Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 10

National Register Information System database update
I just noticed that the National Register database has finally been updated. In fact, they updated it just about an hour ago. (And no, I haven't been checking every hour -- or every day for that matter.)

I'll work on updating my database, which powers the infobox generator, this evening. (First of all, I have to remember how I was importing those tables from .dbf format into MySQL.) I'll leave a message here once everything is done. They haven't updated all of the geographical coordinate information, though, so anything after January 2007 won't have coordinates. Still, I'm quite happy to see they've done an update after so long. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Makes you wonder if we had anything to do with it, indirectly. Hmmm... ;) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've finished loading the database for the infobox generator and the other queries that it uses. If you find any problems or anomalies, let me know and I'll investigate.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just tested it for the recent (Dec 06 2007) listing of Roanoke Building in Chicago, and it comes up fine. Great! Thanks!doncram (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Duplication
(This is a bit difficult to explain so bear with me.) I've noticed in some of the RHP lists that entities which are now redlinks may not necessarily be suitable as articles. For instance, for Suffolk Co., Mass., we have Boston Common, Boston Public Garden and Boston Common and Public Garden. The first two are obviously deserving of their own article, but I don't think the third is. The only article I see coming out of that redlink is something like "The Boston Common and Public Garden are two parks in Boston, Massachusetts jointly and singly listed on the NRHP", which isn't especially illuminating. So should we delink such entries, or am I missing something? Biruitorul (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just odd. Are you sure they are separate and combined entries on the Register for those? That doesn't make a lot of sense from my end, of course, this is the government. I can't see any reason to duplicate article just because of bureaucratic inanity. As long we're sure it's not something different, that is. At most talk about the NRHP status (or statuses) in each article. IvoShandor (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I searched the NRHP database (you can play around here) and it is as I said. Biruitorul (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The database entry for Boston Common (id #87000760) says in the "other names" field, "See Also:Boston Common and Public Garden". The entry for Boston Common and Public Garden (id #72000144) has an "other names" field saying, "Tremont Street Subway;See Also:Boston Common;Boston Public G".  (I'm assuming they were going to write out "Garden", but the field is a fixed width.)  Meanwhile, the entry for Boston Public Garden (id #87000761) says, "See Also:Boston Common and Public Garden".  Then, the National Historic Landmarks Program lists Boston Common under its newer reference number 87000760 and Boston Public Garden under reference number 87000761.  Maybe they were originally submitted to the National Register under one entry in 1972, then later submitted in 1987 (and to the National Historic Landmarks program) as two separate entities.   --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree it is odd. I have seen instances where an NHL designation combined together 2 or more separately listed NRHPs into one NHL, such as Atalaya and Brookgreen Gardens in South Carolina (which is coincidentally kind of similar in that the two sites are just across a road from each other, they involve sculptures and gardens).  For that situation i did create a short article for the combo of the two of them, to describe the NHL designation, while the main articles remain separate for each of them.  In this case with Boston Common and the Boston Public Garden, i just tried editing them both NRHP infoboxes to show the 1972 combo refnum in each of them, and to show the separate 1987 refnums, and to show both dates in each of them.  Does that work?  Also I added standard NHL webpage references and NRHP/NHL nomination text/photo PDF docs to both articles. doncram (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Elkman's theory makes sense (I thought of that myself too), and I like Doncram's solution. I suppose my only further question would be what to do with the redlink in the Suffolk County list. Should we keep it in anticipation of an article like Atalaya and Brookgreen Gardens, or might it be preferable to redirect to either the Common or the Public Garden (given that each article links several times to the other, this shouldn't cause too much confusion)? Biruitorul (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we even need the redlink in there if we already have individual articles on both the Common and the Public Garden. I'm in favor of just removing that red link.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What redlink? :) I put in a mini-article to fill the spot. It does remain as a Registered Historic Place.  I classified it as a "list" article, refrained from putting stub indicator on the page, and provided an explanation in its Talk page, so as not to encourage any further development. doncram (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But what is the point of putting that information on separate page instead of just incorporating into the existing articles, seems like an unnecessary step, especially if the point is for it to forever stay as a stub, which will be hard to do anyway. My opinion is that it will just confuse people. IvoShandor (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The stub does duplicate.  I think all of the info is in the other articles now.  Delete if u like, or make it a redirect to either of the two NHL sites, i wouldn't mind. doncram (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna do it (part of my avoid stressful areas of wikipedia strategy in my return), but someone can if that is the consensus, should probably see what everyone else thinks first though. IvoShandor (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being sensitive and sensible. Thinking about it, i guess i agree more.  It had the appearance of an article with infobox and National Register template, and could have been confusing if anyone found their way to it.  I just edited it down to being merely a redirect to Boston Common, and the following hidden note (which only a diligent editor could ever get to see):  "Note to editors: 'Boston Common and Public Garden' was the name given to the combination of the Boston Common and the Boston Public Garden when they were listed as a single entry on the National Register of Historic Places in 1972, with refnum 72000144.  In 1987, the two were listed on the Register separately.  It seems not helpful to have an article on the arbitrary combination of the two.  Please see, instead, the individual articles for Boston Common and Boston Public Garden." doncram (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just undid your edit. I think the page as it was before is better fit. With a redirect, one can only redirect to one of the two pages; this, IMO, puts more emphasis and importance on one, leaving the other shortchanged. Having a small article to explain why it is on the register in the first place and explain the situation more thoroughly would be more helpful than just redirecting to one of them. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay now i am laughing out loud :) User:Biruitorul who asked the original question must think we are crazy or disorganized or both. But I think that addressed the main issue by getting it right in the two separate articles, and it is just the arbitrary combo article that is thorny, about what is our policy, but we don't have a policy on that.  And i think it's not really an important policy question.  Either way is fine:  an article that is just a redirect, or an article that provides some fuller explanation.  Thanks Dudeman for sticking up for my earlier  stab at it; really i am okay either way though. doncram (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mahler and Carolina Trust Buildings
According to this information, the Mahler and Carolina Trust Buildings are separate NHRPs, but when I search the infobox creator they're joined together. Anyone know if I should create separate articles?  APK  yada yada  02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the National Register lists them as one listing, unless they were later owned by the same business and/or were submitted together. The alternate name field in the National Register database says "McLellan's Dime Store; McCrory's Dime Store" -- so either they held one dime store that later changed names, or they held two different competing dime stores.  Then again, looking at Google Maps street view, they look like they're separate, distinct buildings.  If you have distinctive information on each building, such as when each was built and what their styles were, then I'd say we should have separate articles.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a real estate listing for 230 Fayetteville Street, the Carolina Trust building. The historic picture looks like it shows McLellan's Dime Store taking up the storefronts of both buildings, while the current picture shows a dollar store taking both storefronts.  (I guess a dollar store is like a dime store adjusted for a lot of inflation.)  This article mentions the Mahler and the Carolina Trust buildings separately, but notes that they were both part of McCrory's Dime Store.  I'm not sure what to recommend at this point.  Be creative.  :-)  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha, I was just about to reply with those links. Thanks for the help (and the Google link, that's pretty cool). I'll see what I can do with the information given.  APK  yada yada  04:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

One more question and I'll quit yapping on this page and create an article. This list shows several entries for historical districts such as Oakwood. What do I do with the boundary increase listings?  APK  yada yada  05:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide may provide sufficient guidance? It is a part of the work-in-progress WP:NRHP style guide.  Feedback, further questions welcomed. doncram (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I see how to edit the infobox with multiple boundary increases. As far as the listings, do I redirect the 3 boundary increase listings to the same article?  APK  yada yada  09:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good question not covered in the style guide. Redirecting all three to the one article would be fine, in my view, especially as the North Carolina RHP lists, in Wake County and otherwise, are references, not being developed as list-articles intended for anything more.  I think leaving mention of the 2 historic district increases is helpful.  On the other hand, some lists of RHPs, such as leading example List of Registered Historic Places in Dakota County, Minnesota, are being developed into reader-oriented articles with tables of the RHPs.  In tables of RHPs, I think practice is that there would be only one mention of the given historic district, the evidence that there were 2 increases would be covered only in the article on the district.  But in your case i would just set up pointers for the three in the list, and spend time instead on the article that you promised to work on.  :)  doncram (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I created it. :p Er, not that long of an article really, but I'm working on another Peace College Main Building-style article that's hopefully DYK-worthy. Laterz.  APK   yada yada  09:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Jackson County Courthouse
Could those who can express things better than I please comment at the above? Btw, I am the colleague in question. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Several of us went over and chimed in, including me. Sorry, others, if you might feel i was apologizing unnecessarily.  No one was rude.  However, i feel sympathetic to someone like Jerzy trying to make a reasonable edit, to the possibility that he could feel ganged up upon.  I have felt it was unfair against me in some other experiences unrelated to WP:NRHP, when others seemed to pounce and oppose ne, so i am trying to be cognizant of gang-like appearance.  If someone wants to edit any NRHP article, even a disambiguation page, we should try to make it a friendly experience for them.  Again not saying anyone was unfriendly, let's just try to be extra-friendly and not negate someone's potentially valid perspective.  Seems like the situation can get resolved by creating a bunch of new articles on Jackson County Courthouses, here, there, everywhere. doncram (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, can anyone sort out Jackson County Courthouse (Medford, Oregon) better than i left it? There are two such buildings in Jackson County, Oregon, it seems. doncram (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Katr67 (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists
Not often I would do this, but I feel I must speak up. I think your wiki-project is wasting incredible ammounts of time and energy building and maintaining lists of that merely replicate the work that the US government does. Wikipedia is not a directory. The articles on the places themselves are highly valuable. The lists are not. That is what categories are for. Put that energy to better use. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. The lists, such as List of Registered Historic Places in North Carolina, is helping me see which articles need creating. (alot)  APK  yada yada  01:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see this topic was opened over at Talk:List of National Register of Historic Places entries a few days ago. There, Kevlar asked "Why are we bothering using all this time and energy to copy something the US National Parks Service does anyway? In my opinion all of WP's many sites about heritage registers should simply link to them rather than duplicate them", Appraiser responded "We are providing a far superior database with respect to these aspects:

1. Organization 2. Detail 3. timeliness (current common name, current use, endangerment, and condition) 4. photography 5. location (including current address and GPS) 6. references 7. categories outside of the project
 * etc, etc." and Kevlar expanded: "You misunderstand. I support the creation of great articles about each of the places in question. I reject the idea that we need to duplicate register itself by creating and maintaining dozens of list articles, which mearly duplicate the work the US government pays beaurcrats to do."


 * I'd like to understand Kevlar's perspective on this. I think there is a point here, that lists of mainly red-links aren't particularly helpful to current Wikipedia readers, especially when better looking lists are available at NRHP.COM and when the Federal government is indeed maintaining databases that we and NRHP.COM draw upon.  Regular lists of RHPs, and disambiguation pages, both are not that helpful when full of redlinks.  Many of the red-links are bad quality, too, they are not even pointing to good quality names for sites (e.g. the many that point to "Jackson County Courthouse").


 * Also, effort spent in maintaining some of our lists probably is wasted. For example, I recently started up a table for List of Registered Historic Places in Orange County, California.  I used the nice Elkman tool for creating this automatically, and erased away any/all the previous effort that had been put into building the Orange County list manually.  It's not clear whether my effort was wasted yet, as it is unclear whether local wikipedians will rise up and take on the development and maintenance of the new table, but it is fair to say that the prior effort was wasted. doncram (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we need the lists in one form or another. It is, as stated previously, how we keep track of what articles still need to be created. Might an alternative be removing the lists from mainspace and having them stored under this project? But then they'd still have to be maintained, b/c we still need to know when new articles need to be made, as well as all the old ones. Plus isn't the idea of Wikipedia to eventually contain the sum-total of all human knowledge? Yeah, I'm exagerating. But why should someone come here to look up info, then have to go to the Park Service site, then come back here, possibly multiple times? Having all the info here makes it one-stop informational shopping. And I don't think of prior efforts being wasted. More like we learn from previous work. Which some might call mistaken, some not. This is, of course, what makes me the mega-genius I am today, imho. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ebyabe that if material is information one would expect to find compiled in an encyclopedia, i.e. if the information is of encyclopedic value, then it's beside the point that there are NPS "bureaucrats" maintaining a parallel list. If it belongs in a generic encyclopedia, then it belongs in Wikipedia.
 * Also, IMO, Doncram should be comforted that he did not "waste" prior editors' work on the Orange County list. Wikipedia is not simply a final, "complete" encyclopedia that we're working toward, but also a document that's intended to be of use to readers while it is still a work-in-progress (which it will always be). The prior editors' work would be wasted if it simply never made it to publication, as would be the case in the old paradigm of a paper encyclopedia. In this case, their work was published and delivered value to readers while it was the current version, and therefore is not wasted even if it was superseded by a later version. Ipoellet (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have little to add, mostly I don't really like lists but I find some, such as these useful. And really, once the list is caught up to the current date, it isn't much work to maintain, the NRHP releases new listings weekly and they are easy to access. Most weeks do not have new listings for every state. Illinois has hardly had any new listings this year. This wasted "effort" spoken of doesn't really exist once the list is already compiled. I mean, if the argument is someone else is doing it so we shouldn't, couldn't that argument be applied to almost every single aspect of Wikipedia's content? IvoShandor (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Kevlar may be right. Let's all switch our interests and write about every episode and every character in the Law & Order franchise. Oops - I guess we don't need to - other Wikipedians are already doing that. :)--Appraiser (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was expecting/hoping that Kevlar might have had something more to say. As you all know, i do spend a tremendous amount of time developing list-articles (for the NHL state lists especially), and also special ones like List of National Historic Landmark ships, shipwrecks, and shipyards.  I believe I help bring these up to being useful, readable, informative for some purposes, for some readers.  I am ambivalent about the state-wide and county-wide list of RHP articles, though.  And i wonder if we should be concentrating on bringing list-articles and regular articles up to FA and FL status, and working together more concentratedly in general, instead of scattering our efforts with less effect.  Should we be more strategic in choosing what we work on?  Or how could we be more strategic?  One strategy would be to try to grow the participation in the project, by marketing/recruiting outside somehow (i have a few ideas), or by encouraging/assisting potential new members who make occasional edits to any NRHP page (i have ideas here too).  Another strategy I have thought about might be called "stub-farming":  putting out lists and stubs that have enough so that they are Google #1 hits for the sites that they cover, and that are attractive for readers out there to try to add something to.  I think stubs need to be more than minimal for that: i hate the ArchiPlanet ones which are too automated, and convey the idea that no one else will ever build on (or read) any contribution you make.  But fielding lists of red-links, like we seem to do with Lists of RHPs, doesn't appear to attract readers to fill out those stubs, that seems less like "farming" that is likely to grow anything.  doncram (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Over at WikiProject Oregon we have a very active weekly collaboration mechanism going on, which includes weekly notifications on project members' talk pages. My perception is that the COTW does a lot to make the WikiProject much more welcoming to those wikipedians who actually spend more time in the real world than some of us do. Compares very favorably to the moribund NRHP collaboration effort. It probably helps having one project member who has taken on keeping the COTW moving forward, so if anyone here at NRHP (I'm not raising my hand - my wife would skin me) wanted to devote the time to reviving the collaboration effort here.... Ipoellet (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally like the county lists of NRHP's. I have a backlog of pics to create articles for in various places in NYS. I also used such a list when I was on vacation in Florida to find local NRHP's (as well as an NHL) to go take pics of for existing articles, as well as creating a couple. I think they're a great resource for things like that. I'm at the end of a school semester, as well as in a deadline situation at work, so haven't made much progress too recently, but I expect to get back to the backlog shortly, then go out taking pics again using one of those mostly redlinked county lists. I do try to split my time (not always successfully) between the county lists and the more important NHL lists. Lvklock (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NYC Subway Stations on NRHP
I just found out that there are a few subway stations in New York City that are listed on NRHP. So, I hope none of you mind if I add some parameters to those pages. DanTD (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate dates in NRHP state lists
I've spent the last few weeks bringing all of the state NRHP lists up to date, maintaining whatever format each list had when I made the additions. They are now all up to date through last week's new listings. As I updated the lists, I noticed that the older lists that include NRHP add dates had dates that were exactly one month off from the dates in the NPS database, but only for sites added before around May or June of 2005 (i.e. a site that was added to the NPS list May 14, 2005 has a date in the WP list of April 14, 2005). As best as I can determine, only the following state lists have this problem: Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire and Vermont.

I found a message from June 2006 about this problem here. But it doesn't appear that this message led to any fixes.

Perhaps we should prioritize converting the above lists to the new standard format so that we don't have incorrect information sitting out there? I was going to go ahead with the work using Elkman's table generator tool, but I decided to bring it here first (a) so as not to step on the toes of anyone who regularly works on these particular lists and (b) to solicit some assistance with this rather ambitious task.

Thoughts? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're going to to Elkman's list generator for every county in those six states? That's ambitious!--Appraiser (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * lol ... hence the solicitation! The good news is that the New England states don't have very many counties. Alabama and Michigan are another story. I was dismayed to learn that so many dates are wrong in these lists. I wonder how the heck it happened? I can't think of any quicker way to correct the inaccurate information than to run the table generator, can you? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, is this where there may be an issue of potential / likely wasted effort put into list maintenance. Take List of Registered Historic Places in Berkshire County, Massachusetts for example, it is a list of mostly redlinks.  Time spent checking / correcting the date column is, in my view, not helpful, as it looks like no one is actively adopting/developing that list.  If someone were to adopt it, they should not trust the info sitting there, and they would check it anyhow.  Why not just put a warning message, maybe a template box giving the warning, in any such list where there are dates, to warn new editors that the dates may be wrong.  Or delete all the date information, if it bothers you that it is out there and may be wrong.  But this date info is hardly important to maintain, it is not likely to be relied upon by any user for any purpose that i can think of.  Given that almost all the NRHP articles are red-links, it would be pointless to search any of those lists in order to find the oldest site to visit its article, say.  There are no articles.


 * It is easy to create a new county-list-table by use of the Elkman county list generator. If i were to adopt that county, i would run the Elkman count-list generator, and disbelieve and disregard any previous tables there.  I would just transfer over a couple pics that someone has added.


 * Note, i do spent a lot of time on list-articles, the NHL lists, but for those I and others are actively developing all of the red-links. I'd rather work with others in a concentrated way to develop list-articles "all the way".  Sanfranman59, can i persuade you to join me and others working on, say, List of NHLs in Virginia (pretty far along) or List of NHLs in Georgia (just beginning to heat up), instead? My 2 cents. doncram (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO, if the dates are important enough to include in the lists, they ought to be accurate. I certainly don't think it's a waste of time to improve the accuracy of articles out here. On the other hand, if there is a consensus that the dates are unimportant, then we should simply exclude them from the lists. Furthermore, since I think the purpose behind developing a standardized list format is to eventually make all of the state lists look the same, it's a worthwhile endeavor to work on that task. It's not simply a matter of running the table generator and then it's done. One still needs to go through the list to tidy up links to existing articles and to create disambiguated red links (there are lots of Smith Houses). --Sanfranman59 (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I must concede that I do think creating tables for a lot of the county lists out there (and tidying as appropriate as you say) may turn out to be very productive. It could be that this new format will be more attractive for readers to hook into, for example to add a picture.  And there is no way to know in advance which of the county lists to focus upon, in order to find our way to interested locals.  And, as i have mentioned elsewhere, I do specifically appreciate the updating that you provided for some of the county lists that I do follow, such as the Onondaga County, NY one. doncram (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NHL progress report: 75%, 80%, 83%, 85.5% 87% of articles created! over 2,157 articles and 1,303 pics!
Thanks to efforts of many! doncram (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3 NHL articles at Featured Article (most recent FA: Joseph Priestley House)
 * 13 at Good Article, so 16 at Good+ (most recent GA: Marmes Rockshelter)
 * 23, no 31, no 33, now 40 state or other area list-articles at Start (meaning each has 100% of its NHLs at Stub+ )
 * NHL articles created, at Stub+ : estimate up from 1,433 (59%) on 10/25/2007, now 1,826, no 1,958 now at 75.1%, or 80.6%, no, now 2,020 or 83.1% out of 2,429, no now 2,099 or 85.5% out of 2456 corrected total of NHLs, no, now 2,157 (87%) out of 2,442 revised total
 * NHL articles with pictures: now 1303 at 53%, at 1255 at 51%, estimate 1127 at 46% on 4/1/2008, up from 924 at 38%, up from 640 (26%) on 10/25/2007
 * See WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, the NHL manual report on NRHP Project Page for details by state or other area.
 * Now we've exceeded 80% of the NHL articles created. And the new ones are more than minimal stubs, they all have good sources included in the new articles. doncram (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So now over 83% of NHL articles created, pretty good quality ones too, more than half of those with pictures (worth 1000 words apiece, i am told). doncram (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now 85% of NHL articles created, good ones, and with 1,255 pictures, over half of all 2,456 or so NHLs! doncram (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * NOW 87% of NHL articles, with 1303 pictures! doncram (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated infobox for nrhp?
I was talking with User:Doncram on my talk page in this thread when the idea arose of updating the NRHP infobox to include both a locator map AND a regular image of the NRHP in the box. As the box is now, once an image is added, the map goes away. For some NRHPs, the locator map is almost vital to the article because hardly anyone is going to know where they are (Doncram's example was Carter Hall (Millwood, Virginia)). In the conversation, I proposed editing the infobox code itself to allow the user to be able to choose to include both if he/she wishes. I got the code of the infobox, edited it, and copied the new code to that thread. I won't put it on here as it takes up a good amount of space; you can click on the link to the thread if you'd like to see it. The code makes the infobox display both if they're available. If one isn't available, it doesn't display it. Also, if neither is available, neither is displayed.

Any comments? I didn't want to update the code without the consent of the people. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I like Dudemanfellabra's can-do attitude here! And I like the possibility of editing choice to include either or both an image and a map at the top of the NRHP infobox.  As I noted to Dudemanfellabra already, there is some capacity in the NRHP infobox to carry both an image and a map, which I have seen applied in articles covering NRHPs in Texas, recently U-Drop Inn.  It uses the keyword map, as in  .  But that application may only permit image at top, then the infobox text, then map below.  And it appears to include 2 red stars in the top color-bar, which I don't particularly like or understand, so I haven't used it.  However that option works should be understood and documented, though, and considered when implementing any new solution.  We have a base of 9,400 WP:NRHP articles now, probably more than half with NRHP infoboxes, to consider, and I recall an aggravating period once back in October or so when something was wrong with the infobox coding, too.    Have we had guidelines or practices before about when the NRHP infobox was going to be tinkered with?  But i don't want to be too conservative, as any change can be reverted.  If Dudeman wants to try some new code, and will be ready to promptly revert if it is having any majorly bad effects, I am pretty much for it. doncram (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the proposed infobox template set up so that the default is to show photo and map (assuming photo and coordinates exist)? That would be best so that the articles only need to be visited if that causes a problem. I'd rather not have to edit each article.--Appraiser (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, if the template page is changed here, all the pages on which the template is used will automatically change. Default with show both a map and an image as long as the image and locmapin parameters have values. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, i was leaning the other way, about what the default should be, but the idea of setting the default to show both, if the parameters are available, has grown on me. That would effectively propose showing both, in many pages where editors are unaware of the option.  They could easily choose to hide the map if it doesn't work out for a given page, but it would take a lot more communication and effort for us to communicate out the option of showing both, and to try manually to see how it looks on a zillion pages. doncram (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Adjustments to accomodate National Monuments, National Historic Sites, etc
The NRHP infobox code does need adjustment, in my view, to accomodate National Monuments and other types of National Park Service-administered areas. We have a couple hundred places that were established as a National Park Service area on one date, designated an NHL on another, and also listed on the NRHP. The infobox should accomodate dates for all three. Currently it handles NHL and NRHP dates, using "designated=" and "added=" fields. Dudemanfellabra's output shows: Designated as NHL: Added to NRHP: Added to NRHP: which indicates to me that there may be an "established=" field, but that is just treated as an "added=" field. We need for "established=" to provide a different message, like Established as NPS area:

Also, in my view, there needs to be capacity to have 3 color bars across the top of the infobox. One showing NRHP color and name of the site. One possibly showing NHL color and "National Historic Landmark", or "Registered Historic Place". Optional third bar showing NMON color and "National Monument", or NHS color and "National Historic Site", or other colors and types of National Park Service areas covered in NRHP colors legend.

The absence of these features is leaving me stymied on how to handle various National Park Service areas that are covered in the state NHL lists. Most or all of the NPS area articles use "Protected areas" infoboxes that in some cases are inappropriate/incorrect. It would be appropriate to replace those entirely with NRHP infoboxes, if NPS area type and the established date can be shown, and I would like to do that. (Background: The WikiProject on Protected Areas essentially completed its work before the NRHP infobox was available, and pushed National Park Service areas into its 6 categories incorrectly, in retrospect. That WikiProject still exists, and participants acknowledge what I am trying to state here.)  doncram (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey don. I always thought it would be useful but didn't want to step on anyone's toes, i.e. WP Protected Areas. If there are to be any infobox changes I think they should be part of that discussion to. Did they give you any indication of their stance on the issue? IvoShandor (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the established output text should be changed to something different; also, more inputs could be used to better clarify the dates.


 * About the bar across the top: This page shows all the subpages of the template. When you type in a value for nrhp_type, the code changes the second bar of the main template to match the type's style, according to the code in the subpages. IMO, simply making another subpage with the style you want for the second bar and typing that subpage's name into the nrhp_type input would be better than trying to include every single possible type in the main code.


 * I don't get why 3 bars would be needed; can someone explain that a little more clearly? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've actually had a change of heart. I think that the main template should have inputs such as nhl, nps, nmon, etc. instead of having subpages. Eliminating the subpages makes the template more standardized for all articles. Typing anything in these inputs (preferrably "yes" or something to the like [i.e. - nhl = yes, nmon= yes, etc.]) would cause that bar to be displayed. The code to do this would simply be creating a new row for each along with an #if operator to see if the input is available. All the styles in the subpage need only be copied to the main template.


 * So theoretically, an article could have up to like 10 rowbars (nrhp, nhl, nmon, nps, etc.) There would be no limit on which types are more important than others, and everyone would be happy :D. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just worked on it for a minute, and I came up with this code and its output:

{| 
 * width=75%|



(The documentation is on the template subpage Template:infobox nrhp/doc. I didn't want to include it here.)
 * }


 * The preceding code allows for one to add a bar at top and date at bottom for each designation. It adds several new inputs in the general format designated_, such as designated_nhl(changed from designated), designated_cp, designated_nmon, etc. Along with these changes still comes the new map_caption input.


 * None of the bars (or dates) will display unless a value (such as yes) is set to any of these new inputs. The NRHP bar at the top displays regardless because all entries are on the NRHP. Any comments? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, unindent) About how this is to be programmed as subpages or not, i don't follow really, and i have yet to absorb this last programming offer.

Responding to Ivoshandor: Most of "They" in WP:Protected Areas are now "us", including Ruhrfisch, Daniel Case, Appraiser, and me. In a couple recent discussion threads over in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas, we figured out what I am saying here, that the project decided to classify all of the National Park Service areas (some created to protect natural areas, some not), into the Protected Areas schema (only for protected natural environment areas). In particular NPS areas that are just a building like Fort Crailo or a paved over archeological site like African Burial Ground National Monument have history but no environmental preserve value. Of the 391 NPS areas, there are about 270 wholly or partly protected for historical value (and that are listed NRHPs). We got to a consensus of understanding on the principles if not the numbers of that, I believe, then sort of dropped the ball for a while.

Going further perhaps, the protected area infobox should be replaced by NRHP infobox for those NPS areas having history value only. For some, having both NRHP infobox and protected area infobox (or a new combo box) makes sense. No NRHP infobox is needed, of course, for the 121 or so National Parks and other NPS areas that are not historical.

A further complication for dealing with this, that I am raising now is that many of the 270 are NHLs as well as being NRHPs and one type of NPS-administered area. There is need for a "three bar" option, with 3 dates, to cover these sites, showing NRHP color, NHL color and "National Historic Landmark", and whichever NPS-administered area color and its type name, and allowing for all 3 dates (added, designated, established) to be given in the infobox. For example, in New York there are 7 of these, vs. 13 other NPS areas of historic bent that do not need the 3rd bar for NHL, (all enumerated in List of National Historic Landmarks in New York, see lower sections). Or perhaps a "4 bar" option to allow indication of whether a site in a district is a contributing property rather than being the whole district.

So type enumeration wise, there exist 10 types of sometimes historic or always historic-oriented NPS areas: NMON  National Monument             93 NHS 	National Historic Site 	     89 NMEM 	National Memorial 	     44 NHP 	National Historical Park     42 NB 	National Battlefield 	     11 NMP 	National Military Park 	      9 NBP 	National Battlefield Park     3 NBS 	National Battlefield Site     1 NHR 	National Historical Reserve   1 IHS	International Historic Site   1 or eleventh option, no NPS area.

There also is NHL or NHLD (district) or NRHP-only or NRHP District-only, 4 options (it must be understood that if a site is NHL or NHLD then it is an NRHP automatically)

There is also whether a site is a Contributing Property within a district or not, 2 options.

That makes 11 x 4 x 2 = 66 permutations to cover (although some would not ever be used, as there is no IHS district for example)

Responding to Dudemanfellabra: As above, and there is not a need for a 10 bar option unless that is simply the easiest/best programming way to allow for 3 bars, I believe that there are 100-200 instances of 3 bars needed, but probably not more than a couple potentially 4 bar cases (which we could just ignore). doncram (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dudeman's latest, wow! I like the separate designated dates such as

Designated as National Memorial: Designated as RHDCP: Designated as National Monument:
 * Specifics to each type of NPS area are way better than merely what i was asking for

Established as NPS area:
 * Only I would use "Established" for the NPS areas, and leave "Designated" for NHL or NHLD only, and would want to be sure we cover all 10 of the NPS area types, all 66 permutations possibly needed.
 * Your coding approach would appear to be working, perhaps would just need some fine-tuning to cover all the possibilities needed. Thanks!  Let's pause for others' comments for a bit. doncram (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * At the time that I coded the above proposal, I didn't know there were 10 types haha. They can easily be incorporated, though, and designated can be changed to established for everything except NHL or NHLD; I just don't have the time right now. I'm out of town for the weekend, so I'll be back on Monday to work on it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just updated the code above to include all NPS types. Each bar is colored according to NRHP colors legend, and the bars are sorted with NRHP specific designations at top and NPS designations from most frequent to least frequent. I also changed all "designated" tags at the bottom of the infobox to "established" and changed the default coordinates to keep the locator dot on the map, which is now 235px instead of 220. Comments? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this is coming along nicely i think. I think we should consult with WP:Protected Areas about whether this will suffice for replacement of the Protected Areas infobox in many articles.  If there is something else to make it work better, we figure that out before doing a big rollout.  Hmm, why not make this available temporarily under a slight variation of name, call it a nrhp2 infobox rather than an nrhp infobox, so that we could test it out some?  I'd like that, in order to tackle a few of the NHS or other sites that should be converted over to this, in order to demonstrate to WikiProject Protected Areas.  I think some testing would help make us all feel more confident, before rolling out over all of the 9,400 articles of NRHP wikiproject, most of which probably use the infobox.  doncram (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Method of change
Just for clarification, I would like to state that if the changes proposed above go into effect, all of the current articles with this template will need to be changed because the nrhp_type and designated parameters will no longer exist. All the articles that use these parameters will be lacking these two fields in their infoboxes, meaning that all articles about NRHPs that are also NHLs will no longer be shown as NHLs because nrhp_type, the parameter that told the template that the NRHP was also an NHL, will no longer be active. The same situation will occur with the designated parameter, which specifies the date the NRHP was designated as an NHL. Updating all the old infoboxes to restore this information by adding the new parameters shouldn't be too hard of a feat to accomplish, though - simply delete the old parameters and replace them with their successors. It might take some time, though; if we implement the changes, we should split up the articles amongst ourselves and edit them all as soon as possible.

Another (IMO better) option would be to create this template as a subtemplate (much like Template:Infobox nrhp map) of the main template and slowly phase out the old one. This would be done by creating all new articles with the new template and editing older articles to incorporate the new changes. If done this way, there will be no immediate need to edit all articles because they won't be lacking any fields, but the transition from the old to the new template will still be able to take place, just not at a pressured rate. It won't matter if some articles still contain the old template because there will be no visible difference. Over time, as fewer and fewer articles use the old template, we'll be able to delete the old one and move the new one into its place. One question remaining with this method, though, is what the infobox will be named.

The new proposed design needs no subtemplates, and anything that needs to be edited can be edited from the main template. This keeps all the code on one page to better simplify the process, making it easier for new users to learn how to use the infobox. In order to further simplify the process, quality documentation should be added explaining the new parameters and changes. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you're making some good points but i'm not quite absorbing all of this. I expect the nature of changes and the nature of needed documentation would become clearer if we tested it out on a few articles, in a test version, before rolling something out. doncram (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bot potential There could be a bot created to automatically do what would otherwise require manual edits in a lot of articles. If all 2100 existing NHL articles needed to be edited manually, that would be kind of a pain, though doable if absolutely necessary.  I have never helped create a bot before, but I think that's what they are for: performing the same repetitive editing task in a lot of articles.  People sometimes mention "requesting a bot" somewhere.  doncram (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just posted below about the new infobox. You should check it out. Template:Infobox nrhp2.


 * About the bot thing: I didn't even think about that! I've never made a bot; I didn't even know you could haha.. I thought they were just kind of there.... but yea if we can make a bot do all the work for us, that would be great! All the bot would need to do is change the parameters, rename the infobox, etc. I'm guessing it wouldn't be that hard to create one to do so.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

New Infobox ready for testing
I spent most of the afternoon/evening working on creating/debugging the new NRHP2 Infobox. I typed out the documentation and included examples. I would really like to be able to include an example of an NRHP that qualifies for at least 3 subtitles (NHL, NMON, etc.), so the multi-bar display can really be grasped. The examples show an NRHP that is also an NHL, so 2 bars are displayed at the top. If an NRHP satisfies more than 2 of the subtitles, more than 2 will be displayed, but I haven't found one (or looked for one, for that matter haha). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * NRHP2 version of NRHP infobox is in testing. It may also be discussed within WikiProject Protected areas, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas or following talk sections. doncram (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

doncram (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Template wording
The current wording of and link scheme within Template:Nrhp source1 implies that we are linking to an official government site, which it isn't. Can anyone think of a better way to word and/or link this to not give the wrong implication about the link's affiliation and administration? IvoShandor (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't like that template at all. I see there are only about 110 articles that link to it, mostly oldish articles, I think few are using it now (noting the U-Drop exception).  I just visited one, Alice Austen House, and found it easy/appropriate to remove its use of the template, as the article already had a separate reference to NRIS (the standard Elkman infobox generated one).  How about removing all use of this NRHP.COM template, and deleting it?  I'm not against all references to the NRHP.COM site, as it has some info that is not in the Elkman output and is not available by any direct NRIS report that i know of either, although i believe it is strictly NRIS data reformatted.  I link to it occasionally.  But I suspect all the uses of this template are for basic facts better attributed directly to NRIS.  I would be happy to help tackle that. doncram (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that those citations should be credited to the National Register Information System, instead of nrhp.com, since the National Park Service is the official publisher of NRHP listings. As far as the nrhp.com output is concerned, if you're looking for any data that nrhp.com presents that my infobox generator doesn't have, chances are that I have the data in the database somewhere.  I could add it into the infobox generator, probably in something that's printed after the infobox code.  I've been thinking that it would be useful to know whether a structure is added for its architectural value, as opposed to being associated with a particular person or historic event, since that would guide how I'd approach writing an article.  Knowing the historic and current functions would also be useful.  Does anyone have any comments about other information that could be listed but isn't in the current infobox output?  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

comments on the Elkman infobox generator

 * About the current Elkman infobox generator output, it is certainly very useful as is. I wonder about it including the material for a corresponding talk page, as I include in my own starter kit for NHL articles.  Your output includes, after the infobox:

Article filler text goes here.

==References==


 * I suggest also adding:

create article as stub with NRHP infobox

==Photos== Photos and/or photo uploads are needed. *HABS or HAER photos may be available for this site. Search HABS/HAER here *New photos would be helpful.

add to wikiprojects and make photo request
 * The first line is a generic comment to paste into the edit comment line of the article, then there is material for the Talk page, ending with edit comment to paste into edit comment line for new talk page. I find having these in place speeds my article creation.  It's easy to delete something optional like the photo request, if i happen to have a photo ready, but it takes time to construct that request otherwise.  If i forget and leave the Talk page material in the main article, someone on New Page patrol always finds it and moves it to the Talk page. doncram (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why include this? Even if it is include, the user still has to copy/paste the material OUT of the main page and INTO the talk page. If someone forgets to do this, the information will be displayed on the main page incorrectly. If the talk page is to be added to the template, a separate text box displaying data for the talk page should be generated alongside the infobox's text box to better separate the data and make it easier to see that the information is meant to be separated.


 * Also, I don't think the edit comment text is necessary. IMO, it takes more time to go to the text box, highlight the comment text, copy it, and paste it into the edit comment section than to just manually type an edit comment each time. Also, as above, the edit comment would be more likely forgotten if it was included in (either of) the textbox(es). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, including at least the relevant wikiproject template calls in the infobox output would be a help. I keep coming across nice articles that lack the NRHP wikiproject.  Maybe a bot is needed (how could we request one?) to search for articles having NRHP infoboxes but not part of the NRHP wikiproject.  But in creating a nice new article like Stanford L&N Railroad Depot (Stanford, Kentucky), it would be nice if the editor got an article draft that already included:
 * WikiProject Kentucky and
 * WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
 * so I or other NRHPers wouldn't have to add those later to the Talk page. I do assure that if that Talk page material was not moved by the article-starting editor to the Talk page, that newpage patrol people will scoop in and move it within about 20 seconds.  They love to have something to "improve" that way. doncram (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right.. I agree that the output should include the template for the talk page... but I think that it shouldn't all be in the same text box on the output page. The page should have the regular "left-hand-side info" that you talk about below... the current text box with infobox code in it... and a SECOND text box with the talk page formatting in it. Separating the code for the article page and the talk page into different textboxes would make it harder to mistakenly put both templates on the main article page. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Another request is to add the County to the regular infobox report (to appear in the left-hand-side info, not in the infobox). That way, for sites like refnum 66000442 which span across more than one county, the user can see why multiple infoboxes were created.  I was puzzled why there were two identical infoboxes suggested for Fort Robinson and Red Cloud Agency, and eventually learn that it is a large area that is included in two counties.
 * Well, also perhaps to add Category:Onondaga County, New York or whatever to the right-hand-side infobox would also help. For all of the NHL articles i create i have been doing that manually, looking up the county in the NHL summary webpage.
 * Another request is to add the "historic function" field info (which Elkman mentions in discussion below) to the regular infobox report (to appear in the left-hand-side, not in the infobox). By the way, I am one who looks at and uses info from the left-hand-side.  For example, I usually cut-and-paste alternative names for a site that appear there, into the text of the new article. doncram (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't even notice some of this discussion until earlier this evening. (Oops.)  I've been working on the generator and I've addressed some of these requests, including creating a talk page template.  I also added the historic function and subfunction code. I'm also working on determining whether a structure had a historic function of being rail-related; if so, I'll add a TrainsWikiProject banner to it.  (That's not done yet.)  I was going to see if I could extract other historic function/subfunction information to try and guess if a particular project template is useful, like lighthouses or shipwrecks, but that's not clear yet.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The extra box with Talk page info like the following will probably be helpful.


 * However, for Washington DC, the reqphoto category should be instead.  I think that might be the only one where the reqphoto category name is not the same as the WikiProject name. doncram (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, the appropriate stub to include in the template is WashingtonDC-NRHP-stub not DistrictofColumbia-NRHP-stub and the category should be Category:Registered Historic Places in Washington, D.C. not Category:Registered Historic Places in District of Columbia doncram (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've addressed Washington, DC. Let me know if it's working OK or not.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal:National Register of Historic Places
Thanks to some recent edits on Portal:Florida, I got inspired. It's up, folks. Plenty of room for improvement and expansion. Hit your refresh key a few times when you view it, and you'll see what I mean. Looking forward to making it one of the coolest portals on Wikipedia. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, not sure what a portal does. But i see if u click refresh in your browser, a different random article comes up. :) Neat! doncram (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I've never been sure what a portal is for, either. But all the cool kids on the block have 'em, so why not us? :) And not only random articles. Random bios and pictures too. Additions are welcome. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a few DYKs. I have to be careful, because otherwise they'd be too Kentuckianacentric.-- Bedford 23:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's OK. I expect many to add from their areas of interest. With the DYKs, I was thinking having them random too. Maybe 5-10 in each random section, by state or theme or whatever. If folks want to keep adding, I can break them into chunks. Same with the others. The random sections so far are for article, biography, picture, and panorama. Good for starters. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and feel free to continue the discussion on the Portal talk page. Just 'cause, y' know? :) --Ebyabe (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Portal could be developed to be a friendly entry point for new wikipedians who might take a few pics of local NRHPs. It could be developed so that some might choose to bookmark it, and visit a few times, as they take some steps towards contributing.  To serve a function like a newsletter, with some "how to" articles and some user stories/profiles?  Is that okay, for a Portal to include articles from wikipedia-space rather than main-space?  I do think that we have a great  fun activity to sell, that most people have not yet considered, and the Portal could possibly be the vehicle to convey the fun and the how-to of it all. doncram (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) HEY, COULD AN ADMIN PLS REMOVE THE PORTAL LINK OFF WikiProject National Register of Historic Places? It is not ready for wide release, in my view. It's a notice that is posted in about 10,000 articles. We are not ready yet! And, some discussion should take place here before such a notice is posted on all of our articles. The template is protected so I cannot undo the recent addition myself. doncram (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why take it off? Eventually the portal will be ready for wide release, so if it's taken off now, it will just be re-added later. Just because the portal isn't "finished" (Is any wiki article really "finished"?) doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to see it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A Portal is not like a regular stub article, it is like the Main Page of Wikipedia, meant to put forward a good presentation to outsiders. Only featured articles and quality material gets onto the Main Page.  It's embarassing to put forth something that leads with an "under construction" tag.  It's not ready.  I am willing to help make it presentable, like working on an article in a sandbox area, but not with it out there like that. doncram (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)The portal was added after an request on the template talk page, which appeared uncontroversial.  I tend to agree with Dudemanfellabra: at what point would the portal be considered "ready for wide release"?? Instead of trying to hide an underdeveloped area of your project, why don't you advertise it in the hope that some of those viewers will actually help build it?  You're not playing to a paying audience: every viewer of every page is a potential editor. Happy‑melon 22:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The portal draft is brand new and was just announced. I was beginning to participate in a discussion about what it should/could be for the project.  I do not want to have this discussion under the gun, forced upon me/us because there are 10,000 links out there potentially driving traffic to an embarrassing page that is not yet thought out and developed.  For the moment, I have replaced the Portal with a redirect to the National Register of Historic Places article, which is a good article.  Please consider this matter to be a controversial matter, for the moment, and please just remove the Portal link from the template, so that it can be discussed. doncram (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While I do agree that some discussion should have taken place before the link was added to the template which is linked to by thousands of pages, I still stand by leaving it there. I also disagree with redirecting the Portal to National Register of Historic Places; I won't undo the edit and start a revert war or anything, though.
 * I still don't see what's so embarrassing about the page; it looked fine to me. Look at it this way: Probably 60%(guess) of the people on Wikipedia are just there for information and likely aren't even aware that the talk page exists. Even if they accidentally click on the discussion tab, they won't know what it is, and they'll most likely click their browser's back button to return to the article. The other 40% on the site are editors and know what the deal is. Even if they did think the page was under-developed, would they mock and taunt us? "Na na na na boo boo, your portal su-ucks!" No, they wouldn't.. When they saw that the portal was under-developed, they would do one of two things:
 * Have no interest and decide to leave the portal, or
 * Become interested and help us develop it.
 * Look at our Wikiproject page. That's supposed to be a main article of our group. It has links to many pages that are underdeveloped. Should we remove those links until the pages are all featured? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ebyabe for agreeing to remove the Portal link for now from the NRHP template.


 * Dudemanfellabra, it's my understanding the WikiProject page is meant as an entry point for editors, while a Portal is meant as an entry-point for general readers. As such, the WikiProject page can be more technical and can address complexity that are not appropriate to display to general readers.  It does also serve a function of putting our work forward, by its great photos and by our listing of featured articles and so on.  If it, or pages that it links to, seem undeveloped in ways that don't appear flattering, then that should be addressed, in my view.  If you have specific suggestions to improve the WikiProject page, perhaps you could state them in a new thread?  doncram (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * About the Portal: Two quotes from Portal: "The idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas through pages similar to the Main Page. In essence, portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content."  and  "All portals should be listed at the directory of portals, which also details their founding dates and whom you can contact with regard to a particular portal. If you have created a portal, you must list it here. Portal:List of portals lists all portals of reader-ready quality."  I was previously expressing discomfort about the Portal being advertised on our template, when the creator had only just said (above) that "I've never been sure what a portal is for, either. " and the discussion he had opened was/is very incomplete.


 * Where should the discussion be? We could talk about what the Portal should be / wants to be here or in the Portal Talk page.  Ebyabe suggested discussion should continue over there.  However, if discussion goes on over there, and the Portal gets developed, I suggest that the Portal get discussed here again when it is ready to be reviewed.  To run a formal or informal peer review, before putting it forward in the list of "reader-ready" portals and before advertising it widely. doncram (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Contributing properties
This is in relation to the Historic Columbia River Highway. The 2000 NHL nomination is online, listing its contributing properties, but I can't find the 1983 NRHP nomination (which included a larger area). Is there any way to find a list of the contributing properties that are only in the 1983 nomination? Since the NHRP listing is larger than the NHL, should the article be in both categories? Should contributing properties be in the same categories as the main article? --NE2 23:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * About getting the 1983 document, just state your need to the National Register Reference Team, and they should be able to send you a copy of the 1983 documents by postal mail. Email address for the request is in information section of WP:NRHP main page.


 * About how to treat categories of contributing properties, is your question whether to list "Category:National Historic Landmarks in Oregon" in a separate article about a contributing property in a Oregon historic district that is a National Historic Landmark (as well as the district being an NRHP)? I think yes.  And for an article on contributing property within a district that is only an NRHP district, it should be in "Category:Registered Historic Places in Oregon".  We oughta have a style guide that would cover how to handle stuff like this, too. :) doncram (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I found an example of a contributing property - 55 Central Park West - which is both in the NRHP category and Category:Historic district contributing properties, so it looks like that's how to do it.
 * My other question is what categories Historic Columbia River Highway itself should be in. Much of the road is a NHL, but a portion is only on the NHRP. Should it thus be in both categories, since a separate article about the non-NHL portion would be in the NRHP category? --NE2 02:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we've basically decided that since National Historic Landmarks are a subset of the National Register of Historic Places, we would only use the NHL category for those properties. Thus, we ordinarily wouldn't put Historic Columbia River Highway into the NRHP category, since it's already in a child category.  (Then again, I should talk; I originally added it to the NRHP category about a year and a half ago.)  I don't think it makes a big difference on the main article; it might make a difference on some of the contributing properties.  For example, if Shepperd's Dell Bridge is part of the NRHP district but not part of the NHL district, then listing it in the NHL category would be incorrect.  Personally, it doesn't make a big difference to me; I'd rather just read the articles and appreciate the history behind the highway.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I see the area that isn't part of the National Historic Landmark designation. This part of the nomination, on page 4, mentions that some portions of the highway between Warrendale and Hood River were sacrificed for the construction of Interstate 84. Those sections of the highway have structures that meet the NRHP standards for integrity, but not the higher NHL standards for a high degree of integrity.  Page 5 and later mention what's included in the NHL and what isn't.  I'm sure you've already read this, but I just found it and it's interesting reading.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Herndon Home, Herndon Building and Contributing Property treatment
I too am working on a contributing property article, on the Herndon Building which was damaged by the 2008 Atlanta tornado storm and just demolished. It was a contributing property in a National Historic Landmark District. We have a NRHP infobox color bar for "cp", that covers contributing property in regular NRHP districts, but I don't think we have a corresponding one for contributing properties in NHL districts. Perhaps Dudemanfellabra, could put that feature into his new version of the infobox? But we'd need to pick an abbreviation (nhld-cp? not parallel to cp? change cp to nrhp-hd-cp?) and pick a color, too.

By the way, I was working on Herndon Home, the mansion, and User:Radiojon added info about the tornado and demolition, now I want to get Herndon Building or both up for DYKs. Help! doncram (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify? The CP color is for an RHDCP.. you want one for an NHLCP? How are they any different? Would you not just use the RHDCP and the NHL bar for it?


 * I can put it in if needed, though.. as long as someone agrees on a color haha. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a different need. You would use the RHDCP and the regular NHL bar for a property that is, on its own, an NHL, and which also is a contributing property in an NRHP HD.  There are a good number of such cases out of the 2,442 or so NHLs, which it would be nice to present that way.  However, this need is different, to show a contributing property in a historic district that is an NHL.


 * And I guess you would use it also, together with a regular NHL bar, for a property that is on its own an NHL, and which is also part of a NHLD, such as

Lee Chapel, an NHL on its own, within Washington and Lee University Historic District, an NHLD. doncram (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see now. That comment made it very clear, and I agree that there is a different need. Tell me a color, and I'll put it in :) --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting on a color haha.. but I thought of something else.. I'll also need to add a designated_nhldcp parameter and change the designated_cp parameter to designated_hdcp (or designated_rhdcp - whichever) to be able to list the date in the bottom of the infobox.


 * Actually, after thinking about it, Could I not just leave it at designated_cp? Can a site be a contributing property to both an NHLD and an RHD at the same time? If not, I can just change the output reading to "Designated CP:" instead of "Designated RHDCP:".


 * Thoughts? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All sites that are NHLs are automatically NRHP sites when they are declared NHLs, if they aren't already listed on the NRHP. So the answer, to at least part of your question is, yes, all CP that are part of NHL Districts are also CPs to NRHP districts. IvoShandor (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

National Register Information System
It appears that they are finally changing the NRIS. There is now a statement on the main page "We are working to replace this application Some searches do not work Your patience is appreciated"

Einbierbitte (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If it takes anywhere near as long as it does to actually go through the nomination process then we are in for quite a wait. ;) Seriously though, this is good to see, something I have actually been expecting for several years now, about time! IvoShandor (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)