User talk:Doncram/Archive 14

Chesterfield
Thank you Doncram for stepping into the Chesterfield fray. Getting information from Nyttend is like getting blood from a turnip. Thank you for writing succinctly and informatively.

I decided to walk away for a week and work on another article... Hopefully to calm me down. I don't want to write anything on the Chesterfield page or discussion page right now because it may offend Nyttend.

Is there any other advice on what I should do at the moment?Bgwhite (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, walking away from Chesterfield, Idaho article for a while is probably a good thing. As i suggested there, could you request the NRHP documents, in the meantime?  If the National Register does not have an electronic copy, it can take a week or so to receive them by postal mail.  And then you could work from those documents, which have widely been accepted as reliable enough, for a while.  That would be a way around the impasse i think.  If that can work for you, i'd prefer that. --doncram (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll request the NRHP documents. I'm not sure how that would help because current restoration activities is what the Chesterfield Foundation was being cited for.  btw... The Chesterfield Foundation was the organization that pushed and and did most of the documentation for NRHP status.Bgwhite (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. I did already surmise that the foundation and/or its principal members would have been the ones preparing the NRHP nomination.  That should then abundantly clarify that the foundation has official, National Park Service-sanctioned authority over the facts here, and the foundation's later publications such as newsletters should basically be accepted as well.  Thanks! --doncram (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is some documentation (I think??) that the Foundation where the ones preparing the NRHP nomination. Chesterfield on National List of Historic Places Chesterfield Nomination Materials.Bgwhite (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Update I have received the NRHP nomination documents in PDF form. How do I go about you being able to read them? The nomination does mention the Chesterfield Foundation is going to be restoring the buildings. The nomination was prepared by Craig M Call. He was the founder and first president of The Chesterfield Foundation. The majority of the nomination documents come, word for word, from his article to the Idaho State Historical Society. The article states it was from 1972, but mentions the Foundation, which wasn't formed until about 1979.Bgwhite (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. That all makes sense to me, that the NRHP nom text would be essentially the same as another document, just updated a bit to mention the foundation.  Or maybe there are some details i don't quite understand, but anyhow, could you please email the PDF to me?  To do so we would have to be willing to share the private information of our email addresses to each other, which is fine by me.  I don't post my personal email address publicly here on wikipedia, but I have enabled email for my wikipedia account.  You could hit the "E-mail this user" link which should show at left here when you are looking at my user page or my talk page (here), which will send an email to me without showing my email address to you.  But the email will then show your own email address to me, and i will then reply by email and we will be in private contact (showing you my email address).  And then you can send the PDF by email attachment.  Hope that doesn't sound too convoluted.  This is how I have exchanged documents with other NRHP-interested editors including Nyttend in the past. --doncram (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I sent the email several hours ago. I hopefully sent the email correctly.... first time doing this.  If you didn't get, please tell me.Bgwhite (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr Doncram, I've just "finished" a couple of other articles that I've been working on... So, I'm at a natural break point to start on Chesterfield again. If you are busy, don't worry, I've got 3 other projects in the queue.Bgwhite (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(disambiguation displayed in listing names)
We've always gone by the practice that sites are listed by the name given by the NRIS, unless there are errors. Your way of formatting these links is radically against that practice. I get the impression from you that you're adding these for usability, but that's not a valid reason to violate WP:V, since we can verify that the names you're giving are not the actual names. We already give address information in the same line of every table — it's not like the pre-table format where nothing was given adjacent to a listing name. Readers can continue reading along the same line and see that all information provided is different; if a reader cannot understand that houses in two different communities fifteen miles apart are two different houses, we can't help the reader. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To others: That relates to discussion opened at User talk:Nyttend.  Nyttend, I would rather not split the discussion, while I guess you don't want to reply on your Talk page, so I will reply and continue here.


 * I disagree with your view about what readers know about communities that appear in a given NRHP county-list-article; if a reader knows that 2 communities are 15 miles apart that is one thing, but why would we expect all readers to know that?  I think it is clearer to show a difference in the article names displayed, to convey accurately and clearly that there are (or will be) two articles, for sake of clarity and for avoiding causing surprise to readers.  But, you and I can agree to disagree in our philosophy on this, while still cooperating to identify the scope of issue and otherwise preparing to bring discussion to a larger, suitable forum.  I appreciate that you commented here, as i guess it helps towards clarifying the issue.  Would you agree to help enumerate the cases, either at your Talk page or here or somewhere else (as I already asked at your Talk page)? --doncram (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have links to communities for a good reason. We have links to coordinates for a good reason.  If I'm confused and think that we may be listing the same site twice, then I'm going to look at the coords if I know how GeoHack works, or I'm going to look at the names of the communities if I don't.  You may think that it's more convenient to show the names — no question that it would help if the NPS ensured that all properties had different listing names — but the NPS doesn't, and so we mustn't.  We can verify that the properties have the same names, so policy requires us to show multiple properties with the same names; it's not a simple matter of editing philosophy — that's a matter such as the spacing between initials [e.g. "A.B. Somebody House" vs. "A. B. Somebody House", on with I disagree with you but I'm not about to do anything about it] — but of following policy, so we can't agree to disagree.  Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I definitely don't like the (placename) being included in the coord names, but I see your point. This is where I question the usefulness, however; it was the coords that I meant when I said communities fifteen miles apart.  Even if we have properties on opposite sides of the street, I don't see why it would be confusing.  Let's look at National Register of Historic Places listings in Northwest Philadelphia; if the Daniel and Michael Billmyer Houses had been listed without the first names, the reader looking at the map would still be able to see that the markers are on opposite sides of the street.  Even if they're next to each other, the reader can see that they're not at the same spot.  The only way I can see the reader justifiably being confused by the map is if both sites show the same building; however, that's an obvious NRIS error that needs repair.  Either the coords need to be fixed for one of the two sites, or somehow the same property really is listed twice and needs attention.  Don't know about you, but I've only once encountered a doubly-listed property — Twin Oaks near Cincinnati (75001438), which was relisted (without having been removed) as the Robert Reily House, 86001640; I doubt that we're ever going to encounter the doubly-listed-under-same-name situation.  Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say — if the reader finds that the same building is highlighted twice, or that only one pinpoint appears for a name that's listed in two lines of the table, we're rather likely to have a comment made on the talk page or somewhere on the article, which naturally will arouse our attention to fix the error. Of course, I'm not going to say that everyone noticing such an error would make a comment (I know that there are far more readers than editors), or that we should depend on someone making a comment, but I think that it's a helpful possibility.  Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, tho I don't quite follow all that you're saying here. To focus on just the issue of showing different labels for same-named places in the Google/Bing maps, i think it is useful to show different labels so that readers can figure out which place on the map corresponds to which entry in the NRHP list-article.  By your statements here, I take it you are perhaps starting to agree with that now?  I think it is helpful if the 2 same-named places are in the same county, but 15 miles apart, or if they are across the street from each other.  In either case, the reader wants/deserves to know which one is which, i.e. to which one a photo and description and address and other info in the list-article apply.  You simply cannot convey which one is which, without some differentiation in the place labels, i think best done by use of disambiguating phrases in parentheses, the same as or shorter versions of the disambiguating phrases used in the articles' names.  Can you comment on this, and explain more about what else you mean? --doncram (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being unclear. I'm saying (first off) that the reader should be able to tell which property is in which town if they're fifteen miles away from each other.  Secondly, since the online map services show street names, it shouldn't be hard to see which property is on which street.  Thirdly, since the map services show street addresses along the streets, the reader should be able to see which house is which: if one house has an odd number and one has an even number, it's not going to be hard to tell which house is on which side, and if both are on the same side of the street, [sorry for longwinded sentences coming] the reader can see which direction one must go for the numbers to get bigger.  For example, if there are houses at #101, #110, and #121 of a hypothetical east-west street, the reader can find which side is odd-numbered and which is even; #110 will then be easy to find.  Next, the reader sees that the house numbers on the odd side of the street are higher at the eastern end, so s/he will then know that #121 is more to the east and #101 is more to the west.  Overall, the tables are quite clear; if one knows how to find the map, one will be able to find the part of the table that says that one house is in one town or at one address and the part that says the other house is in another location.  If the reader doesn't know how to find that, I don't think that the "In either case" sentence of your last post is applicable, since the reader won't have photo/address/community.  In conclusion — yes, I'm starting to agree; it's just that I'm not sure that it would necessarily be helpful.  Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thinking out further.... In some of these cases the differentiating part of the name is the year of construction of the building, which is not ever given in Google or Bing maps.  I'd have to look through the examples to find it, but there are one or more of that format, like "Smith House (1886)" vs. "Smith House (1924)".  In other cases the differentiating parts of names might be hamlets that are not necessarily included in either or both of the Google and Bing map services.  I know that MapQuest is the service which shows county borderlines;  no service provides town borderlines AFAIK.  I don't believe that you can figure out even vs. odd sides of street reliably from looking at a google map.  And whether you see various info in the Google/Bing map also depends on how far in or out you zoom.  So I think you cannot rely upon information in the Google/Bing maps as always being available for the reader to understand which one of the NRHP list-table rows applies to a given site, without a clarifying parenthetical phrase.  And in general I think the clarifying parenthetical phrase is just helpful, it makes it clear and unambiguous which is which.  I have to agree that in some cases most readers will be able to figure it out, but it just seems best to me to make it unambiguous.  We can label them unambiguously so we should do that, i feel. --doncram (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One of your comments above seems to be about involving readers in identifying errors in the table. I don't get what that has to do with how to present cases where we know 2 places have same NRHP name, in the same list-article.  But that reminds me:  if there are two places given the same name, readers will tend to think the NRHP list-table is itself in error, in showing duplicates which seem to be about the same place.  It seems to scream out "there's some error here", and we all know there are lots of inaccuracies in Wikipedia.  Showing some differentiation in label by use of a parenthetical phrase, displayed, clarifies that we editors are meaning to refer to different places.  And seems more professional in that way, to me. --doncram (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] However, it violates what we have always done. Plain and simple. Your arguments have always failed to abide by WP:NRHPMOS, which says "In these lists, the official name given by the NRHP program should be used". I have repeatedly shown you that the NRIS does not include parenthetical community names for these properties. I don't care if the reader fails to observe that two places with the same name are in different locations. We give data telling them that property 1 is in place 1 and that property 2 is in place 2; if the reader cannot understand that, the reader needs to pay more attention. WP:V requires us to verify that information given is published by a reliable source. I can verify that the names of properties do not include the parentheses, but you cannot verify that they include them. Kindly observe that you have started this situation: no other member of our project has advocated the intentional changing of names away from the NRIS format. You're trying to claim that there is no consensus for my changes. Again, read WP:NRHPMOS and you will see that I am abiding by consensus against your changes, which are without precedent and violate longstanding practice. We tell the readers that the names we give are those used by the NRIS; consequently, the reader will believe that a community name in parentheses is part of the official name. By changing the name, you introduce text that is verifiably not there and thus erroneous; in trying to simplify things for the careless reader, you're confusing the careful reader by telling him/her that things are otherwise than they really are. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I don't mean to be insulting; I just don't know how to say more gently than "you're introducing errors". Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that last note. I am indeed a bit taken aback by some of your statements, like that my arguments (all of my arguments, forever, on any subject?) "have always failed to abide by NRHPmos", for example.  I helped start to write NRHPmos, and before it existed i could not possibly have been failing to abide by it.  And, I just updated it somewhat to clarify what should be done in these cases of same-named places in the same table, which were not anticipated by me when i was writing NRHPmos in the first place.  The point I am making by this and by changing what is written in NRHPmos, is that we have to create rules that make sense in the context.  When NRHPmos was written, this complication was not envisioned.  You can't dogmatically keep relying upon that as the last word in any way.  It is helpful, though, for you to point to what is written there.  That is part of what we should discuss, in getting others' views on this subject.  Maybe we should do that now, maybe we have enough examples, and maybe we have searched enough elsewhere.  I noticed your browsing and making some edit at a Naming conventions guidelines page, which had no specifically relevant advice.  Do you want to draft or go ahead and pose a neutrally worded RFC discussion question, or do you want me to draft one for your approval, and then plan to post it somewhere.  I wonder if there is some better place than burdening wt:NRHP with that discussion. --doncram (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that I'm tired of saying something only to find that it didn't convey the sense that I meant it to convey. I wanted to start all over and go with the basics of my argument; sorry if you didn't like that, but I didn't want to cause displeasure.  What's the naming convention page?  I can't find such an edit in my contributions.  Finally, consider this idea — what of creating a template to place after names that appear multiple times in a single list?  Such an idea would not modify the original listing name in any way but would be another indication to the reader that the identically-named properties are different.  Consider a template with the code of "†"If a template with such code were created, placing it immediately after the property name would show the dagger and a reference.  Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an idea which would possibly be attractive to some, and I appreciate your coming up with that as another alternative. I don't happen to think it is a problem to add a disambiguating phrase in parentheses to what is displayed.  I don't think that is misleading to anyone, about what is the official NRHP name for a place.  A person can click on it and go to the article and see the bolded NRHP name in the lede and as title of the NRHP infobox.  Also, wherever there is a parenthetical phrase in an article name, wikipedia readers will generally know the phrase is  for disambiguating and is not part of the name of a place or person.  If you see "John Smith (actor)" or "John Smith (footballer)", you do not believe that "(actor)" is part of the person's name.  So I don't think any apologies or footnotes like that are necessary.  I think it is more important to suggest correctly to readers what they will get if they click on a given link:  i.e., that they will go to an article having information on that topic, and that "Place (Town A)" will go to a different article than "Place (Town B)".  Rather than seeming to be confused and erroneous, in having multiple links to the same article.
 * By the way, one other fairly important application of this question is for the List of United States federal courthouses and split-out state articles. For those, editor User:BD2412 has gone with your preferences, and actually shows ten rows in the state of Florida for example, all linking to (same or different?) place named "U.S. Courthouse" for example.  I discussed this briefly with BD at Talk:List of United States federal courthouses when he started developing that.  I would certainly invite BD to an RFC discussion, and I would phrase the question to apply generally to more than just NRHP list-articles.  It's perhaps a different situation there, where from the scale of the duplications of names there, a reader would learn to have to interpret the table differently.  Vs. in the NRHP list-tables, where there is likely to be just one pair of same-named places in a list-article having many other differently named places.  It may be more important in the NRHP case to be clear, and a different solution could possibly apply, or possibly the solution of adding clarifying disambiguation in display (which I prefer) would apply by consensus to both situations.  I'll look at other RFC questions and try to draft a question tomorrow, probably. --doncram (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What list?
(section moved and indented to be with discussion above)

Re -- your edit summary National Register of Historic Places listings in Barnstable County, Massachusetts:
 * Added to list for central discussion about possible reformatting

What list?

I support the thought behind your change. My first thought was to suggest that where we add differentiating words to an NRHP name that we use something different to set them off -- not (parentheses) since the NRHP occasionally uses parentheses in names, e.g. Three Sisters of Nauset (Twin Lights). Unfortunately we can't easily use <>, [], or {} because they can't be used in article titles. Perhaps a slash -- Town Line Boundary Marker /410 High Street ? Or should we just use parentheses and accept the potential for minor confusion? Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I started a list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doncram/NRHP_issues_notes to which so far only i have been adding. Other items are mentioned, and thereby included, in discussion sections at Nyttend's and my Talk pages, where the issue has been talked out somewhat.  I was wanting to finish my pass through dabbing of NRHP places first, which is bringing me across more cases, before opening some general discussion.  I have yet to finish U, V, W, will be done soon.  And then i also wanted to try to run a program to identify more cases of same-county-same-name that i might have missed.
 * Sure, the extent to which the National Register itself uses parentheses is a consideration. Using the Elkman whohas tool to search for all NRHP places having "(" generates a list of those easily.  I notice a certain number of ships with format like "SHIPNAME (schooner)", some with numbers for state historic or local historic or archeological site numbers such as Old Natchez Trace (310-2A), a few with "(Old)", and some others.  I tend to think that using parenthesis in names shown in NRHP list-articles where necessary to differentiate places having same name in same list-article, will always or usually be okay.  (When a reader clicks on the link, they go to an article where the NRHP name is given in bold in the lede at least as an alternative, and where the NRHP name appears as title of the NRHP infobox, so I don't think there would be confusion.  And most readers will be used to parentheticals as being used for disambiguation in wikipedia already.  It could be more confusing to add a different kind of bracket symbol, to indicate some new NRHP-Wikipedia-editors-only new kind of disambiguation.  The use of a different presentation could/should certainly be discussed.
 * If you know of other cases, please do add to the list or mention here. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is exactly the place for this, and forgive my probably dab-rule-ignorant question, but, could we (WP:NRHP) have a separate type of dab page that would fulfill our needs better? Like, could we start a category of (NRHP disambiguation) pages to address the unique problems that come up when dealing with NRHP entries with often duplicative names?  Perhaps it could be called something other than disambiguation?  Just a thought. Lvklock (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what you mean would translate into creating Set Index Articles, see wp:SIA. I have not wanted to create SIAs separate from disambiguation pages for NRHP places and other same-named places, but maybe we should.  WP:SHIPS has used SIAs extensively for ships, thereby avoiding lots of disambiguation rules/guidelines/interventions. --doncram (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Alaska lists
No, I won't close it; I'm way too involved in the topic to be able to close it legitimately. Nyttend (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of questions
Mr Doncram, I have a couple of questions.

Did you get my note about me being ready to tackle chesterfield again? I thought it might have gotten lost with it being so far up on your talk page.

I decided to tackle a relatively easy page that just needed some cleaning, updating and adding some sections I already researched. Question I had is that I'm not sure what style to use. The Jordan River Parkway article uses sort of a list for the trail head/park section. Do you have any suggestions on how to organize it?Bgwhite (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP
Do you know if there's a category for NRHP or NY State related BLP's without references? I looked at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects and didn't see anything. You can request to get on the list there, for a Wikiproject. Would that be helpful, do you think? Lvklock (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I realized that NRHP related biographies probably don't exist. What I was thinking was that there could be biographies about people related to NRHPs, but they wouldn't be tagged to WP:NRHP.  Anyway, what about NY? Lvklock (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well i did create an architect article recently and tagged it for WikiProject NRHP, and i think all other architects of one or more NRHP places could reasonably be likewise tagged. But yes, there should be reasonably many New York ones, including all New York governors, politicians, etc.  Like how there are many thousands of Canadian BLPs tagged yielding a few hundred in the BLP unsourced category for the Canada wikiproject.  Sure i would support tagging more articles for Wikiproject New York, too.  The Wikiproject New York has not been very active though, so identifying a big New York-associated unsourced BLP problem might not be very helpful immediately in getting help from any other editors to fix the articles.  I would hope for it to be a start though. --doncram (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, well. It was worth a try.  Nothing at all in the NY Wikiproject. Lvklock (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, as long as you can reference something in the article, you can remove it from this category, right? Please look at the talk page at John O'Donoghue (hurler).  I can reference the teams at the bottom of the article, and the last sentence about his golf wins.  Would I then change the tag to refimprove?  And, what's the simplest acceptable form of citation for this type of reference? Lvklock (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and please do remove BLP unreferenced or BLP unsourced (same), in favor of BLP refimprove and/or Nofootnotes wherever there is an external link or other source that is serving as a source. Or, better, form an in-line reference or two.  I replied with an example inline one at Talk:John O'Donoghue (hurler).  You are not at all obligated to provide sourcing for everything to qualify for removing the BLP unsourced tag.  Thanks! --doncram (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm...lots of minor athletes. Lvklock (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just curious, why did you decide to ask for delete of Mariano Werner rather than adding a source? Lvklock (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was looking for sources for Walter Quintus. I found a couple things, but I'm not sure about them being acceptable sources.  Could you look at them on the discussion page there and give me an opinion. Lvklock (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So, we're still zapping, right? Check your e-mail, asap, please. Lvklock (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Early Greek Revival Cottage
Would you mind requesting a G7 speedy on this article? It's unnecessary, because the listing names are different: one is "Early Greek Revival Cottage", and the other is "Early Greek Revival House". Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops, my bad. I misread somewhere and then the way i was copying to economize in keystrokes it built out the error.  Delete requested.  thanks. --doncram (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've deleted it.  Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, thanks for the congrats on Turpin; as you can see at User:Nyttend/DYK, I've actually done a bunch of archaeological sites before this one. Entries 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24, and 33 are all Criterion D sites, and it's remotely possible that one or more of the others qualifies under D as well.  Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Gales Ferry
Hi Don, noticed you tagged Gales Ferry for a possible split back in August and was wondering if there was a particular reason? Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

NRHP documents
Did you get the emailed NRHP documents on Chesterfield? Bgwhite (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Newburgh Colored Burial Ground
Sure. I went and looked at the area (know it well) last week. It would be easy to get a photo of, say the parking lot behind the courthouse building (I should look at the application to see which area in particular is of interest). Right now there is nothing that really marks it, but I remember it was a big story locally when the graves were discovered. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Question on "missing" NRHP
I was walking past the Miss Albany Diner last night on Broadway in Albany, New York. It has a plaque on it stating it's on the NRHP. This isn't in any of our articles and when I google it, I only get real estate ads for the place, saying it's for sale, and that it's on the NHRP. Could you see if it's in the records? This isn't exactly my subject, so I don't know where to look. Thanks, sir.  upstate NYer  21:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the challenge. My first thot:  it would be a contributing property in a historic district, and then i was finding my way toward Broadway-Livingston Avenue Historic District...but it's map shows it is in the 700 block and doesn't extend up far enough.  Well, how about Lil's Diner?  A.k.a. Miss Albany.  Did you take a pic?  No pic for it in National Register of Historic Places listings in Albany, New York.  I don't think i've been in this Silk City diner, but i've been in others.
 * Cheers, --doncram (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's it. I've never heard it called "Lil's", and it has "Miss Albany" painted in big letters on it. I did take a picture, so I'll get that up once my camera stops malfunctioning. >:X  upstate NYer  03:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kudos to the both of you for your successful sleuthing. --Orlady (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hits on Silk City Diner: Did u know that...
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Clinton County, Ohio, some mention of Silk City Diner
 * Village Diner: The Village Diner, sometimes called the Halfway Diner or the Historic Village Diner ... bought a popular Silk City Diner from the Paterson ...
 * Wall Township, New Jersey
 * The Roadside Diner, formerly the Circle Diner and Rusty's, is delivered to its Route 34 site by the Silk City Diner Co. ...
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Dutchess County, New York
 * ... the Miss Albany Diner, one of the distinctive Silk City Diners manufactured in New Jersey, was purchased in anticipation of an easy 6 steps to business success? ?
 * FYI I also have a cat at Commons: commons:Category:Miss Albany Diner. So that should be added when an article is started on this. I never knew this was so famous; the owners (well into their 80s) live down the street.  upstate NYer  00:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Alabama
Altairisfar 20:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City Peer Review
Thanks for combining the NRHP nomination file and the NRHP map file into one reference. That will make things alot easier. Also, I have posted a reply to your comment on the Peer Review page for the town. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 01:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Carpenter list vs disambig
FYI The disambig crowd has taken Carpenter (disambiguation) and removed all partial names. The solution was to create a list pages. Please note that the only partial list left disambig page regarding Carpenters is the Carpenter House page listing the NRHP partial listings. Why? Your comments on that discussion page is my guess. Personally I consider function and use far more that nit-picking style. Those on Wiki who say newcomers must navigate the wiki way - and only that way - drive new users away and limit Wikipedia's use to the public.


 * See List of people with surname Carpenter for real people.
 * See List of characters with surname Carpenter for fictional people.
 * See Carpenter House (disambiguation) for houses with the Carpenter or similar name.
 * See List of Carpenter related articles for Carpenter named animals, singing groups, communities, locations outside the USA, places in the USA, tools and items, miscellaneous and other related Carpenter names.

This last page links to the Carpenter (disambiguation) page and for all I care - it is now useless for Carpenter purposes. I will use and monitor the Carpenter list page instead. It is more far more useful for Carpenter surname purposes. Thanks for trying and the help. Jrcrin001 (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again,

Now that the Carpenter related name list has been resolved, I need some help on minor cleanup. The following page appears no longer needed and should be deleted. How does one do that? Or would you be so kind to handle that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Carpenter_related_articles

Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that is a redirect to the list article that was deleted. You can get that deleted by editing it to replace its current content (the redirect code) by , where you replace "reason" by a short explanation why you want it deleted, such as "Delete redirect to a now-deleted page".  "db" is abbreviation for "delete because", i think.  Especially if you were the creator of the redirect (i didn't check) that will be very non-controversial and any administrator who addresses such routine requests will take care of it.  It is also non-controversial because it is a redirect to a deleted page;  probably some bot will find it and delete it anyhow, but it is sorta better if you make the request, and get it cleared away. --doncram (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Casino Theatre
Hello. I noticed you moved Casino Theatre but didn't fix the incoming links. Do you plan to? Station1 (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussed out at User talk:Station1. --doncram (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BLP IMDB-only refimprove
Template:BLP IMDB-only refimprove has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jack Merridew 03:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that you've deployed this widely. Is there a consensus for this? I'm not seeing one, and have TfD'd it and the other one. 03:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I replied in the TFD discussion and at User talk:Jack Merridew. --doncram (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've briefly commented, too. I'll be reading the discussion you linked tomorrow. It is not my intent to rain on any effort to highlight the inappropriateness of citing imdb, which seems at least part of this. Sorry if it seemed rude. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

P:NYCD DYKs
Please consider adding some of your DYKs (or new ones) as suggestions for the DYK section of Portal:Capital District. We need a bunch. Thanks!  upstate NYer  15:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources vs. External links
Items in the External links section don't count as sources, because they aren't citations. They're places to go for additional information. Gilbert Adair doesn't actually cite any sources for the information stated in the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago
I know you are always looking for more images for your NRHP articles. posted images on flickr under a WP-friendly license type. I don't know if any of these images can fill in the blanks at National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago, but I am making you aware of the link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SIGNPOST submission
Don, thanks for your thoughts. You have some good suggestions. I'll try to do it today. Maurreen (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. I did not include the IMDB totals; ran out of energy. Maurreen (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Young Men's Christian Association Building
I have nominated Young Men's Christian Association Building, 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/Young Men's Christian Association Building. 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. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Articles sourced only by IMDB
Hi there. I have noticed you converting a lot of articles tagged as 'BLP unsourced' to 'BLP IMDB-only refimprove'

Please note that I completely agree with the new IMDB-only tag, but I ask that you please be careful and review the article a bit before altering the tag. In some cases, the former tag is old and not necessarily accurate. For Peter Krause's page (please see here: because I have since added sources), there was an additional reference, it was just a direct link instead of properly done. The same is true for Shayna Fox. In the case of Terry Camilleri, there actually is a reference on the page. I'm not in any way saying these are well-sourced articles, but I just think we should be tagging the articles properly. In performing this exercise, you also have the ability to change tags from 'BLP unsourced' to plain-old 'BLP refimprove'. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To Logical Fuzz -- Thanks for noting those. You may not be aware that i am applying either of two new templates, BLP IMDB-only refimprove vs. BLP IMDB refimprove for cases where iMDB is a source but there may be others.  In all cases i am replacing "BLP unreferenced" (aka "BLP unsourced") by one of these because a source is present.  I am trying to identify properly when IMDB is the only source of an article vs. not, but may get that right always as you have noted.  I am doing most of these edits using AWB, where it is not easy to see whether there are any other references or not.  I thot i was doing better in getting that right, will try to do some more spot-checking of my changes myself outside of AWB, after each AWB session, going forward.  But, the important thing is, i think, that the use of either of these versions of refimprove tag does correctly indicate that the article does have sources (it should not be part of the big unreferenced BLPs issue) and that IMDB is a source in the article.  Thanks for the feedback! --doncram (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. Hmm, yes, this version of Shayna Fox article does have another reference, but only in the form of an external link mixed into the text.  I am sure i noticed that there was no References section and that the IMDB link was the only external link below.  What needs to be done here is to make the link into a proper reference and to use the BLP IMDB refimprove tag, replacing the BLP unreferenced tag by that rather than by the BLP IMDB-only refimprove.  But it is not a bad mistake, IMHO. --doncram (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Reilly
I find your edit there hard to understand, could you not add a citation? IMBD is not a reliable citation to support any content? What is your objective to improve the article with that edit? Off2riorob (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Doncram ? Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * replied, with some delay due to internet connection problems, at User talk:Off2riorob. I will watch and reply further there too. --doncram (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP
The bot identified one BLP unsourced in the NRHP category. It was Pasadena Playhouse. I added some refs to the Sheldon Epps section, and changed the tag to refimprove. But, the article is tagged for multiple issues. I know you have some interest in Southern Cal. NRHP's, so thought I'd mention it. Lvklock (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been getting a lot done regarding this. Wish I could say the same. Lvklock (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're still zapping tho' the goal was met. Check your e-mail, please. Lvklock (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

IMDB templates & template:multiple issues
I'm working on this, but you'll have to get sign-off from an admin at the talk page of Multiple issues, since it is fully protected. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, check out Template:Multiple issues/testcases now. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I put an update on my talk page. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 13:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hooray! See Template talk:Multiple issues. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 15:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also here is a list confirming that they are being categorized correctly. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 15:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Masonic lodge Building
Critical error in your page title redirection. Kirkland is in Washington State, not Oregon! That should be fixed! Publichall (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know; i think i fixed it fully.  This was about Masonic Lodge Building (Kirkland, Washington). Sorry! --doncram (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

United States lightship Nantucket (LV-112)
Take a look at Talk:United_States_lightship_Nantucket_%28LV-112%29, please. Maybe I'm confused. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Also this. Thanks,. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Reynolds Metals Company International Headquarters
Thanks for this one Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP Signpost story
Hey Doncram, just to let you know I moved your message for the Signpost to Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions, it should get picked up there for inclusion in the next issue. Thanks for contributing! &mdash; PretzelsHii! 22:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Reformed Presbyterian Church Parsonage
Would you be interested in expanding this article to DYK length? I can provide church-related information that's not likely to be on the nomination form. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've made a proposal at WT:NRHP for creating a new category; would you please comment? Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * About the Reformed Presbyterian Church Parsonage, i added the NRHP document link there. But could you ask at wt:CAPDIS?  That's the talk page of the Capital District wikiproject, which covers Schenectady County as well as others.  User:Camelbinky or others there should be willing/interested to develop that.  I'll help too if it seems to be getting started.


 * I'll comment at wt:NRHP about the category proposal. --20:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for the Masonic Temple debate
I have had an idea that might let us reach consensus on the dab page title debate. See: WT:WikiProject Disambiguation. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP IMDB refimprove
I like this template but it can be overused though. I reverted your edit here. IMDB was only one of the four links in the external links section. To have this template there is a bit overkill. Couldn't the bot/awb just add the template when IMDB is the sole source/external link? Garion96 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Beth Israel Cemetery (Meridian, Mississippi)
I'd like to draw your attention to the talk page of Beth Israel Cemetery (Meridian, Mississippi), an article which you created. I've suggested a move to Congregation Beth Israel (Meridian, Mississippi) based on the fact that much of the information out there is about the congregation itself rather than the cemetery. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you missed it, I responded at the talk page. I added another paragraph to the article from the nom form, but I seriously don't see how I can get any more out of it. If you want the form, I can email it to you or send you an ftp username/password combo. Get back to me. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yoohoo! You there? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to look at User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox3. I've been working on that page for the past day and have added information about the congregation as a whole and included the cemetery as a subsection. I plan on going out to take a picture of the 1964 building in the next few days and adding it to the infobox, allowing me to bring the historical postcard out and add it to the History section. I also added 4 pictures of the cememtery to that workspace (as well as the current article). Now that you see the full expanded (or at least for now) version of what I was talking about, would you support moving the information from my sandbox to Congregation Beth Israel (Meridian, Mississippi) and redirecting Beth Israel Cemetery (Meridian, Mississippi) to the section in the congregation article?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks very good. I think i conveyed this already, but go with your judgement.  It seems fine to me and i appreciate that you have actually developed a good amount of detail about the NRHP-listed cemetery.  It is a good section that will surely survive and not get lost and edited down in the other article.  One question, unclear in the article and in the NRHP nom to me, what about the 1800's building and the 1906 building:  do they still survive, or were they all on the same site and torn down for the next one to be built, in 1906 and 1964?  If they survive, then current pictures would be relevant;  if not, that could be clarified. --doncram (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok I will move the article out in a minute. Both former buildings have been torn down (they were all at different locations, which I state in the article... The first was on 22nd ave, the 2nd was on 11th St/24th Ave, and the one now is at 57th Ct and 14th Ave.) I can't find a source that says when they were torn down or anything, or even that they were torn down, but I know from going to the sites that the buldings are no longer there. If they were, I'm almost certain that they too would be individually listed on the NRHP.. especially the Greek Revival 1906 building (the one in the image). I don't think they were torn down at the same time the new buildings were built, but I know for certain they're not there anymore. I'll keep looking for resources. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Immaculate Conception Church
Don't worry, I didn't delete anything important — the only edit was a Wildbot notice about a link to a disambiguation page. Upon seeing the note, I fixed the link and deleted the page; if I'd not deleted it, the bot would have noticed the fix and requested a G7 speedy, so there was no damage done by an early deletion. I'm not that interested in ratings, so I don't generally add or change them. Since you're more interested in ratings than I am, would you be willing to rate a few articles for me? I've expanded a few sub-stubs to more appropriately-sized articles, and I'd appreciate it if they were more appropriately rated. Among these articles are Great Mound (Middletown, Ohio), Holy Rosary Catholic Church (St. Marys, Ohio), and Turpin Site; if you're happy to help, I'll request your help with some more. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'd not done anything with the talk page, WildBot would have come back, noticed that I'd fixed the link, and replaced the disambiguation notice with a G7 tag. It's programmed not to do this unless it's the only user ever to have edited the page: a G7 speedy can still be appropriate at a page that has been edited by multiple users if only one has made significant contributions, but of course the bot can't tell whether something is significant.  And yes, the bot will create a talk page if none is in existence; if one is already there, it won't request a speedy when the link is fixed.  So yes, this is the same situation as the one you've encountered.  I've found many instances of the bot requesting page deletion, simply because I'm often involved in cleaning out CAT:CSD.  You can check out the bot's userpage if you're curious, since it has many details.  Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Anna Town Hall
Did you notice anything different as a result of making the edit to this page? Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, makes sense. I've never even heard of the Daily Disambig, so I definitely can't follow it.  An edit isn't required for a page to be linked — St. Louis' Catholic Church (North Star, Ohio) links to Precious Blood Catholic Church (Chickasaw, Ohio) through Cross-Tipped Churches, even though I just changed the link away from Chickasaw School and Rectory a few days ago, while the St. Louis article was last edited in April.  Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ray Ball
Hi, It doesn't look to me as if most of the links to this redirect are intended for the article to which it points - unless the accounting prof had a past life in Australian football. PamD (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. He's from Australia but looking at dates of his degrees now it seems he could not have been that Sydney Swans player.  There's some way to mark something a "redirect with possibilities" i think.  Should it be marked that way or set up as a dab now?  I revised all the links intended for the accounting prof to link directly to Ray J. Ball now. --doncram (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright violations
Regarding your listing here, If you know the sources and they clearly state all rights reserved (or are not on a government site), then they should be tagged for WP:CSD, if you don't know the source, then they should be listed at Possibly unfree files. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * About photos listed by me at Copyright_problems/2010_June_9, the photos are in fact presented in NPS Focus system as "All rights reserved". However, in discussion at User talk:Quazgaa, Quazgaa states he/she is now going to seek more info and/or release from the Puerto Rico SHPO office for these photos.  I don't think that will be successful for all of them, but it could possibly yield public release of some of them.  I'll wait for a while now, maybe this should be revisited in 10 days. --doncram (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, i did not understand that you were deleting the mention at Copyright Problems by this edit removing it. Well, should an issue like this only be left open here on my Talk page?  It's also open at uploader's Talk page, but not now tracked in any central log.  I could do exactly as you suggest, and tag each of these 9 files individually, but in fact it's a bigger problem, there are more files uploaded than listed so far.  I was hoping to get this into a central tracking system so that it would eventually be fully addressed. --doncram (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because WP:CP is for text issues, and many of the editors there aren't really comfortable with images even if they came through the pipeline. The closest thing to a centralized location for a relatively small-scale copyright image problem would be WP:IMAGEHELP. Just start a new thread there listing the files you're aware of and link to the discussion on Quazgaa's page, and that can work as a hub to keep track of what's going on (and get the input of others who regularly deal with image copyright issues). If this is a large-scale and ongoing problem, you can file a case at WP:CCI, but that shouldn't be required if it's only a dozen images or so.VernoWhitney (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD notice
Just so you know... I have decided to take the bull by the horns and nominate List of Masonic buildings for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

RM notice
Hi. You recently participated in a discussion regarding move request of Fausto Veranzio. This is just to let you know a new move was requested by the admin GTBacchus; please discuss it at Talk:Faust_Vrančić, if you like. Regards, - Theirrulez (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Dropping a note... :)  Avic enna sis @ 21:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Masonic Lodge (disambiguation)
I have nominated Masonic Lodge (disambiguation), 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/Masonic Lodge (disambiguation). 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. Snotty Wong  talk 23:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Glassboro Summit Conference
Thanks for the feedback. Who knew that this was a famous place, rather than just the usual NRHP site? I have lots of trouble finding info in New Jersey, and get lost very easily there. But I'll be going back this week and may finish a county or two. Smallbones (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment... not meant as an attack
Doncram, While inspired by our previous conversations... I am posting this to your talk page because it really is irrelevant to the issues we have been having at the various Masonic Building/Temple pages. It relates to something I have noticed about the NRHP project, and since you are obviously an active member of that project, I thought I would bring it to your attention. My comment is intended to be a friendly observation that is tangentially related to your assertion that the buildings on the NRHP list are inherently notable. It is not meant as an attack on the NRHP project... It is purely meant as an outsider's observation.

Looking back through the history of several of the the NRHP lists here on Wikipedia, it seems as if the project members are more interested in creating lists and sub-lists (and then endlessly redesigning and improving these lists) than in actually writing any articles. To illustrate what I mean... look at the following random sampling: National Register of Historic Places listings in Michigan, National Register of Historic Places listings in Georgia and National Register of Historic Places listings in Iowa. Go back to the earliest versions of the lists (some of which go back to 2005)... and compare them to what you have today. In all that time, while the project members have obviously been busy tinkering with the format of the lists, almost none of the entries that were red-linked when you began have actually had articles written about them.

If you are going to continue to maintain that being listed on the NRHP automatically confers notability, I would suggest that the project focus more on actually writing articles about their subject matter, and less on creating and redesigning lists of it. If you don't, I think that there will come a point when consensus will begin to change... when people will start to say: "Why is it that so many of these entries are still red-linked? It's been years... Gee, maybe our assumption that they were inherently notable was wrong after all".

Please don't misunderstand... I applaud the efforts of the NRHP project. It is obvious that you do care about your subject matter, and that you want to make your corner of Wikipedia shine... the lists are a fantastic resource. But... all your hard work will be for naught if the consensus on notability does change.

Well... that's my observation, opinion and advice... for what it's worth. No need to respond (although you are welcome to do so if you wish) Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I, as a member of WP:NRHP, do tend to agree with you. However, I would like to draw your attention to WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/New articles (articles for June 2010 are at WP:NRHP). We are creating articles pretty rapidly (though not as rapidly as possible as you've pointed out), but there are over 80,000 NRHP-listed sites in the country; it's going to take a while. The way the system works is that someone who is interested in a certain area writes articles for that area. If no one is interested in an area, articles aren't written. Some lists are completely blue-linked, while others remain largely full of red links. For now, there are still enough red links so that basically everyone can work in their own area of interest, but as time goes on, people will begin to have to research other places, so I believe while the progress is steady now, it will taper off slowly (and then rapidly increase as we realize we're almost finished). Your point is well taken, but I believe we are still making headway at a steady rate. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * By Michigan, Georgia, and Iowa, you pick 3 less-active states (though I am aware of one editor proceeding in Davenport, Iowa area). It's random where potential editors will find their way to wikipedia and NRHP wikiproject, and then do all of their local area.  In Florida, Maryland, Rhode Island, Massachusetts there are articles for all now, due to presence of local editors.  In New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, other states there are great numbers of articles also where there are local editors.  In other states, like Oregon, Wisconsin, there are editors like User:Royalbroil who happen to choose to add pictures to list-articles, without also starting individual articles, as in National Register of Historic Places listings in Outagamie County, Wisconsin, which has 45 great pics.  The system of lists serves many active editors adding pics or articles, and it is a structure that is welcoming in new editors, often brand new to wikipedia, every few days.  It takes time to develop 86,000 good articles, though;  we have about 27,000 now.  The list structure is essential;  i see no wasted efforts in developing and maintaining that.  Thanks for your question/observation though. --doncram (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Use correct blue links
Doncram, as Station1 pointed out, the blue links you're using on some dab page entries are not correct -- the linked pages do not give the reader any information about the ambiguous topic. Based on a sample of one, I believe the entries are probably correctly present but incorrectly linked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Masonic_Temple_Building_(Denver,_Colorado), for instance, indicates that List of RHPs in CO is not the right blue link to use in the description, but National Register of Historic Places listings in Downtown Denver, Colorado would be. Please do not use "List of RHPs in XX" as a boilerplate shortcut for linking. That may help editor efficiency, but does not help the reader when the target of the redirect makes no mention of the RHP, so is bad for the encyclopedia. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. I replied at wt:WPDAB. --doncram (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Not an issue.

I'm reminded why I stopped editing anything to do with Freemasonry, people get very passionate about it. I really should take all of the pages off my watchlist.

ALR (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Temple Israel
A note: Doncram, you're approaching WP:3RR, for which you can be blocked. In addition, there's no support for your edits, you're inserting material in an article in which it doesn't belong, and you're deleting much valuable information. Please stop. Jayjg (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no intent at all to lose any material, no threat of that. It was under discussion in a requested move at Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma), and is now under an appeal of sorts, as you know from Talk:Orlady. --doncram (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Cain Fulling Mill
You are aware, aren't you, that you've way surpassed 3RR? I'm not going to get involved with this article; you really need to work it out. Because I don't think it productive to block both you and Polaron, I've fully protected the article for 24 hours. FYI, I protected it before looking at the article history, so I didn't know whose version was currently visible. Nyttend (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually i think i did not technically hit 3RR, which is about 4 reversions within 24 hours. (8:52 > 24 hours vs. 8:47 day before, though i wasn't looking at the time.)  I learned everything i know about that, from Polaron, by the way. :)  I commented further at Talk page of article, but yes you did lock in the version with the unsourced info.  Thanks for addressing. --doncram (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Beth Israel Cemetery/Congregation and Meridian Carnegie Library comments
I went out Friday and took some pictures of Congregation Beth Israel's new building (built in 1964) and uploaded them. I also took pictures of the other monuments mentioned in the cemetery's NRHP nomination form. I've added all the images to the article now. While I was in the cemetery, I looked at gravesites as we had discussed before. To my surprise, I never could find a "Fanny, wife of N. Fiebelman." Yes, some of the tombstones were worn down, but I'm pretty sure I could read 99% of them, and I never saw Fanny. I did find some Fiebelmans but no Fanny and none that died in 1870. I did find one grave, that of Henrietta Myers, who died on December 22, 1870... I also found a grave of Emanuel Rosenbaum that had only a single date (not specifying if it was birth or death) of December 9, 1863.

Upon further review, I think maybe the date on Emanuel's grave was the birthdate, and the deathdate would have been under it, but the ground had risen at the bottom of the stone, blocking the death date. I'll have to go back and check on that one. The transcript of all people in the cemetery shows Emanuel as having Dec 9, 1863 as a birthdate, so I guess my theory is correct. The transcript also shows Henrietta with the dates I found, so that leads me to believe the transcript is pretty reliable. I didn't, however, find the graves of "Sarah H. (wife of Samuel Levy)" (D: June 13, 1861) or "Jacob Greenwald" (D: September 28, 1869), both of which are in the transcript and would be older than Fanny (if she exists). I'll look again for these two when I go back out. After not being able to find Fanny, I removed the claim from the article until I can figure out who the oldest is.

Also, I see that you recently created Carnegie Branch Library (Meridian, Mississippi). While it's good that you have somewhat developed the stub, I had actually planned to create a Meridian Public Library article, in which I talked about the whole Carnegie story and everything related to it as well as stuff about the current library, and I was going to make the library article a redirect to this. I hadn't gotten around to it yet, but this stub creation may speed up the process. I'll try to develop it a little more, though, until I get that done. One question: What was the reasoning behind creating the stub? I didn't see in your contribs any dab issues or anything related to the building that would warrant creation. I'm not dogging you for creating it... simply asking a question haha.. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was browsing and thot i'd help there, i guess. The article's "What links here" currently is clogged up with temporary links from a WikiProject Mississippi new articles template, but when that clears you can see your way to lists of Carnegie libraries, which i helped develop some a long time ago.  The Mississippi page, split out, had lacked links, and when fixing that it seems better to make them bluelinks rather than endure obtuse questions about redlinks in this arena also.  Weren't u just buggin' me to work in article creation, anyhow? :)  About the article structure, currently i think it would be best to have a new article as you say about the current main library and the library system as a whole, and keep the two separate articles about the two buildings.  The library for whites / the museum one is already developed more, and wouldn't naturally be included in the current library article.  The library for blacks could more likely attract historic pictures and more info if it is shown, by being a separate article, as a valid topic for development.  Seems like a good DYK can be done on it, right now.  Anyhow, do you have the NRHP nom form for it and could you possibly email that?  Also I noted ur use of the nom form for Merrehope Historic District; can you possibly pls. send that too?  Thanks!  P.S.  I added the info that the bldg has been demolished to wp:NRIS info issues MS. --doncram (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha that's cool dude. Yea I have been getting on you about creating articles (but I've also been on you about creating stubs :P). I appreciate that you tried to expand this article a bit, and I understand your rationale. It made me speed up my efforts to expand it from it's stubbiness (though it's not much longer now, which was the main reason I was putting off creating it). Though I still think the article is a little short, I'm fine with leaving it like that for now... unless someone has a wealth of information that I don't know about haha. I just sent you the NRHP noms for the library and for the district. There's not much about the library in either of them, though. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, btw, I nominated Congregation Beth Israel for GA. You completely ignored my paragraph above :P. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)/Temp
Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)/Temp has been tagged for speedy deletion under A10. Station1 (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notice. It relates to a discussion not finished, and is not in mainspace.  I cancelled the speedy. --doncram (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. You make a good point about it not being in mainspace. Station1 (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DO
I see you have signed up for the last dramaout. Consider notifying 3 good editors of this to encourage more participation. Perhaps saying

I am participating in this. Please consider doing the same! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians 15:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Weekend trip
Don,

My son and I are going up to a function in Buffalo this weekend and of course I will be taking pictures (I've already let Lvklock and Pubdog know if there's anything they haven't been able to get). You will of course be most interested in one of my priorities: a contemporary pic of the Cobblestone Historic District NHL in out-of-the-way Childs. Anything else I could hit? (Maybe a better Geneseo Historic District photo on the way back, perhaps). Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, after seeing your post below mine at Alin's talk subpage, that I got all the Orleans ones, including Cobblestone, despite the rain. We may have to extend our stay here, so we'll see about the Genesee ones later. Daniel Case (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday's weather was gorgeous for a long drive across upstate New York. I got all the remaining Genesee ones, and plenty from Livingston, as well as Corning, Waverly and Owego. Will gradually be uploading them, along, of course, with all the other ones from a year and a half ago. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi --- can't wait to see the pics! This helps me plan my next trip to Bflo and which way to go from DC  Cheers --Pubdog (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

First National Bank (Terre Haute, Indiana)
Hello! I've been slogging away on NRHP listings in Vigo County, Indiana and recently made a little change that I considered quite minor but which two separate users reverted (including you) so I wanted to check in. I proposed changing First National Bank (Terre Haute, Indiana) to First National Bank building (Terre Haute, Indiana), which is consistent with numerous other First National Bank buildings on the First National Bank disambiguation page. It is also consistent with how locals refer to the building. I really don't care either way, but since the link I changed to include "building" on the disambiguation page was left untouched I wasn't sure how to proceed. Honestly I didn't think anyone would have an opinion -- I seem to be the only person actively adding content to any of the Vigo County articles so most of my edits go entirely unnoticed. Thanks. Sweet kate (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll reply now at Talk:First National Bank (Terre Haute, Indiana). Thanks for asking! --doncram (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Church Nuestra Senora de la Concepcion y San Fernando of Toa Alta.JPG
You tagged this image with copyvio, which is not supposed to be used in filespace. I have completed a listing at if you wish to join the discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

St Pete's all wet

 * Saint Peter's-By-The-Sea Episcopal Church NRHP in Cape May County, New Jersey
 * St. Peter's By-The-Sea Protestant Episcopal Church NRHP in Maine

I know I haven't handled this properly, but sometimes I'm just amazed. BTW is "Saint" or "St." preferred? Speaking of Episcopal Churches - I'm still trying to figure out why St. James Kingsessing doesn't have an article yet, nor is on the NRHP.

It was the 6th church in Philly, built 1762. I just ran smack dab into it yesterday and have to say that I've seen over 100 less historical and less architecturally imposing NRHP sites in Philly.

All the best, Smallbones (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the owner of an NRHP-eligible building has to see it in their interest to have the place listed. About Saint or St. i would just follow what the local usage seems to be.  Google searching, i found more of similar name easily, in Rhode Island, Alaska, elsewhere, so i started up a disambiguation page and think it's best to move these ones to include (City, State) disambiguation, avoiding future problems.  I started up St. Peter's by-the-Sea Episcopal Church (Sitka, Alaska) article and then find it is indeed NRHP-listed under a variant name. --doncram (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

NRHP in Albany request
I sent this same message to Daniel Case the other day, though it seems he's out of town. Would you be interested in doing a quick blurb? I don't exactly feel qualified: "Would you be willing to write a paragraph or two about NRHPs, NHDs, and NHLs in Albany for my current rewrite? The new section is at Albany, New York. I'd like a summary of numbers (how many NRHPs, NHDs, NHLs) and a listing of what you (as an expert) would call the "most important" of those listed. If there are other places that you think are significant that aren't NRHP-related, feel free to include." Let me know what you think.  upstate NYer  05:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Taylor Hall (disambiguation)
Taylor Hall was originally a disambig page, but after a user attempted to cut and paste move the article on the younger hockey player there, I chose to complete that move properly as the younger player is easily the primary target. At first I moved the disambig page to Taylor Hall (disambiguation), but subsequently chose to delete instead, as there were only two articles on that page - the younger and elder hockey players. The Taylor Hall building was listed, but there was no accompanying article, and no indication that the building was notable. As such, a disambig page seemed unnecessary. If this building is historically notable, I'd suggest creating an article for it, otherwise there is no point. Let me know, and I will happily restore that page. Cheers! Resolute 03:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no redlink. This was the full text of the entry, exactly as it was marked up: "Taylor Hall, dormitory at the Fremont campus of DeVry University".  Based on that, I had no indication there was a third notable thing called "Taylor Hall".  I am seeing in history now that you did add a redlink to that building which was removed some months ago.  Interesting.  I've restored the page.  Cheers! Resolute 14:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the edit removing the NRHP-listed one is this edit with opaque edit summary. The DeVry entry was removed and also what was then a redlink to Taylor Hall (Hawkinsville, Georgia), the one i had previously added and which i know is notable (while i have no particular view about the DeVry one).  Thanks for restoring the disambiguation page which now has the NRHP entry, that settles it for me. --doncram (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: NRHP and other historic sites

 * Hi Doncram, how you doing? I don't mean to rain on anybody's parade, but it was I who recently succeeded in getting some photos released into the public domain from the Puerto Rican State Historic Preservation Office and created the template to be used in such images, upon User:Quazgaa request. See:Good news. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)