as Proposal B, but I'd like to make sure:


 * We agree to free editing of the Poquetanuck article, including mention of Poquetanuck Village Historic District stating that it is "substantially the same as the village" with no source necessary. The NRHP HD name will redirect to this article, and "Poquetanuck Village Historic District" will appear in bold to avoid surprise for arriving readers (or there should be other explanation of redirect, per wp:REDIRECT guidelines). We agree that no mere NRIS-based NRHP HD stub article should be created. We agree to ask via a template at Talk:Poquetanuck that no one should create the NRHP HD article unless a) a DYK-equivalent length starter article could be created, using substantial information (such as would be provided by the NRHP document), and b) the person creating it judges in good faith that it is beneficial to have the NRHP HD be a separate article.

 Acroterion  (talk)  21:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That proposal B was amended in further discussion there, i think mostly in two ways: to clarify when the statement of substantial similarity with a citation-needed tag could be replaced (this was hashed out in discussion between P and me before we both accepted), and to revise the nature of request to other editors (calling for a request to be made at Talk pages, but not necessarily via a template to do that).  The final general proposal which I am taking as agreed to, and which applies to Poquetanuck, is exactly as given at Talk:Poquetanuck and copied here:

For Connecticut NRHP HDs, where the main NRHP listing name, as given in NRIS, is "Name Historic District" and where "Name" is a Connecticut placename (but not a town), and where no sources have been obtained which specifically describe the relationship between "Name" and "Name Historic District", and 1)where "Name" is a Connecticut "principal community" listed here (which are all also believed to be GNIS locations) 2)where the historic district must have an area of significance that includes NPS Criterion A (historical event) (as can be seen in NRIS database itself or at NRHP.COM)  3)where the centroid coordinates of the NRHP HD and the GNIS-listed coordinates of the populated place are within <0.2 mile separation (centroid coords apparently available within NRIS database, GNIS populated places coords available here) Then there should be just one merged article at the Connecticut place name, showing the NRHP HD name in bold in the article, and with redirect from the NRHP HD name. In the merged article there will be an unsourced assertion that the village and the NRHP HD are "substantially similar", and a citation-needed tag may be attached to that assertion. This can be revised to become a sourced assertion if a source becomes available, or the assertion can be revised with sources to clarify whatever is the nature and extent of actual overlap, like whether or not various historic and modern properties are included or not. (Merely rewording to avoid the assertion of substantial similarity is not acceptable by this proposal, as it would remove the validity of the merger and make redirect surprising). At the Talk page of the merged article and at the Talk page of the redirect, there shall be a statement of request which suggests how future editors may obtain the relevant NRHP document, and requests that future editors not split out a NRHP HD article unless a) they have created or are actively developing a DYK-equivalent length starter article using substantial information, and b) the person creating it judges in good faith that it is beneficial to have the NRHP HD be a separate article. For other CT NRHP HD and place pairings, we agree there shall be no redirect/merger, unless and until clear sources are found which explicitly describe the relationship between the two topics. At the Talk pages of such articles, a similar request to future editors not to implement a redirect/merger can be made. This was accepted by P and me. In further discussion it was amended to include the "(but not a town)" phrase, but not otherwise changed. Note it was never spelled out exactly what language would be used in the Talk-page requests to other editors. Orlady and Polaron both were later saying they preferred not to require anything at Talk-pages; I was saying it could be a pretty informal request with a link to more info. I am not sure now where I could find an example, but I think there were a couple where such a request was in fact made at the Talk page. Anyhow, that proposal is what I am referring to as the accepted agreement. Besides the recent case, P and I have been pretty meticulously sticking to the agreement. This has been done pretty quietly: where O made some edits contrary to the agreement, and I contested those, P's support for the agreement was in form of some very mild statements and in his not disagreeing with my more vocal support. doncram (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's what I thought. There were too many references to the mass of text at Poquetanuck for a non-participant clearly to discern what the final deal really was. In other words, the summary paragraph I quoted is the substantive material, and the qualifications you've quoted reflect certain procedures of implementation. It seemed to me to be holding up until the recent event. I'd suggest that notifications be centralized to avoid surprises and so other editors don't have to periodically look at your contributions to see what's going on; I have no desire to stalk the edits of established contributors, and am not around consistently enough to intervene. The discussion above was one source of my reasoning for suggesting that stubs be avoided (not "banned"), as there already seemed to be a general consensus that way.
 * I'm slowly hacking at the Big List, aided by reference to nom docs.  Acroterion  (talk)  23:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That seems helpful.  I would hope you don't have to do all the research and do the articles too....  By the way I came across this example of one of those notices: Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in New London County, Connecticut.  I had put that at the county level, i think meaning it as a less intrusive notice to readers, in an accomodation towards P and O's views on notices.  It hasn't gotten any comment;  i just updated it. doncram (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoppin' John
Sent you an email regarding this. Lvklock (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * check email Lvklock (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana
Thanks for your review at Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana/archive2. I believe I have addressed your comments and would appreciate your support or further comments. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk 18:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder. I returned and gave my support.  Let me know if it would be helpful for me to collapse-box my comments or whatever else, procedure-wise.  Nice job with the list-article! --doncram (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What's your opinion?
I know I had asked for reviews earlier, but I wonder what your take is on Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York), with regards to FAC? I saw your evaluation of List of NHLs in IN and since you review at FAC, I wonder what you would say if I nominated the article there.  upstate NYer  19:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not a frequent FAC reviewer, but I more occasionally comment in peer review (wp:PR), which i recommend. I've seen Ruhrfisch and Finetooth and others in a group working very well together in getting FAs.  They specifically use the PR process first.  I see many other articles there too with requests for PR in order to prepare for FA review.  Again about the Oakwood Cemetery article, i like it very much and expect you can get FA for it, with or without PR first.  But the PR regulars are very good, and have expertise beyond mine and that of the other helpful informal reviewers who already commented at the Talk page. doncram (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The 3 criteria
Of the entities I merged earlier, can you point out which ones should not be merged in your view? Technically, Marion and Plantsville do not satisfy one criterion but all the rest do. Please let me know what specifically is wrong with the other mergers. I really thought you agreed with what I said I would do about merging but if that is not the case, then please let me know now. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 01:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I commented already in the Big List that I object to the Quaker Hill HD being remerged, because real info came out (a long time ago) that "trumps" the 3 arbitrary criteria. I think that applies also for Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut), where you noticed i began editing.  I'll comment now in the Big List about that.


 * It will take me some time to consider the other ones, but where the criteria are not met, I don't see why you or I would want for a merge. The main thing needed is stability so that content can be added.  If you have other info about those two, that enters into a possible future merger proposal, but the info should be added with sources, first.  I would really want for a good amount of development of NRHP info in the articles, before anyone made such a new, informed merger proposal, too, so that we can all be more informed, first.


 * I'm tired now and won't comment further for now, sorry. doncram (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see he's acting up again. Don't let it bother you....pay a little attention to things in the real world. 03:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

National parks
FYI: Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14 closed as no consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

HABS pictures
I just don't see notes about HABS as belonging in the mainspace: they're strictly for editors and not part of the encyclopedia, so they shouldn't appear there. Why couldn't such a comment simply go on the talk page? Or couldn't you leave Kudzu a note as to which places have pictures available? Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I said above that nothing should appear on the page: no wording, no symbols, no anything else. These pages are meant to provide information about these properties, not to give information to editors.  Would you like it if you found internal editorial notes in a printed encyclopedia?  There's no reason for anything to appear on the main page, especially since we have a talk page where such notes can appear.  Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Confusing split discussion. Please continue at User talk:Nyttend where i am replying now (or move the entire discussion to here). doncram (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Manlius Village Historic District

 * :) :) Lvklock (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

xmas etc
Merry Christmas / Happy New Year / Happy other holidays ! doncram (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Check your email. Lvklock (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Long time, no see
What's up, dude? It's been a while. Sorry, but I had to cut out of Wikipedia for a while and focus on the fall semester more than I anticipated, so I haven't been able to really do anything I had planned before I left. I have about 2 weeks before school starts back, and hopefully I'll be able to focus more on editing this semester, but Idk just yet.. I'm going to try to pack as much into these 2 weeks as I can.

Earlier today, I replied to some comments on Template talk:Infobox nrhp about individually listed CPs, and I'm waiting on a response to move forward on that. Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup currently contains all individually listed CPs (or at least it should), outfitted with the new syntax (partof and partof_refnum for the parent district). As soon as a decision is made on how to suppress display of the nrhp bar in the regular cp situations, I can come up with some code and install a patch, while at the same time removing the code that puts articles into that category. A new category will have to be created (which I plan on doing as soon as I finish typing this.. probably Category:Individually listed contributing properties to historic districts on the National Register) before the patch is installed. All pages in the NRHP infobox cleanup category will need to be put into this category, as will future individually listed CPs.

Also, pertaining to WP:HSITES, I've created a new subpage, Template:Designation/Supported designations, that can be used as a central location to display designations under the scope of the project. I will be working over the next few days to merge the list that was on the front page of the project (and is now in HTML comments) with this list. I plan on making like a show/hide drop down list for all the NRHP designations like NMON, NHL, etc. so they don't take up as much space, and I assume that I could do the same thing for listed buildings, though I'm not sure if that whole thing was ever sorted out about how many different designations were needed.

I'll be working on these two, in combination with some other things I committed to, for the next weeks, so if you'd like to join in, you're more than welcome to. Glad to be back! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you back! I guess i have to think about CP decision, am not up on it just yet.  Probably doesn't matter too much, just what is most obvious/intuitive/foolproofed for users is best.  Will get back to this. doncram (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Pittsburgh Landmarks and stuff about Infobox nrhp
In my recent work on adding designations to Infobox Historic Site, I've been going around and trying to make sure that every supported designation has a list somewhere of all the properties on that register and that at least one article from each register uses the infobox. For the past day or two I've been working on List of Pittsburgh Landmarks and have now pretty much done all I can do (short of writing new articles, which I don't plan to do). I found articles for all the landmarks I could and found images of many more. I felt like gloating, so I figured you would like to check out the list article haha. :D

I still haven't merged all of the registers that were on the front page of WP:HSITES into Template:Designation, but I feel like many of the remaining ones shouldn't be worried about anyway. I think I may try to get something going with the Ireland National Monuments (I'll have to make another list) and possibly the Yangon Monuments (just have to come up with some colors and find an article to use the infobox on), but other than that, I don't really see the need to add any of the others. I'd like your input, though...

Btw, not to hurry you or anything, but you still haven't responded at Template talk:Infobox nrhp about individually listed CPs. I went ahead and put in an editprotected request on the talk page to copy over the sandbox code I came up with. The new patch will suppress the display of the blue NRHP bar in any infobox without a refnum, which should only be non-listed CPs thanks to the new partof_refnum parameter. To make sure no other articles are harmed, I put in code to put any article with an refnum-less infobox that doesn't have an nrhp_typen set to cp or nhldcp into Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup. After the patch is installed, we can go through any articles that may appear in that category and figure out why there's no refnum in the infobox, so we'll be killing two birds with one stone!

The patch also includes an update to the embed feature of the infobox that makes it compatible with Infobox-based infoboxes, unlike before. After the patch is installed, those infoboxes will no longer need the "nrhp=" workaround, and the infobox will truly be able to be embedded into any infobox out there.

I was just updating you on my progress.. everything seems to be coming along nicely, but I feel like I'm just rampaging through all of the stuff since no one is really commenting back to me (could be good or could be bad). I'd really like to hear other opinions on the two infoboxes, and yours to me is a big one. The only reason I'm doing all of this so fast is that I'm not sure I'll be able to continue editing once the spring semester starts, so whatever I can get done now, I'm trying to get done. Sorry to leave such long comments haha.. Later! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fairfield Stations
I don't see that the NRHP name is enough to justify a separate article. The existence of two articles about the same place is inappropriate, and the author of the NRHP docs appears to have been a bit whimsical in calling them the "Fairfield Railroad Stations" when they're just two buildings, slightly offset from each other on the east and westbound tracks. The current name is fine, and we've had a longstanding consensus of building on the train station articles established by WikiProject Trains. This is a clear-cut case for a consolidated article.  Acroterion  (talk)  16:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether you intended it or not, this looks like a way of goading Polaron into violating his editing restrictions. He should not have redirected, and you should not have created a content fork that effectively expanded the battleground. Neither of you appear to have discussed this until after the fact. I remain concerned that you seem to be intent on creating an array of articles that reflect, verbatim, the NRHP names regardless of general usage or the possibility that it might represent a content fork.  Such a policy reduces the usability of the encyclopedia. I do not wish to see this dispute extend into individual properties where a content fork will be nearly impossible to justify, and where, for example, the participants in WikiProject Trains will be drawn into what is effectively an article naming dispute, and I will act aggressively to prevent that. Naming disputes are among the biggest time and goodwill-wasting arguments on Wikipedia.
 * I have been supportive of the idea of creating substantial articles on historic districts where the sourcing can sustain the content and where the content won't fit well with the locale. I suggest that you concentrate on this, with appropriate discussion with the involved parties and with article development in your userspace.   Acroterion  (talk)  17:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I commented about the merger at Talk:Fairfield (Metro-North station). What happened was I was going through HABS search screens towards finding pics for Fairfield NRHPs, and i came across multiple pic sets for various Fairfield County railroad stations. I thot those likely corresponded to the "Fairfield Railroad Stations" NRHP listing.  The only info possibly suggesting anything different was a redirect from the NRHP name to the Fairfield (Metro-North station) article, and no info at all about the NRHP at that target.  A redirect is no information, with no source, it's just an implicit assertion perhaps, and maybe not even that.  It was reasonable for me to start a stub article to receive the NRHP document and to begin sorting this out, and I chose to do so at the mainspace location.  I had no intention of goading anyone.  There have been other cases where I or others created a NRHP article about a station, only for it to be pointed out later that a merger to an existing article would be appropriate.  Which can be dealt with easily, no need for anyone to have a cow about temporary co-existence of a couple articles.  I hear ur suggestion about using userspace to develop stuff, though.  I have preferred to develop articles in mainspace and I am not sure I should change practices based on this one or a few cases of others being disturbed (unnecessarily in my view).  It seems random when Polaron or others will have a cow.  For example, i also yesterday started Saugatuck River Bridge to receive HABS link and to receive HABS pic later from KudzuVine, and that seems to have worked out fine, with Polaron contributing positively there. doncram (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fewer cows would be born if you did that kind of article development in userspace.  Acroterion  (talk)  18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Experience -- and Colonial Revival architecture
Here is some history that you may find enlightening, because it appears that history is repeating itself.

I thoroughly agree with your concern regarding Colonial Revival architecture, and I believe that the undiscussed changes need to be reverted. No time for further discussion right now. --Orlady (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also see this historical item. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC) And, for completeness: this. --Orlady (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work catching that mess in progress -- and cleaning it up. --Orlady (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that ... thanks--Pubdog (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, maybe i should frame that! :) (Note: This was about my addressing about 200 manual category name changes and related stuff, finished off with this diff reporting being done. It involved my using wp:rollback for the first time besides accidentally, and communicating with the editor.)  Thanks Orlady for responding immediately with the above helpful info. doncram (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, doncram (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's hoping for good things to come in this New Year!!! --Orlady (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay Pritzker Pavilion FAC notice
Thanks for your involvement in Peer review/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive2. The article is now listed at Featured article candidates/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1. Feel free to come comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Smith House
Just discovered that there are two Benjamin Smith Houses — one in Columbus, Ohio, and one in New Bern, North Carolina. Nyttend (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Benjamin Smith House ✅ doncram (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And two more: (1) Sanfranman59 disambiguated the Terminal Building in Lincoln, Nebraska, although I don't know where the other (I guess newly-listed) one is; (2) Indian Village Historic District (Detroit, Michigan) and Indian Village Historic District (Fort Wayne, Indiana). Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: the other Terminal Building is in Coffeyville, Kansas. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Terminal Building and Indian Village Historic District dabs ✅ --doncram (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Historic Churches in Patchogue, New York


I'm glad you like my pics. The one for the article itself contains all three buildings within the complex. I added the other one to the NRHP list not because of the sunlight, but because you could actually see the tower itself in that one. I wanted to get a lot of other NRHP images from the Town of Brookhaven, but I never got the chance to capture them. There may, however be some hope for an image of the Davis Town Meeting House once my latest disposable camera is emptied out for development, but I'm not sure how it'll turn out because I took it from the window of a slow moving car. DanTD (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Findings
Thanks for commenting: I was beginning to feel like I was talking to an empty room. I'll respond and maybe add a couple of other summary comments when I'm more awake. I don't see any major disagreement on fundamental issues so far.  Acroterion  (talk)  04:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Detroit Financial District
I just walked around in the cold this morning for a couple hours taking pictures for this district, and I'm uploading them now. Tahnks for starting the article. Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NRIS issues
I've not seen any reporting notes added here in months. Are you planning to continue reporting NRIS errors? Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, in general. I am interested in taking forward one state's issues, combining all types of issues at wp:NRIS info issues and wp:NHL info issues, for a state where there is interest among current NRHP editors to correspond with the national and state staff.  The purpose would be both to improve wikipedia articles, and to improve the national and state databases, which goes beyond the usual goal of most editors.  Are you interested in addressing Indiana, say?  Other candidates are New York and Oregon. doncram (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I really am not much up on Indiana; I've been contributing there a bit lately, but only because I've been able to get into four downtowns (Bloomington, Columbus, Indianapolis, and Lafayette) with tons of listings where there's not been much previous Wikipedia photography. Depending on what you're talking about, I might be able to help with Ohio and/or Pennsylvania.  Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I should note that I've done a little correspondence in the past to report a couple of what I thought were address-restricted errors. One (in Ohio) was the result of an outdated practice of which I'd not been aware, while the other was the Second and Market Streets Historic District in Louisville, Kentucky (talk about an absurd name if you want to restrict its location!); correspondence went well, but I've not heard anything in a while.  That's all the correspondence I've done, other than requesting forms.  Nyttend (talk)


 * Hi Nyttend, please see my comments at wp:NRIS info issues OH, where i numbered items and edited issue statements/questions within the list, towards preparing an Ohio issues batch for submission. doncram (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've addressed some of your comments (including removing a question whose answer was already there; you seem to have overlooked it), but I don't know what to do with comments such as "CHECK NRHP NOMINATION???" I don't know what to do with these — we've observed that there are errors, but we don't necessarily know what to do with them, and due to Ohio's woefully minimal online presence (most of my recent writing has been in Pennsylvania, since virtually all of their forms are online, but none of ours), there's no way that I can check them without requesting tons of forms.  I've just recently requested some forms for a few sites, and I don't know that I'd have time to work on lots more articles (I'm in the middle of the applications process for grad school right now), so I don't think I'll be able to request forms for and write up articles about a lot more sites.  What more can I do?  Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just realised that my last sentence sounds somewhat confrontational or complaining. Please don't take it that way — I'm confused, and I meant to say nothing more than "Please tell me how I can help".  Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem. Your comments were helpful and i have now refined the request, still not sent.  Could you pls. address the one below, then i'll copy and paste to an email submission. doncram (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues/Ohio
(about wp:NRIS info issues OH) I'm confused: have you now reported the issues on this page? If not, what more can I do? Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet submitted. If you could just address the batch 07:40 item of Mahoning county "Federal Plaza" issues.  Checking there one by one, i did not find an NRIS error for first 4 of 10 or so to check.  Could you finish out that, and identify specific changes to be requested?  Thanks. doncram (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Submitted without that one. 67 items in the batch.  I'll update at the NRIS info issues OH page when i get back any responses. --doncram (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Euclid Avenue Historic District
Just discovered that there are two of these districts: one in Ohio (currently with an article) and one in Virginia. Nyttend (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Found some similarly named others, too, now listed in Euclid Avenue Historic District dab. ✅ --doncram (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Old Main (Bethany College)
I linked to a nice 1909 photo ... FYI. There's also this print. But I don't know how prints work with licensing. Just thought I'd let you know if you want to check them out. Thank for helping expand that Euclid stub. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you do that listing of NRHP properties on the talk page of George F Hammond and James Keys Wilson? I don't know how you did that. This sources has many of Hammond's works. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * About the photograph copyrights, it's not clear. The first site says " For educational use only." which is not good enough for Wikipedia to use.  We need public domain or other broader release that allows commercial use.  The second site says copyrighted, like all rights reserved.  But there might be arguments to be made based on age of images.  I am not an expert about this.  Try asking at ccpyright issues page, probably can get to there via wp:copyright.


 * About giving architects' lists of NRHP-listed works, have added such to Talk:George F. Hammond and to Talk:James Keys Wilson. Hope this helps!  The tool i use is User:Elkman's architect-based search of the National Register's NRIS database that he has downloaded.  The architect-based search, and others, are kindly made available for our use by Elkman, at http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/.  To find all properties by a given architect requires trying different searches, as searching on "Wilson, J" yields different hits than searching on "Wilson,J". --doncram
 * I have a very limited memory and capacity for carrying out exercises that require anything more than the most basic technical capacities. Can I come to you with future requests? Say 4-5 a week? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * your instructions were good. I was able to manage it after a few tries. It's helpful if it's an unusual last name. Full name searches are tougher to get done properly. :) Thanks for the suggestion. Very helpful. Happy Dramaout. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad they were helpful. Also to respond to your previous question, you can try asking me to do anything like that.  I make no promises, but others have asked me many times now to do things not dissimilar, and i generally have.  Cheers, --doncram (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Homer Historic District
Two Homer HDs: one in Georgia and one in Louisiana. I'm going to fix the link for Louisiana; it has a picture available, if that matters at all. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Homer Historic District disambig created, with 4 entries. I woulda created an article for the Louisiana one, given photo available, in order to make at least one article, but it turns out there already is an article for a different one, so the dab should be safe. doncram (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Monroe County list
Hi -- thanks for taking on the re-merge. Why is it whem I do a properties on the new page that I get a size of 277 K? Just curious.--Pubdog (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm replying at Talk:List of RHPs in Monroe where same question was asked. Pubdog, thanks so much for doing all the work in splitting the Rochester table out, in addition to the huge effort you put in to create good starter articles for all!  I have done nothing, relatively, and i do expect the article will be resplit sometime down the road.  Thanks! doncram (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Euclid Avenue
When you moved Euclid Avenue to Euclid Avenue (Cleveland, Ohio) and then redirected the old title to the disambiguation page, you may have overlooked this guideline, which states that when changing the page to which an existing title links, "it is strongly recommended that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title." There are over 80 existing articles that link to Euclid Avenue and in most cases are referring to the street in Cleveland; all these need to be changed to point to the moved article. Your attention to this will be beneficial to Wikipedia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your mileage may vary, but I find it usually more disruptive when an editor comes up with a bright idea that will change a bunch of pages, and then goes on a spree of implementing his/her change in all the pages all at once. It usually/often causes a lot of misunderstanding, and often causes a lot of work to undo all the changes.  Frankly that "strongly recommended" language should probably be changed.


 * Here, I did pause and think when making the change that i did (creating a dab page at Euclid Avenue (disambiguation) and redirecting Euclid Avenue to that). It occurred to me that a whole host of Clevelantines (or whatever they call themselves) might get all stirred up and insist that the Cleveland one is the wp:primaryusage of the term.  Or that some would point out the avenue goes into East Cleveland or some other place, and that the proper name should be "Euclid Avenue (Ohio)".  Or who knows what else.  I was not completely aware of how many pages linked to the article, but i figured there were several at least.  Anyhow, I chose to make just one change, which could easily be reversed, and see what happened.  Now, since you seem to be accepting the change and just complaining about the implementation not being thorough enough, I'm happy.  I've just now changed 20-30 as you wish, and I'll blame you if everyone else starts objecting now!  :)  I'll do the rest in a day or two, if it doesn't all blow up first. --doncram (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This particular Clevelander objects to the page move on both counts. Given all the incoming links to the page, it's probably safe to apply the primary topic guideline in this case - and yes, the road continues out of Cleveland, through East Cleveland, Euclid, and into Lake County. - Eureka Lott 17:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, blame RnB :) . Seriously about the primary topic argument though, I currently believe that "Euclid Avenue" is well known in Ohio, but not known elsewhere to apply to Cleveland/Ohio.  It seems it was more important previously, perhaps?  It seems pushy to claim primary use of the term for Ohio, when probably each day more drivers on the 5 and other southern california freeways pass "Euclid Avenue" signs, than there are Clevelantines who have ever visited that street.  And no one in SoCal, besides a few aspiring actor types from Ohio, have ever heard of the Ohio one.  So from my perspective having "(Ohio)" or (Cleveland, Ohio)" is better, tho i don't have perspective about which of those is best.  But, perhaps this should be addressed by a wp:RM process at one of the pages (and notice to others)? doncram (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the Southern California street that you didn't find important enough to include on the disambiguation page? :) Yes, a requested move discussion might be for the best. In the meantime, how would you like to handle the current limbo situation? - Eureka Lott 18:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, i wasn't particularly aware of the California State Route 83 portion (entirely in San Bernardino County, apparently) of Euclid Avenue. I think what is much bigger and more important is Euclid Avenue in the Los Angeles County and/or Orange County sections of the avenue.  The avenue may be discontinuous, or there may be many separate ones in SoCal.  Browsing in mapquest, i find a few separate sections, one in town of Orange, CA, for example.  It's a common street name, perhaps.  I wonder if name derived from something or someone entirely independent of Ohio's name, or not.  Yes it was only represented in the dab by two Euclid Avenue Historic Districts, which presumably include some portion of the avenue.  Okay, i'll open a combined discussion for two page moves that i will suggest together, at Talk:Euclid Avenue (Cleveland, Ohio). doncram (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting the discussion. Much obliged. - Eureka Lott 19:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! -- Jayron  32  01:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * email. Lvklock (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

miscategorizing NOT
You are wrong in your activities and unhelpful to WP. I removed the articles from the state level category when I created the county level categories. I see that was a mistake and I have now corrected that error. There is no MOS category rule that says articles cannot be categorized at the local and state and US level simultaneously.

Orphan tags may be unhelpful to you but they are standard for all articles that are orphans so I agree with what AWB is doing. I rarely disagree with AWB defaults since what AWB is doing has been established by the expert editors maintaining AWB. Talk to AWB editors if you have a problem with that. Hmains (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussing at User talk:Hmains. --doncram (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)