Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals

So many choices :-) Motorrad-67 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposals for renaming of lists, articles, and categories involving the phrase Registered Historic Place or Registered Historic Places. to match official NPS designation. Choice A is existing as of 7/28/2008.

List of Registered Historic Places in...
Current names include: List of National Register of Historic Places entries (entire United States) and List of Registered Historic Places in Alabama (example of a state list)
 * Choice A:List of Registered Historic Places in...
 * Choice B:Properties on the National Register of Historic Places in...
 * Choice C:National Register of Historic Places properties for national list and National Register of Historic Places properties in... for subnational lists
 * Choice D:Listings on the National Register of Historic Places in...
 * Choice E:Properties on the United States National Register of Historic Places in...
 * Choice F:List of U.S. Nationally Registered Historic Places in...
 * Choice G:List of U.S.-registered historic places in ...
 * Choice H-1:Alabama entries on the National Register of Historic Places, etc.
 * Choice H-2:List of Alabama entries on the National Register of Historic Places, etc.
 * Choice I: Listed buildings in Alabama
 * Choice J: Listed properties and districts in Alabama
 * Choice K: Registered properties and districts in Alabama
 * Choice L: Entries on the National Register of Historic Places (for national list)


 * I prefer Choice C. It is simple, straightforward, and correct according to the official usage. --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer the version where "Places" and "property" are not adjacent.--Appraiser (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Either B or C works for me. A is incorrect. C saves two words.  Because the NRHP includes districts as well as properties, another possibility that would work is National Register of Historic Places entries in .... The Keeper of the Register enters properties and districts in the NRHP. Still  another: National Register of Historic Places listings in .... Motorrad-67 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the National Park Service includes historic districts within the meaning of "properties," as used in this reference. --Orlady (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * B, if we have to go with this inelegant, bureaucratic construction because a large U.S. federal agency has never given the media guidance on what terminology to use. "Listings" isn't bad either, as it echoes the analogous "listed buildings" in Great Britain. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)




 * It seems that Choice E has entered the discussion because of concern raised at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 31 regarding perceived US-centrism in the term "National Register of Historic Places." It was pointed out that Wikipedia calls the Canadian counterpart "Canadian Register of Historic Places". However, that is the official name of Canada's list. Further, it was pointed out that New Zealand has a "Registered Historic Places" list, but investigation reveals that its official name is "The Register of Historic Places, Historic Areas, Wahi Tapu and Wahi Tapu Areas". National Register of Historic Places is the official name of the US list; unless there is a another country with an identical name, I do not see a need to disambiguate article and category names by inserting "United States" in front of "National Register of Historic Places." --Orlady (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I second Orlady here. "National Register of Historic Places" is an official and proper name that only refers to the US list of historic properties. Note that doesn't have "U.K." before it, because only one nation has a National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty that is known as the National Trust for short (well, we have one too, but it's a private organization and usually referred to by its full name outside of HP circles). Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you have that "National Register of Historic Places" is a name that only refers to the US list of historic properties? I think it would be arrogant of us to assume that. A quick Google search yielded an Austrian example:.--Appraiser (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't go looking for problems that don't exist; there are plenty of real problems to address. The article National Register of Historic Places has existed since 2002. I have not scrutinized the entire history of the article and discussion of the article, but I don't see evidence that the title has been an issue in the six years since it was created. That cheesy travel reservations website you found is the only Google hit when I search Google on "Austrian National Register of Historic Places," which is a pretty good clue that Austrian National Register of Historic Places is not the standard English translation for the official name of Austria's list. Searching for "National Register of Historic Places" and "Austria", I did find another cheesy travel site that was allegedly about National Register of Historic Places properties in Innsbruck, but it was an empty page, apparently generated by a poorly programmed automatic page generator that attempted to combine the U.S. list with the names of world cities. --Orlady (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer choice A. I think that it was carefully chosen originally and survived evolution in wp:NRHP for good reasons.  B and C are wordy and/or awkward and bend too far towards reflecting a jargon that apparently is used by many inside NPS and state SHPO sites. (Note, however, we still have no examples provided of internal usage refering to lists like these, meaning, please show me a document titled "Properties on the National Register of Historic Places in Alabama" or any other subregion.)  The Registered Historic Place phrase is used (albeit downcased) by NPS writers of travel itinerary websites, budget proposals, and other documents written for external audiences, because it works well in communicating.  We are serving the external audiences, and we are trying to communicate carefully without loading in assumptions that are implicit in the within-agency jargon (of course within-agency, it is understood the nation is the United States).  Choice D involves the redundancy of, essentially, "Listings on the List", and suffers from U.S. centrism.  Speaking of "the" National Register in wikipedia does indeed call for the solution of identifying what is "the" nation you are referring to.  Option E, essentially Properties on the U.S. Register of Places, is awkward.  And that brings me back to A, which works.  It makes no implicit assertion that a National Register must be a U.S. register, it simply conveys what it means with no baggage. List of Registered Historic Places in Alabama works fine.  All other alternatives have disadvantages of communication, implication, and are longer.  For what these are, the simple Option A is great. doncram (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps choice F, which i just added, should be considered. It does usefully clarify that properties and districts listed only on state or local registers of historic places are excluded. doncram (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that all names that use the word "registered" are incorrect. The word "registered" generally means that a person (or property owner) has voluntarily signed up for some sort of status -- for example, a child is "registered" in school or a guesthouse is "registered" with the local tourist office (or an historic building is "registered" with a local government for some sort of recognition). In contrast, properties on the NRHP are not "registered." In the case of the National Register, the property owner (or local preservation organization) submits an application to the National Park Service, which evaluates the application and decides whether or not to list (or enter) the property on the National Register of Historic Places. (Nobody ever "registers" anything. The operative verbs are "list (on)" and "enter (onto).") --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a choice H, since none of the others ring true to me. Putting the state name at or near the beginning avoids the awkward (I really want to say atrocious) wording of Places entries or Places properties''clariosophic (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I add choice I: Listed buildings in Alabama, to follow the UK usage, which is not capitalized in Listed building and other articles. Daniel Case points out category naming in, too. doncram (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see at least two very serious fundamental problems with "Listed buildings in..." First, this is British usage that is not meaningful to speakers of U.S. English -- and the NRHP is a topic that is specific to the United States. Second, as has been discussed at length here rather recently, many of the entities on the NRHP are not buildings. --Orlady (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As i noted at wt:NRHP, it is interesting there is awkwardness in UK "official language" and wikipedia articles too. "Listed buildings" includes bridges, piers, monuments, etc., although there is an initiative to change the term to Designated something, instead, per Listed buildings article.  I proposed it to consider trying a world-wide common unifying term.  Because of its awkwardness for covering objects, structures, ships, districts, sites, it doesn't work well, for the U.S. or for the U.K.  How about "Listed properties and districts in Alabama" however?  That covers all NRHPs and does not twist any word's meaning.  Objects, structures, ships, sites and buildings are or can be properties that are bought and sold.  With the first sentence in the intro of the article explaining something like "This is a list of properties and districts in Alabama listed on the National Register of Historic Places." doncram (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I add option K, too, for completeness. But right now I prefer J: "Listed properties and districts in ...".  I like its clarity using the implicit allusion to British listed buildings. doncram (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why some people here are determined to develop new nomenclature for historic properties in the U.S. (including, but not limited to, this initiative to adopt the UK nomenclature). Truly, the simplest and most straightforward way to title articles and categories is to use the official nomenclature that has existed since 1966 and is familiar to the National Park Service, state historic preservation offices, and local preservation groups around the country. --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Enthusiastic second. This whole discussion should be limited in scope to what wording best works with the full term "National Register of Historic Places" included. Instead, we suddenly seem to be spiraling off in other directions, coming up with new terms no one has ever used or is likely to use. Hello? How'd we get here from there? I have this uncomfortable feeling this whole thing is eventually going to make this list. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not "determined to develop new nomenclature". By "Listed properties and districts", I am trying to propose use of a natural English language phrase, even if long and awkward, per the guideline in wp:NEO (that Daniel pointed out) to do that rather than create or endorse a neologism.  I am searching for terms that work for the needs we have, trying to wp:AGF despite Motorrad-67's, first, and Orlady's repeated assertions about what is "correct" based on their view of what internal jargon within the NPS is.  If you cannot acknowledge that wikipedia needs and requirements can be different than insider jargon, then I don't what to say.  (I appreciate that insider Motorrad at least acknowledged that using "property" to include districts is awkward.)  I repeat, I still see more avoidance than good examples in NPS's and in state's website terminology.  And despite Motorrad and/or Orlady's asserted insider status, I still do not see an example memo or whatever from NPS that is comparable to our need for something like "List of Registered Historic Places in...".


 * Pointing to the usage within the big NPS manual awkwardly titled "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation" is not helpful. Note, that title is precisely an example of the NPS failing to settle on a workable term.  The title begs the question of evaluating WHAT, and the title carefully avoids the use of "property" or "listings" or whatever.  If the title was "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluating Candidate _____" where ____ was a phrase meaning one place or RHP or whatever, THEN that would be useful.  I already conceded that manual spells out in the text that when they say "properties" they mean to include "districts", but that does not help our need to for a term to use in succinct titles of wikipedia articles and in category names.


 * Note again, we can agree to use a succinct phrase, or to use a longish but grammatically and semantically correct phrase, in article titles and categories, and then make it a point to clarify and/or soft-pedal use of the phrase immediately in the intro of the article or category, e.g. clarifying "This is a list of properties and districts listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places in Arizona" for an article that is titled "List ed properties and districts in Arizona".


 * Maybe this whole discussion should be deferred to GA and FA and FL reviews of specific candidate articles. Or otherwise raised in some way that would bring in editors without baggage who can evaluate the tradeoffs between principles that have to be made here. doncram (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(back to margin for simplicity). I'm strongly opposed to trying to mimic the UK system. H-1 is straight forward, grammatical and uses officially recognized (federal and state) nomenclature. Isn't that what we started out to try to do? We need to resolve this section first because all the other renamings below should follow its lead. clariosophic (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * H-1 is good for state lists--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * L for national list--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Registered Historic Places at colleges and universities in the United States of America

 * Choice A:List of Registered Historic Places at colleges and universities in the United States of America
 * Choice B:National Register of Historic Places - properties in colleges and universities
 * Choice C:National Register of Historic Places - college and university properties and districts - Motorrad-67 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice D:National Register of Historic Places - college and university entries - Motorrad-67 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice E: National Register of Historic Places properties at colleges and universities
 * Choice F: National Register of Historic Places listings at colleges and universities
 * Choice G: College and university related entries on the National Register of Historic Places clariosophic (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice H: Listed properties and districts at U.S. colleges and universities


 * I just added E and F, either of which I could live with. The hyphens in entries B through D make me cringe; although hyphens don't create issues in naming paths, proper style would dictate that those hyphens should be dashes, and I'm sure that that type of use of the dash should be assumed to be encompassed in the WP:MOS article titling guidance that says "Special characters such as the slash (/), plus sign (+), braces ({ }) and square brackets ([ ]) are avoided; the ampersand (&) is replaced by and, unless it is part of a formal name." (Also, BTW, the current list article (which I never noticed before) is chock-full of WP:MOS violations.) --Orlady (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Many articles exist with dashes in the title, such as History of Portugal (1777–1834)--Appraiser (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * F (ironically enough). Dashes in titles are only appropriate with date ranges or when something uses dashes or hyphens to begin with. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that in WP:MOS somewhere?--Appraiser (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSDASH. Titles generally have to conform to the MOS except where otherwise noted, and this isn't here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not an important case. This is just one list that I started, partly as a working list to support a summary statement or two I wanted to make in the List of NHLs in NY article.  I don't think this article is very helpful, and it should perhaps be deleted.  I suggest deferring any decision forever, or until the article is nominated to Featured List, and let it be discussed in the Featured List forum, although I doubt it is worth anyone's efforts to ever develop the article to nominate it there. doncram (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually all the change proposals suffer from the U.S.-centrism issue. I started the article but it was immediately renamed, I think by someone from Denmark, to include United States of America in its title. doncram (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article you created that was renamed was called by the non-geographically-specific name "List of Registered Historic Places at colleges and universities." It did not use the official name of the National Register of Historic Places, which does appear to be specific to the U.S. --Orlady (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify in case you are questioning whether an issue of US-centrism was raised, the name change edit was labelled "US centrism". I corresponded with the Danish changer, and said that Registered Historic Places means U.S. specific, and received the reply "Alright, that wasn't clear to me as a non-American, and I'm guessing it may not be to others like me as well."  She commented that she did "not have particularly strong feelings" about it, but the US centrism issue is there, whethere or not there are any other countries having National Register of Historic Places as a name, because general readers do not know that is U.S.-only (if it is). doncram (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well since "registered historic places" is not US-specific terminology (begging the question of whether it's valid terminology anywhere), it was reasonable to assert that the title of the list article was US-centric. On the other hand, National Register of Historic Places is the official name of the U.S. list, and the article by that name has existed for 6 years, apparently without generating any issues of ambiguity with any other country's lists by the same name. If another jurisdiction turns up with an historic register that has the same name, then it will clearly be necessary to disambiguate the names of NRHP articles and categories, but there is no evidence that this is a real problem. --Orlady (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if we accept the premise that "National Register of Historic Places" is not used anywhere else on the planet, which the lack of evidence appears to support, if someone unfamiliar with the topic stumbles across a list or category, how will that reader know that it pertains to the U.S.?--Appraiser (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The usual way, I thought ... by clicking the link or reading the accompanying text. Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can be happy with G (perhaps with a hyphen immediately preceding "related").--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:MOSDASH is not a good guide to English usage, which should be more important than the unfortunate campaign against the hyphen. However, the underlying problem is that any title containing hyphen, endash, or emdash will be misread or misremembered as containing the other two. This should be avoided if there is a painless way around it. E, F, and G all do this; I would prefer F because it begins with NRHP, which is useful with our current software, and avoids properties. Some readers will leap to the conclusion that NRHP owns the listed places, as the National Trust might. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a worthwhile observation regarding the locution "National Register of Historic Places properties". You are correct in thinking that some readers would assume that the NRHP owned the listed entities. That's a good reason for preferring F over E. --Orlady (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Registered Historic Places in...

 * Choice A:Category:Registered Historic Places in...
 * Choice B:Category:National Register of Historic Places - properties in...
 * Choice C:Category:Alabama entries on the National Register of Historic Places
 * Choice D:Category:Listed properties and districts in Alabama
 * Choice E:Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alabama


 * I like C.--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer E (my new addition). It puts "National Register" first (when possible, the name of this type of category should begin with the main topic, not the geographic specification). It completely omits the noun, but that's OK since it scope is clearly any article related to the NRHP in Alabama (lists, individual properties on the NRHP, Landmarks, etc.). --Orlady (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Navigation-related Registered Historic Places

 * Choice A:Category:Navigation-related Registered Historic Places
 * Choice B:Category:National Register of Historic Places - properties related to navigation
 * Choice C:Category:National Register of Historic Places - entries related to navigation - Motorrad-67 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice D:Category:National Register of Historic Places properties related to navigation -
 * Choice E:Category:Navigation-related National Register of Historic Places listings - Preserves the existing beginning and won't require a sortkey. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice F:Category:Navigation-related entries on the National Register of Historic Places or better still scuttle it altogether in favor of the following two existing categories:
 * Choice F-1:Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places and
 * Choice F-2:Category:Ships on the National Register of Historic Places clariosophic (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Choice D (my addition) is my preference. --Orlady (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Changed my mind: Choice E. Daniel Case's reasoning works for me. --Orlady (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am entirely unaware of this category existing. Not sure if it should exist, or what it covers, so perhaps I shouldn't comment, but not sure if others are more informed than i am.  Renaming it won't improve it though, the alternatives are wordy and don't work in my view.  D includes awkward subphrase "Places properties".  E is another "List of Listings".  A is best for describing what A is, i think. doncram (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I, too, personally prefer A but I thought we started this whole discussion because it was brought to our attention that it wasn't appropriate terminology. And I must admit I have never seen it used in an application. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * More about E, because this proposal picked up support here and below. A list of listings is that, it is not a list of places, properties, whatever.  A listing is an event, perhaps the ceremony, and is not a historic site.  Choice A is better, in communicating to our broad, general audience.  I would agree to using RHP in only a limited way, in List article titles and in succinct Category names, and to avoiding its use in free text of articles.  But the value of succinctness and clarity without baggage is huge, in the List and category titles.  Just as appreciated by NPS budget proposal writers. doncram (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The category consists only of two subcategories: Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places and Category:Ships on the National Register of Historic Places. Any article should carry the more specific subcategory and I can't currently imagine any article that would then appropriately carry this "Navigation-related" one.  Perhaps an article about a historic home of a person who contributed to navigation technology?  I don't think providing an association at the category level between ships and lighthouses is helpful enough to justify this discussion about the right terminology;  honestly i think this category should be deleted to resolve the issue. doncram (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that most, maybe all, entries will be in one of the subcategories. The total article count in this parent category is now over 300, and we have a long way to go (in article creation). One reason to keep it would be to keep the category sizes down. I often create child categories primarily for that purpose. (I didn't create this particular one though.)--Appraiser (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that the ships cat also includes the shipwrecks subcat. In time I could envision setting up a separate category for, say, piers if there were enough listings (I wouldn't be surprised if there are). Surface buildings other than lighthouses that had (at least originally) a directly navigation-related function (like a harbor administration building or office). Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Topical categories are usually meant to have only subcategories and few pages as entries (mainly things that can't be easily categorized within the subcategories. For example, San Francisco cable car system is in because of its uniqueness. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The term Navigation really shoule be avoided since it has an internal Wikipedia meaning, e.g Category:United States universities and colleges navigational boxes


 * Uh, no, not really. I chose Navigation specifically because it has the meaning of waterborne transportation and commerce, regardless of whether it's on rivers, seas or lakes. We have plenty of articles on things that have a separate internal meaning (see vandalism, for one). Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Reading the comments here, it strikes me that the subject matter of this category is really "Maritime-related," not "Navigation-related." Navigation is about way-finding (sensu strictu), so lighthouses are related to the topic of navigation, but ships are not. --Orlady (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First, "maritime" is specific to the sea ("Related to the sea or sailing"). We have a lot of inland navigation on freshwater lakes (like these, for instance) and rivers (like this one), in the United States of America. Consider that "Navigation" and "navy" pretty much come from the same root and that the US Navy does not have, nor want anything to do with, responsibility for inland waters of the USA (that's the Army's bailiwick). Second, ships are what is navigated. "Navigation" is also defined, and widely used as, "Traffic or travel by vessel, especially commercial shipping". That means anything related to water transportation (although I've excluded most canals from that since they were essentially railroads with water instead of tracks) goes under that category: ships, lighthouses, shipwrecks, harbor facilities etc.


 * Actually the U.S. Coast Guard has jurisdiction over lighthouses, whether on the oceans or inland, not the Navy or Army. clariosophic (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Point conceded, but it doesn't change my larger point, and lighthouses are, at least in their original use, invaluable to safe navigation. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I like F--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Transportation-related Registered Historic Places

 * Choice A:Category:Transportation-related Registered Historic Places
 * Choice B:Category:National Register of Historic Places - properties related to transportation
 * Choice C:Category:Transportation-related National Register of Historic Places listings again following the previous entry. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice D:Category:Transportation-related entries on the National Register of Historic Places clariosophic (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice C works for me. --Orlady (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like D--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Bridges and tunnels that are Registered Historic Places

 * Choice A:Category:Bridges and tunnels that are Registered Historic Places
 * Choice B: Category:National Register of Historic Places - bridges and tunnels
 * Choice C: Category:Bridges and tunnels on the National Register of Historic Places
 * Choice D: Category:Bridges and tunnels on the United States National Register of Historic Places
 * Choice D: Category:Bridges and tunnels on the National Register of Historic Places. Why add United States? clariosophic (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice E: Note few NRHPs, if any, are both a bridge or tunnel.
 * E-1:Category:Listed bridges in Arizona
 * E-2:Category:Listed tunnels in Arizona


 * Choice C (my addition) is my preference. --Orlady (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice C, which I've said elsewhere was my preference on this from the beginning. Allows for eventual splitting into separate bridge and tunnel categories, and maybe even auto and rail within them. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget water tunnels and pedestrian bridges. --Orlady (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I generally consider water tunnels to be aqueducts ... possible future category. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but if you decide to create a category for Aqueducts on the National Register, you will be imposing terminology that is not otherwise used in discussing listed properties. The one I am aware of Montgomery Bell Tunnel. [wink] --Orlady (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Water tunnels are not in the NRHP bridges and tunnels category, because that is a sub-category of NRHP transportation and water tunnels aren't usually related to transportation. They fall directly under the NRHP infrastructure category instead.--Appraiser (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Renaming to choice C requested here:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 31. Update:Switched to D --Appraiser (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, has this gone to CFD already? Aargh.  I thought there was some consensus this should be discussed in the discussion at wt:NRHP and/or this subpage. doncram (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I put this one on the CFD page, because, at the time, the three of us who commented on this page were in agreement - a consensus had been reached. And I believe doing so was a good idea, because that process brings fresh eyes into the discussion. Someone who monitors that page brought up the issue of adding "U.S." We, who have been working on NRHP articles are U.S.-centric and none of us had considered (or at least had expressed) a more world view, where maybe we should tell readers that we're talking about the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.  Now, that idea is on the table and we should come to a consensus on each section. I believe WP's "policy" is that no consensus=no change. So (Don), your view may prevail.  I respect User:Motorrad-67's initial concerns and would like to address them, but I really hate juxtaposing "Places" with "properties", "listings", "entries", or probably any other noun. In this case the syntax of C and D work OK for me, and if changes are to be made for all of these issues, we need input from more people and additional suggestions, I think.--Appraiser (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am sorry for coming on too strong perhaps about putting this over at CFD; it does seem helpful to get others' perspective from outside wp:NRHP and that is one way to do it, at least about the Categories.  Perhaps a note over there to come here and consider the List title issues, too?  And I didn't put a "watch" on this subpage, myself, my fault for that.  I was ambivalent being at first ambivalent about whether this subpage was simply "voting" rather than constructively discussing principles to use in making a decision, but I do now see merit in posing what the alternatives might be. doncram (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, i commented at CFD that i think the consensus-building should continue here.


 * Why do we have Categories like this at all? Why not just have categories of bridges and tunnels in the United States, etc.  What is the importance of categorizing these?  I do think that Lists of RHPs in various geographic areas are important, but I don't see the importance of this category name.  It should not be important to others, either, perhaps we should not be arguing about it.  It is artificial, though, to talk about Aqueducts on the National Register, it makes me imagine an aqueduct across the paper scroll in Washington DC that bears the names of all the Registered Historic Places.  Seriously, the important issue in this whole discussion is the top entry above, that we need to use the title "List of Registered Historic Places in ...".  There is a difference between that usage and here, here it is somehow a more abrasive assertion that Registered Historic Place is a term to be used everywhere.  I avoid its use, except in the importance case of titling lists of RHPS in a given area.  A better wording is needed here, i agree. doncram (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To go further, using "Registered Historic Places" as the direct object(?) within "Bridges and tunnels that are Registered Historic Places" seems like an unnecessarily emphatic assertion that "Registered Historic Place" is a usable proper noun phrase. Use of the phrase as the subject(?) within "List of Registered Historic Places in Alabama" is not so in-your-face, especially when the intro to the article can deliberately softpedal that usage, employing a statement like "This covers properties and districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places" as immediately as possible.  Would a guideline that "Registered Historic Places" be avoided where feasible, with exception for usage in succinct and non-U.S.-centric list-article titles and category names, be an appropriate compromise about this issue? doncram (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would certainly support such myself, but I do think we need to be heedful of concerns that we are promoting a non-standard neologism phrase, which is against Wikipedia policy. I have emailed the Park Service about this; not really expecting to hear back soon enough to resolve this. I can also see why they might want to avoid using this term and prefer to foreground the NRHP in whatever terminology they use. "Registered Historic Place" does imply some sort of formal government role, and there are enough people out there who don't want their historic properties listed because they're afraid the morning after they do the federal government will be telling them what toothpaste they have to use (I speak from experience; this has happened around efforts to create a historic district in my town). By using "NRHP listings" or "NRHP properties", they distance the federal government from the actual property. Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * E-1 and E-2: Category:Listed bridges in Arizona, etc. Succinct. doncram (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That'll beg the question of what list, though. We don't use British terminology. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can be happy with C. We currently don't have corresponding state lists. Should we?--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Railroad-related Registered Historic Places

 * Choice A:Category:Railroad-related Registered Historic Places
 * Choice B:Category:National Register of Historic Places - properties related to railroads
 * Choice C:Category:National Register of Historic Places properties related to railroads
 * Choice D:Category:Railroad-related National Register of Historic Places listings My addition per the other ones. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice E:Category:Railroad-related entries on the National Register of Historic Places clariosophic (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice F:Category:Railroad-related listed properties and districts in the U.S. (or "in Arizona", etc.)


 * Choice C (my addition) is my preference. --Orlady (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Change my "vote" to Daniel Case's Choice D. --Orlady (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Choice F (my addition) is my preference currently. Note it is easily modified to subdivide the nation-wide category by state or county. doncram (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, come on. This project is about properties listed on one list: the US NRHP. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That raises the good question about whether the distinction between US vs. state register listings is so important. I think we need to avoid being NRHP-centric.  Perhaps it best serves general Wikipedia reader needs, to have one category describing each state's listed properties, whether listed on NRHP or state list.  I am aware of instances where it is obvious that National and/or state listing was denied arbitrarily, while the given site is clearly important in broad terms.  Making an artificial distinction between NRHP-accepted vs. state accepted sites, within a given state, is not necessarily helpful. doncram (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I like E--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Infrastructure-related Registered Historic Places

 * Choice A:Category:Infrastructure-related Registered Historic Places
 * Choice B:Category:National Register of Historic Places - properties related to infrastructure
 * Choice C:Category:Infrastructure-related National Register of Historic Places listings, as per my other suggestion. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice D:Category:Infrastructure-related entries on the National Register of Historic Places


 * Choice C works for me. --Orlady (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like D--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Lists of Registered Historic Places by state

 * Choice A:Category:Lists of Registered Historic Places by state
 * Choice B:Category:National Register of Historic Places - state lists
 * Choice C:Category:Lists of U.S. Nationally Registered Historic Places by geographic area
 * Choice C-1:Category:National Register of Historic Places listings by state Fits with the other ones and isn't too long.
 * Choice D:Category:State lists of entries on the National Register of Historic Places The category lead can take care of the anomalies: DC, etc. clariosophic (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The category is problematic, including as i think it does lists of RHPs in the District of Columbia, in "Associated" and/or "insular" states, etc. I added choice C, not sure if that works. doncram (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I like D--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Registered Historic Places by United States insular area

 * Choice A:Category:Registered Historic Places by United States insular area
 * Choice B:Category:National Register of Historic Places - United States insular areas
 * Choice C:Category:National Register of Historic Places listings by United States insular area - Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice D:Category:Insular area lists of entries on the National Register of Historic Places


 * I like D I suppose.--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This diverges from the "RHP or not" topic, but I am not clear on what insular areas are. The List of United States National Historic Landmarks in United States commonwealths and territories, associated states, and foreign states is organized that way in 3 sections:  commonwealths and territories;  associated states;  foreign state (Morocco).  All those NHLs are listed on the NRHP and should be covered in categories and lists for NRHP properties and districts too.  I don't expect "insular areas" covers all of those.  A categorization of the NRHPs that catches all of these is needed, i think. doncram (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See Insular area. --Orlady (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Registered Historic Places of religious function

 * Choice A:Category:Registered Historic Places of religious function
 * Choice B:Category:National Register of Historic Places - properties of religious function
 * Choice C:Category:National Register of Historic Places listings of religious function, or
 * Choice D:Category:Religion-related National Register of Historic Places listings, per my other suggestions for broad topical categories that shouldn't really have many actual articles in them. I never liked that "religious function" ... we have a few NPS restroom buildings on the Register; are they "Registered Historic Places of bodily function"? '' Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice E:Category:Religion-related entries on the National Register of Historic Places
 * Choice D is preferable to those religious function titles. --Orlady (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Should the category, under whichever name, include buildings that were formerly churches and synagogues and mosques, etc., but no longer have any religious function? "Religion-related" would seem to include those.  "Of religious function" would seem to exclude those.  The name choice depends on what you are trying to include.  It should perhaps be chosen to clarify, for example "currently of religious function"? doncram (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been treating it as "religious function" even if that's a former use. e.g. First Church of Christ, Scientist (Minneapolis, Minnesota), since we're writing about history and most of these buildings were originally built with a religious function. If it were changed to "religion-related", would it then encompass parsonages and parochial schools? Good questions we should ponder.--Appraiser (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I preferred "religion-related" even nothwithstanding the naming change because "of religious function" implies a current use. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have eventually considered creating an education cat. Parsonages and rectories are definitely religion-related; perhaps parochial schools could go in both education and religion. Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I like E.--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Registered Historic synagogues

 * Choice A:Category:Registered Historic synagogues
 * Choice B:Category:Synagogues on the National Register of Historic Places
 * B, by a long shot. The two adjectives mean nothing by themselves. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * B is good.--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Registered Historic former synagogues

 * Choice A:Category:Registered Historic former synagogues
 * Choice B:Category:Former synagogues on the National Register of Historic Places
 * B, as above. Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * B is good--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Template

 * Choice A:
 * Choice B:
 * Choice C:

B, clearly. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename accomplished.--Appraiser (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

String:Registered Historic Place
Also replace all occurrences of the string, "Registered Historic Place" in articles with, "National Register of Historic Places property". (e.g. in Jordan Brewery Ruins, "It is a Registered Historic Place in Jordan, Minnesota" becomes "It is a National Register of Historic Places property in Jordan, Minnesota".)
 * Absolutely not. The correct usage is "It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places." --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your version is better, but I know of no way to accomplish that with a bot, since it is not a direct substitution.--Appraiser (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when does inability to make the change with a bot supersede the need for correct usage? --Orlady (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If a goal is to purge WP of the phrase, "Registered Historic Place", I think we should consider what substitution can be accomplished automatically. Otherwise, who plans on checking 12,000 articles by hand? Even if someone were to set out to do that, the error would probably perpetuate in new articles faster than the old ones were corrected. I doubt if the task would be finished in my lifetime.--Appraiser (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you have skills I do not have, then I suggest you choose one that CAN be done, and do it. Motorrad-67 (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, out of concern for readers who might misunderstand this even with a blue link to click on, I have long since eschwed that usage in favor of always using a standalone sentence in the intro: "It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in YEAR". Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I for one have never used Registered Historic Place and when I find it in an article, I change it to say that it was added to the National Register of Historic Places on such and such a date. clariosophic (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise i write, in articles, a site was "listed on the National Register of Historic Places". I think the Jordan Brewery Ruins example is an anomaly. doncram (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. This is an anomaly that can be fixed manually when found.--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lists of bridges on the National Register
Existing lists of bridges have titles in the form List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Alabama. I find the word order awkward (but it uses the National Register of Historic Places nomenclature correctly), so I suggest Choices B and C as alternatives:
 * Choice A: List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Alabama
 * Choice B: List of bridges in Alabama on the National Register of Historic Places
 * Choice C: Bridges in Alabama on the National Register of Historic Places


 * I "vote" for Choice B or C. --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * C's fine with me, too. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you prefer B or C over A when you wrote elsewhere, "when possible, the name of this type of category should begin with the main topic, not the geographic specification." Choice A accomplishes that. I don't particularly care either way in this case, but it appears that you are just trying to be uncooperative.--Appraiser (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Elsewhere I was talking about the name of a category, and I said I preferred Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alabama over Category:Alabama entries on the National Register of Historic Places. I interpret Naming conventions (categories) as indicating a preference for "Nouns in Alabama" over "Alabama nouns". In that category name, I see "National Register of Historic Places" as a noun, and as a result, I prefer Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alabama over Category:Alabama entries on the National Register of Historic Places. As for the current item, similar guidelines apply to article titles, as discussed at Naming conventions (country-specific topics). Choices B and C start off with the word "Bridges," which looks to me like the main topic of these two lists. Although the naming guideline would suggest that "Alabama" should appear at the end of the title (as it does in Choice A), the word order in Choice A gives the false impression that "National Register of Historic Places in Alabama" is a proper noun. Maybe it's just me, but I don't perceive that same problem when "National Register of Historic Places in Alabama" is a category name. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * C is good.--Appraiser (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

State stub categories

 * Choice A: Category:Wisconsin Registered Historic Place stubs
 * Choice B: Category:Wisconsin stub entries on the National Register of Historic Places

Displayed wording for stubs
I changed what is displayed in this. I think all the states have the same issue.--Appraiser (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)