User talk:Upstateherd

Reynolds Building photo
Regarding your photo of the Reynolds Building, my first instinct was the remove it because the only real difference from the photo already there was a tree. Then I realized the subject of the photo is more clear so I used your photo in the infobox and removed the one that was there.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions in NRHP topics
Hi there, I mostly edit on NRHP topics, and I just noticed your contributions in Palmetto Historic District, in Florida, in which you added a photo gallery and an NRHP document reference, greatly improving the article. And I further see you have done much more along those lines, for NRHP-listed places in North Carolina and elsewhere, since early this year. Thank you so much! --Doncram (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Doncram Not a problem! I am a NRHP/NHL "nerd".  I feel that NRHP articles need good photos. I especially feel the NRHP historic districts need multiple photos to better explain the vibe and character of the district, since most have multiple structures and building. 75.136.154.152 (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes! In a few cases all we have is a photo of a sign "Welcome to ABC Neighborhood Historic District" where the sign is modern, not a historic artifact, and there are no pics of the historic houses and other contributing resources at all! WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Style_guide has some useful comments, and links to a 2010 collection of links and discussion that I started about what makes a good HD article. Nowadays I feel that any "small" HD, say 20 or fewer resources, oughta have pics of every building, to be presented either in a table or a gallery, plus also some general views.  And about some stupendously huge historic districts like Charleston Historic District (with i would guess 3-5,000 buildings, about which i have Draft:Buildings in the Charleston Historic District in progress towards tabulating at least some of the more important buildings.  Following someone else's similar complement to the Savannah Historic District.) and Leadville Historic District (which has around 1,000 or 1,200 buildings), I even think we oughta get a pic of each resource.  Those two HDs were in earliest batch of NRHP listings, and it was obvious they were important, but when there weren't any standards for documentation, so there is not even a list of buildings and designations of which were contributing or not, and  nowhere a collection of photos of each building.  So with time when some are demolished or modified there is no record of what is lost. Okay, i'll end this rant, thank you for the therapy. --Doncram (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

an NRHP tool and about references to NRHP docs
In the process of adding a bit to the Palmetto Historic District article, I jotted these comments to share to you. Just FYI, not to take you away from your approach so far to improving articles, which is great.

You may not know about the "NRHP infobox generator" tool, which is an aid to creating infoboxes and a bit more, which works for NRHP places listed by some date in 2013. It's the first item here. I put in "Palmetto Historic" and got it to generate its report, and then in this diff I copy-pasted the material (from both left hand side and the box on the right side) of the report) into the article. I copied all of it just to show you.  It has some useful bits even in this case where an article is in place already (with an infobox perhaps generated many years ago from this tool).

Consider:


 * Yikes, the original infobox said area was 1560 acre, when it should have been 156 acre! This was no doubt caused by confusing coding in NPS's NRIS database, which records the number of tenths of an acre in its area field!  Which was not understood in the past, when stub articles for all of the Florida places listed on the NRHP by 2008 or so were created.  I can see this article was created in 2006 and the infobox was added in 2008 or after.


 * From the NRHP infobox generator info, which has a "see also" type mention about Palmetto Women's Club, I know to interpret that: The district includes the separately-NRHP-listed Palmetto Women's Club, which should be linked.  Oh, right now that is a redlink, but I see that there exists an article at Woman's Club of Palmetto, and i will set up a redirect to that.


 * The main thing I wanted to convey to you is about the NRHP reference. Here's what the "NRHP infobox generator" provides as a starter reference, partly filled out already:
 * which displays as:


 * The two links in that will work (go to actual documents) at NPS for many articles. You can paste in just the reference, and then check if its links work.  In this case and for most Florida places at least, they do.  And then I further fill it out, including getting author name and date of preparation from Section 11, and describing the photos somewhat, so it becomes a pretty good reference:


 * which displays as:


 * Many NRHP docs can also be found now at NARA: at this NARA search page, just plug in the NRHP reference number "86003166" and you get to the same NRHP document (but with text and photos all in one PDF).

'''Sorry, this is sharing a lot, probably way too much, and you don't need to bother with any of it. But you did search for and find and add a NRHP doc, without being aware there was a set of accompanying photos, and i wanted to let you know about those. The photos there, with their captions, could help you identify what's in pictures you've taken, or could guide you to look for certain buildings to get photos of them.'''

Your adding the link to just the text was definitely an improvement and gives the reader most of what they'd like to see if they follow the link, though, you don't have to go hunting for the photos too. Again, you don't need to do any improving of references this way or anything else, you can just pick what you like doing and do that. Your adding your new pics is obviously great, too. You can also let me know you'd like me to visit an article and make what improvements i can, along these lines.

cheers, --Doncram (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)