Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 2

Hmm
Many, many DYKs later. I just wanted to remind my friends at NRHP about this. Oh how I covet it, oh how indeed. ; ) A mcmurray 17:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

New Task Force
The Project has a new task force, Task Force Registered Historic Districts went live this afternoon. Check it out, join if you want, and add the cool new userbox to you user page, if you want. : ) As for the above, yes, it was shameless. ; ) A mcmurray 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good article nominations
DeKalb County Courthouse and University of Illinois Observatory are currently good article nominees. If you haven't contributed significantly to the articles (everyone but me) feel free to evaluate it based on the six good article criteria, just follow the instructions on the good article candidates page.A mcmurray 13:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested articles
I've looked through Requested articles and I've found a few requests that are on the National Register. There's one or two at Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences, a few at Requested articles/Social sciences and philosophy, and several at Requested articles/Social sciences and philosophy. If anyone is looking for something to do, these requests might be worth investigating. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 05:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening Soon
Watch the Main Project page for a new Collaboration Division of the project. The intent being to bring nominated article up to GA class or better. Coming soon to a WikiProject near you. IvoShandor 10:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Our own Portal?
Dogears proposed an idea that's been rattling around in my head for a bit too; a Portal for the project. To that end, I've created a sandbox, PortalNRHP. Try out different ideas and such. When we have something presentable, we can move it to the mainspace. Oh, and a name for it. Possible ideas:


 * Portal:U.S. Historic preservation
 * Portal:U.S. Historic Places
 * Portal:U.S. Registered Historic Places
 * Portal:U.S. Cultural heritage


 * I say Portal:U.S. Registered Historic Places: It is the most descriptive title. IvoShandor 09:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Project Award
A WikiProject Award for this project has been proposed. As the project does not appear to have yet been notified, in order for the image to be improved an eventually selected, members of the projected are invited to comment on the proposal at Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals. Laïka 16:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a nice image and good idea. People should come out and support this. We also need to figure out who is really still active in this project as well as archive this talk page, I think there is a bot that will do it. IvoShandor 22:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mackinac Island
I have recently finished a major overhaul of the Mackinac Island article, rated as B-class by this project. The history section has been greatly expanded and it now includes sections on historic places and architecture. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice article. With only 500-odd year-round residents, it would be interesting to know how the locals deal with schooling their children.  Is there a local one-room schoolhouse?  A special ferry to a mainland town?--Hjal 06:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the article about the city, it is served by the Mackinac Island School District (singular) Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 01:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Attention: your award proposal has passed.
Hello. Your recent proposal for a new award for your WikiProject has passed. The discussion has been archived and the award added to the awards page here. Congratulations!

Things you can do:
 * 1) Create a template for the award to make it easier to use. Please see other templates for a style guide.
 * 2) Tag any images used in the award with Category:Wikipedia awards.
 * 3) Tag any templates used in the award with Category:Award templates
 * 4) Place the award on your project page so people know you have an award.
 * 5) Start giving it out to users!

Regards, Smomo 22:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

NRHP collaboration
IvoShandor 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

New project division
IvoShandor 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

New ratings parameters
I've added a couple of new rating options to the WikiProject National Register of Historic Places template. They are: The later option's likely to get the most use, what with all the same name multiple listings. Cheerio! --Ebyabe 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cat (or cat) - for categories
 * Dab (or dab) - for disambiguation pages


 * And one more
 * Redirect (or redirect) - for redirect pages --Ebyabe 20:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Funky, fresh and new
A couple project related GA noms. Ogle County Courthouse and Historic district (United States); one of our main articles, a fair number of project articles link to this one so it would be great to get it to GA and beyond. If it passes here I already have some expansion ideas for it's ride to FAC. IvoShandor 11:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Beyond that, I have made sure that local historic district and Registered Historic District redirect correctly. Use them, it's awesomeness. IvoShandor 09:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A class
User:Ebyabe and I have been kind of talking about A class articles. A couple of weeks ago I started toying with the idea in my sandbox of A Class reviews and noms here at our project.

So far I have a short version of our A class criteria (which needs input, support and consensus before it becomes part of the project see it here:User:IvoShandor/Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/A-class criteria.

Also I have a draft version of our A-Class review page, just the basics so far, see it here: User:IvoShandor/Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/A class review

Input, please. IvoShandor 14:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Landmark
The people from WP:WPChi hope to make this article a featured list, but it's got a pretty huge amount of redlinks. Since I suspect most, if not all of these are on the register (almost all those that do have articles are), maybe the members of this project might want to help them? Circeus 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Try this website: nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com. Its not the offical .gov website, but its easier to navigate and gives some background info on places on the register. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The HAARGIS Database from the IHPA is much better. It provides digitized copy of the National Register nomination form for almost every listing in Illinois, can search by county or city. IvoShandor 19:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Code
I borrowed some code that I can't get to work at WikiProject_Chicago/COTW/Good_Articles. Is there a way to change the proportionality of the widths? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Project award
I have given our recently approved, official project award a template, see it: Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places Award or use it. Wow, we are, like a really real project. : ) IvoShandor 13:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Theatre
If anyone is interested in helping me bring Chicago Theatre to the WP:GA standards at WP:WIAGA please see the comments on its failed GA Review at its talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Historic Districts
We need to be careful about creating too many stubs. Just look at all the different stub articles elated to Sycamore Historic District. Almost all the other articles in the category are stubs which could just be consolidated into the main article. I once had Salem Downtown Historic District and four individual buildings that were separately part of the NRHP each have their own article. I recently realized that there was little chance of each being a worthy article on its own, so I consolidated 3 of the 4 independent articles back into the District's article.--Bedford 06:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I plan to consolidate most of the houses into a page, Houses in Sycamore Historic District or the like. I have just been busy in other areas lately. Some of them have sufficient information, or could, to be separate though. IvoShandor 06:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As for individual listings, there is always enough material available to make a decent article out of, you just have to know where to look, which is not always on the Internet. : ) IvoShandor 06:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:WPChi Collaboration notice
Soon after the clock strikes midnight (UTC) tonight I will update the WP:CHICOTW. This weeks project is a stubification drive that should benefit WP:WPChi, WP:Illinois, WP:NRHP and WP:WPARCH. This week we will be creating stubs for Chicago Landmark which includes about 230 Chicago Landmarks and about a dozen National Historic Landmarks that are not Chicago Landmarks. Only about 25% of the Chicago Landmarks have articles. In order to pursue a WP:FL we need to get at 50-60%. This week I posted stubification instructions Yesterday, I created Old Colony Building (Chicago), Fisher Building (Chicago), McGraw-Hill Building (Chicago), & Victory Monument (Chicago). These were pages that I had earlier discovered had some ambiguities (which you can see by the parenthetical names). These are all examples of what the most basic Chicago Landmark Category:Stub-Class Chicago articles should look like. Stubs can look better than this, but I hope each page will at least look like these. If you get adventurous you may also attempt to add Infobox Skyscraper, Infobox nrhp, and some images and take the article to Category:Start-Class Chicago articles. I will be adding such infoboxes in the coming weeks. We would appreciate any assistance you may be able to lend in the stubification drive. If you stumble upon something interesting nominate it for WP:CHICOTW by naming it with a 25 word or less explanation of its import here. Also, list all newly created articles from the stubification drive here: WikiProject_Chicago. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S.  If any of the landmarks is at least 12 stories please add it to Template:Chicago Skyscrapers like I did here. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD for Deal-Mendenhall Hall; documenting MPS versus individual structures
There's a debate at Articles for deletion/Deal-Mendenhall Hall regarding whether that article and Roe A. and Louise R. Deal House should be deleted. The articles at the time of the AFD submission were just a direct copy/paste from nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, or whatever that commercial site was.

I started editing those articles a bit, using the standard infobox and the NRHP-stub notice, but I'm having trouble finding additional documentation for those two houses individually. They're covered by this Multiple Property Submission for Springville, Utah, which lays out the criteria for determining which houses were eligible for inclusion. The document describes a lot of detail about the historic context of the houses and other buildings within the city, but there are few resources that I can find that say anything substantial about individual buildings.

With that in mind, is it even likely to continue expansion of these two articles beyond their stubby stubbishness, or would it be more worthwhile to write a new article about the multiple-property submission? I did the latter in the case of Cuyuna Iron Range Municipally-Owned Elevated Metal Water Tanks, since they're all thematically related, but I don't know if that would really apply in the case of this article. I'm interested in what others think. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well they all have individual nom forms too, there's one source, might have to go to a Utah library but it's out there. People rely on Google too much and delete shit just because of it. IvoShandor 22:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The subject of the AFDs were cleaned up (hold your applause ; ) ) and survived the attempted destruction. IvoShandor 08:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Obtaining Nomination/Registration forms for listed properties
There are several sources to obtain copies of nomination forms for listed properties: The NRHP office in DC (NB: there is a limit of two nomination forms at a time - they use interns to make copies); the NRIS has PDFs of the MPS forms; and the individual SHPO offices and archaeological database clearinghouses. Einbierbitte 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Some SHPO's already have access available online, Illinois and New York are two of those I know of. The ultimate goal of the NRIS seems to be digitization of all NRHP records, a long and unwieldy process I am sure. Many local libraries hold the forms for local listings and larger libraries sometimes have many of the state's listed places nom forms available as well. IvoShandor 08:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A question
Hi ... I'm from the schools team ... I keep seeing that "this place is on the national register" template. Now. Some of these schools are on the verge of un-notability and some would have them deleted. I would naively think that if a place was on this register then someone would know why. Is it because JFK was taught there? Was it because it was the first use of fibreglass in a building? I think that I am asking why there is not an easy link from that temp[late back to the notability that the register bestows.... cos then the school (or whatever) could mention that it their article. Its nice to know that a place is onb the register, but if no one knows why then it has a hollow ring. Hope this makes sense Victuallers 17:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When you say "template", do you mean the one on the talk page? Just wanting to clarify, doncha know. :)
 * I dunno if there's a central repository available via the Internet for that kind of info. You'd think there would be, but perhaps the sheer amount of data involved makes it impractical. I know the general search engine at nps.gov seems to be down a lot, and that just gives you name and address, more or less. I'm not familiar as to how other states do it, but Florida at least has most of the listings for the state available online, with at least minimal info on why something's on the register. A large degree seems to come down to design, like a place is an "excellent example of Queen Anne architecture in the area". Admittedly, info like that should be in the article here. But with more than 80,000 listings on the register, most of them still only redlinks here, that may be a while. Does that help any, he asks hopefully? ;) -Ebyabe 19:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a couple of examples we could look at? Typically, a property listed on the National Register is listed under one of four criteria, as mentioned at this page about listing a property in the National Register:
 * The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.


 * I believe the National Register database contains codes that list the criteria that were used for nominating a given property. To get the details, though, you might need to find the original National Register submission form, or find some reference that says why it was listed.  If you come up with a few examples, I'll check into why they're listed on the National Register, including details from the database, and I'll tell you how I found the information as a reference point.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For online resources you can try the nationaregisterofhistoricplaces.com site. It is a private site that is 90% accurate - it does contain errors. It can give you the criteria. A better choice would be the NRIS database. It does have info on why a property is listed, just go to "database details" from either the Name or Location search functions (the datebase is a few months to a few weeks out of date, though). It will list the name of the criteria (Event, Person (down below it will say who the person is), Architecture, and Information Potential) rather than the code. It will also list the significant dates, architects/engineers, private or public ownership, themes, and whether or not it's an NHL. University campuses are large, my guess is that only one building would be listed; the exception would be if the university is in a historic district. I would bet that many of the buildings at a university are listed under C - architecure - either for the architect or for the notable design. Some may be listed under B - person - for some notable person from history that has an association with the property, or the architect. A few may be listed under A - event - for something that occurred there, for example, the first sustained nuclear reaction. I can't think of any university that could be listed under D, unless it was built on an Indian burial ground.Einbierbitte 21:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur with all advice given above. I suppose a ruined college/school/university could be included under D, there is significant archaeological effort being made in some areas of 19th Century American history. From what I have read about NRIS the intent is to eventually make it a large repository of material such as nomination forms. But as Ebyabe said many states have information available via the State Historic Preservation Office. I am working on a sources division of our project right now but it isn't complete, eventually it will be a good place to start as far as listings on the National Register go. For many properties listed on the National Register relying on the internet for sources is probably not a good idea but their obscurity doesn't imply non-notability either. IvoShandor 10:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I meant the template on the talk page. I must say I'm impressed by the thoroughness of the replies. I will add some examples tomorrow... but I think I am hearing that being on the list is similar to being wiki "notable" ... i.e. it could cover a number or even worse a combination of factors. Please keep watching ... I should create examples tomorrow (GMT) Victuallers 21:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes ... an example. Take a look at Plaquemine Senior High School. Now this looks like one of 10s of thousands of schools whohave a few paragraphs as a stub.... but of the talk page it says it is a stub (importance??) of this project. I don't think its important to debate this particular article. I'm just wondering if it is possible for the "national Register" to have some idea of this places importance ... if the register does not indicate some level of notability then I misunderstand its purpose. Needless to say some would not hesitate in deleting Plaquemine Senior High School and several thousand more similar articles. Victuallers 12:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this project doesn't use the importance parameter, mostly because it is too subjective. A listing on the Register is indeed notable. The nomination forms almost always detail this notability in depth. Plaquemine High School is indeed on the National Register, it was added in 1992. The Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office has quite a bit of information, including the nomination form which states the significance, at this link. (If it doesn't work just search for Plaquemine High School. Every one of these deletions will be challenged if the place is listed and I have yet to see a NRHP listed property be deleted in AfD once that assertion is brought forward. Anyway, the places that are on the Register shouldn't be deleted. The particular school above is significant because of its time period and architecture. IvoShandor 17:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * PS - Stub is just the articles current status, click the link on the template. It basically means it's short right now. Give me a National Register form and five other sources and I can raise it to at least GA anytime. : ) IvoShandor 17:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Being Bold
Let me make a bold suggestion... based on the debate above. I think you should change your template so that it says "This place is recognised by National Register ..... therefore the importance of this article should be considered as "mid" or "high" unless there is evidence to the contrary." Or something like that. The UK has a similar set of listings for architecture. You could also agree that a level 1 building in the UK was of "high" importance whilst grade 2's were mid. Victuallers 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See above, we don't actually use the importance parameter. IvoShandor 17:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I must thank you for the reply. I suspected we may only have time to deal with this one school. I think you need to reconsider your policy. My reasoning is that there are thousands of important places. We have just discussed one school and its taken days to get a good (but incomplete) answer. I think that you could assist fellow projects by negotiating notability for thousands of articles at a stroke. Would it be 100% accurate ... no, but there are thousands of articles. Anyway its only a suggestion. I do thank you for your time and patience and assistance with this particular article. Victuallers 19:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Maps for train stations under NRHP
I found a number of train stations listed on the National Register of Historic Places and I'd like to be able to create maps for them, but I don't have the exact coordiantes. Would it be alright if I just posted blank ones, so that the rest of you can fill in the dots and other info where they're needed? DanTD 14:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, I should think. Could you also maybe leave a note here when you've done some, so we can tag them on their talk pages for the project? Or if you can do it, that would be even more super, but creating the articles is more than helpful enough as it is. :) -Ebyabe 19:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're suggesting I post the link to each article every time, okay I can do that. Chances are, though, they're already written, so I don't have to create the articles. DanTD 22:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just did one for the Great Northern Passenger Depot in Rugby, North Dakota. DanTD 22:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Terrif! Thanks. :) --Ebyabe 23:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I also did it for Sebring (Amtrak station), which should be merged with Old Sebring Seaboard Air Line Depot, and I'm going to do it for some stations in New York State as well. DanTD 12:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just made NRHP maps for East Hampton Railroad Station, Fort Edward D&H Train Station, Greenport Railroad Station, and Plattsburgh, New York's D & H Railroad Complex. And when I create articles for stations in Farmingdale, New York, and Sea Cliff, New York, I'm going to add those there too, along with the LIRR infoboxes. DanTD 12:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

More Railroad Stations with NRHP maps & infoboxes
I've just added more NRHP maps & infoboxes with no coordinates or red dots and limited information to the following railroad stations; Dowagiac (Amtrak station), Niles (Amtrak station), Pascagoula (Amtrak station), Farmingdale (LIRR station), and Sea Cliff (LIRR station). Now who wants to fix them? DanTD 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with an article?
I know you don't see much of me around here, but I'm with you in spirit. Anyway, your friends at WikiProject Oregon would like to get the Waller Hall article up to GA status, if anyone would like to take a look. Or feel free to tell me to shove off and nominate the article on the collaboration page. ;) Its claim to fame is that it is the oldest university building west of the Mississippi still in use in the United States. Thanks! Katr67 22:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Category
Hello folks. This: category should be renamed to more handy and better one. Any proposals? With current name it will sooner or later end at WP:CFD. - Darwinek 09:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I, myself, am not sure what these categories are meant to reflect or what they are referencing, I don't recall the NRHP having "themes" per se. IvoShandor 11:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Any objections if I nominate it for deletion at WP:CFD? - Darwinek 11:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't bother me but maybe we could wait a few days for someone else to drop by? Who created the cat? Are there others? If there is a sufficient explanation maybe they could be renamed accordingly.IvoShandor 11:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Let's see what the others think. - Darwinek 12:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are not really themes but functions: how a property was used. See the categories in Bulltein 16 here  Einbierbitte 21:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent}Ah, I see. I don't think the cats add much still. But they need to be renamed at the least, abbreviations are generally not used because no one will understand them. IvoShandor 22:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a trifle hesitant to speak up here, since I seem to have made an unpopular move. But in any event, I am the one responsible for creating this category.


 * Einbierbitte very correctly put a finger on one point, that I made a poor choice of word when I used "theme". Without making specific reference to the NPS's list of categorizations, I was attempting to gather together articles according to a logic similar to the "functions" in the NPS bulletin. Looking forward, I also intended to initiate a handful more categories along the lines of "functions" or "areas of significance" - e.g. science and technology (an area of significance) or schools (a function).


 * I also appear to have violated Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), where it says "Don't hard-code the category structure into names." That definitely calls for:  Mea culpa.


 * I cannot, however, agree that this category amounts to trivia, as others have suggested at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 3. As noted above, the view of NRHP "functions" is of sufficient gravity for the NPS to have made it a critical part of the nomination/listing process for the NRHP.  In addition, for the reader who is attempting to draw connections among NRHP sites beyond mere geography (which is the defining characteristic of the large majority of NRHP categories), categorization by function or area of significance will be highly useful.


 * It has also been suggested that the category necessarily must reflect a specific pre-exising aspect of the NRHP program, rather than being an editor-defined grouping of similar articles. This idea is not in keeping with the guideline at Categorization: "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles." I.e. categories are there to assist browsing, not to express any encyclopedic content in addition to that in the articles in the category. The key point here, is that although we've established that the category in question generally reflects an aspect (functions) of the NRHP program, it does not necessarily have to adhere to that aspect to the point of following the NPS bulletin verbatim in naming. Nor must articles be included in the category only by reference to the functions listed in the NRIS database. Instead, editors can make the call about what characteristics to highlight to best aid browsing.


 * So, I have to agree with IvoShandor that the name I used is a poor one, and renaming is emphatically indicated. However, deletion of the category is overkill, and should not be done.


 * I'll propose "Category:Registered Historic Places of Religious Function" as a new name. Can anyone suggest something less wordy?


 * -Ipoellet 06:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of categorizing these properties by their functions in addition to their geographic locations. That would add some flexibility and make it easier to locate other properties with the same function. The functions should be the same as the NPS uses in Bulletin 16. As for the name of the category, how about "National Register properties-Religion (Commerce, Transportation)" or "Registered Historic Places-Religion (Commerce, Transportation)" or "National Register of Historic Places-Religion" or "Religious (Commerce, Transportaion) properties in the National Register"? I agree that the category should not be deleted, merely renamed.Einbierbitte 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this sooner. I've initiated a rename nomination on CFD at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 11. The new name would be Category:Registered Historic Places of religious function. Einbierbitte's suggestions were good, but the nomination went in before that last comment - sorry. Ipoellet 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

List of National Historic Landmarks by state
I'm undertaking a reformat and expansion of List of National Historic Landmarks by state, and would like to gather some opinions. I've outlined what's going on at its talk page. Please have a look, and any comments or suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks. Ipoellet 02:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD Abbeville Opera House
Almost as soon as this article was written, it was tagged for deletion. Anyone ready to fight to save this one? Einbierbitte 17:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was on it pretty soon after I saw the AFD for it. At the time it was listed for AFD, it didn't mention anything about being listed on the National Register, so I did the research and found that it was listed.  I don't think the article is at risk for being deleted now.  Nevertheless, it points out that sometimes people (nobody on this project, of course) create articles that don't adequately point out their subjects' significance, and sometimes people just make pile-on votes at AFD without really checking on the subject to see if it merits notability.  I'm willing to do a little more research on the subject of an article before passing a quick "delete" decision on it.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Photos
Now here's a question. Are the photos and slides that are held by the National Register of Historic Places public domain or no? The HAARGIS Database in Illinois has quite a few online. IvoShandor 07:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, they are. The person nonimating the property generally takes the pictures and are sent with the nonination. They become part of the public record. Einbierbitte 18:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

St. Louis Century Building
I am a first time contributor and have written an article on the historic Century Building in St. Louis that was demolished in 2004. It is an important case in historic preservation, but I'm not sure the building belongs on this page since it no longer exists. Guidance is needed on this matter. Thanks.

Ajacksb 04:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied on Talk:St. Louis Century Building. My thought is that notable historic buildings can have articles here, and they're notable if there are multiple independent sources covering the subject.  (As in Notability.)  As another example, Metropolitan Building in Minneapolis has an article, even though it got demolished in 1961.  As far as the National Register status goes, buildings are generally removed from the National Register when they're demolished.  Still, since it was on the National Register, it probably deserves listing here.


 * Anyone else have any thoughts? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 13:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been wrestling with the same concept. We have a historic church here in Portland that burned spectacularly last winter - total loss and only a matter of time before it's removed from the NRHP. (It's listed on the Register as Trinity Lutheran Church and School, but in the news stories its name is Morningstar Missionary Baptist Church.)  Before I made the connection between the burned church and the NRHP church, I was considering writing an NRHP-oriented article on it.  But now that it's gone. . . ?  Or, hypothetically, what if the article had already been written before it burned?


 * On WP:NRHP we've sort of established an article of faith that a simple listing on the Register, by that fact, makes any site notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia (witness this discussion). But, it seems to me that the NRHP listing is actually a proxy for a deeper, underlying significance that meets Wikipedia's notability criterion.  That underlying significance doesn't disappear with destruction and delisting.  Therefore, in my view, both the St. Louis Century Building and Trinity Lutheran Church are appropriate subjects for articles.  The only exception would be those NRHP sites that are removed because it was determined they never belonged on the Register in the first place.


 * The counterargument might be that my logic above would broaden the scope of WP:NRHP to include any site that has ever been listed on the NRHP (with the exception above). That seems kind of absurd, especially given that nobody actually does in practice care much anymore for many (not all) structures that have been destroyed/demolished.


 * So I'm pretty much on the fence, but leaning in most cases toward if an editor wants to write an article for a de-listed property, and personally sees some significance in it, then the former NRHP listing justifies the Wikipedia article. Ipoellet 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Properties remain listed on the NRHP until the SHPO requests they be delisted. The NRHP office makes no decisions on delisting. If the SHPO never gets around to it.... There are plenty of examples where a property is destroyed by disaster or demolition, or it loses integrity, or is moved and remains listed in the NRHP for a number of years after. Einbierbitte 18:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We're talkin' FA on Oregon State Capitol
Hello again. WikiProject Oregon is back and we're getting ready to put Oregon State Capitol up for FA review. The backbone of the article is pretty much complete, we think, though there are some bits of information we would still like to add. If anyone would like to give a critique it would be most welcome. Let WP:NHRP share in the FA glory! I've been comparing the article to the only other FA capitol, Michigan State Capitol and I think it compares favorably. As a side note, there is the question of the 158 names of historic people that are painted in the house and senate chambers. I'm wondering if linking to a list of the names would be encyclopedic or afd survivable. An example of the list is on one of my subpages: User talk:Katr67/List of Capitol names/Temp--please disregard the Liberty Ship stuff and other comments, they are for my personal use and wouldn't be part of the final article/list. Also, if we decide to include the list, what should it be named? Thanks for your help! Latr, Katr 15:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mount Auburn Historic District
I'm working on some articles for Ohio / Cincinnati area history, but I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. Here is my first attempt at a NRHP article, please take a look and give me some feedback. Thanks. pw 01:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Flagged and tagged
I went through the state and territory lists and checked the blue links. Some actually work! I tagged the articles with the category and the NRHP WikiProject tag - in case you wondered how over 1,000 new unassessed articles appeared. I also added other WikiProject tags (at least the ones I know) to those as well. I tried to disambiguate some of the links, but not all (so many Lincoln Schools and St. John Churches!). I also checked some of the more obvious (though not all) of the red links and fixed those, as well. Einbierbitte 17:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Naming
What is the naming standard for the articles? "Place Name", if already something else, then "Place Name, City, State" or "Place Name, State" depending on if its in a city or not? pw 03:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Should county be incorporated? Just trying to come up with some good rules prior to stubbing so that all the articles are consistent. Would help for standardization as well. pw 03:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, found it: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_1

Bad article
I have rated Historic house museums as Bad on the assessment scale. It needs serious help from some of the dedicated members here. Trim it, move it, rewrite it, reference it, do what you can. This article is a shame to Wikipedia. Thanks IvoShandor 10:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC
Oregon State Capitol that is part of this WP is up for Featured Article class. If you would like to participate in the process, please see the article talk page. Aboutmovies 03:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

NrhpBot
I finished a run through Hamilton County, Ohio with my bot. If anyone wants to take a look and make some suggestions before I start up on more, feel free. pw 13:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

All up to date
I went through the Recent Listings (http://www/cr.nps.gov/nr/nrlist.htm) up to June 29, 2007. Everything is now up to that date. I made note of it on all the state listings (except FL, IL, OR and WV) with the following notation: This list is complete as of the Recent Listings dated June 29, 2007. That way we know where I stopped - now it's just an easy step to continue from where I left off. Please make changes to the new dates when someone adds to the state lists. The NRIS will catch up in a couple of months. NB: many of the misspellings that occur in the NRIS originate with this Recent Listings list - also wrong counties. I even found they misspelled "cemetery"! As I was updating the state listings I did some clean ups and copy edits. I fixed most of New Jersey and tried to fix some of the inversions (XXX, The) (XXX, Old) and last-name-first to first-name-first in the other states' listings as well. Einbierbitte 22:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Woo Hoo! Thanks for this hard work.  I'll resort some of the NY County ones tomorrow. dm 05:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A "stub" is better than nothing, right?
I've been working with the WikiProject Kansas team, specifically on Cloud County, Kansas and have put together some articles I'd like some input and help on:

articles started
 * Brown Grand Theatre
 * Nazareth Convent and Academy

stubs created
 * Bankers Loan and Trust Company Building (Concordia, Kansas)
 * Charles W. Van De Mark House
 * County Line Bowstring
 * Glasco Downtown Historic District
 * Pott's Ford Bridge
 * Republican River Pegram Truss
 * Union Pacific Railroad Depot (Concordia, Kansas)

Thanks for the input and advice in advance!--Paul McDonald 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So far, so good. I'll give you a couple of hints:
 * You might want to put NRHP-stub on the bottom of the articles to flag them as a stub.
 * For bridges, consider Infobox bridge as well; see WikiProject Bridges for documentation on how to use the template. Actually, I've been a little unsure about using Infobox bridge versus Infobox nrhp for bridges on the National Register - would it be worthwhile to use both?
 * Some of the bridges are covered by Multiple Property Submissions. You can find more information, such as the original National Register nomination forms, by going to the National Register Information System and doing a search by state.  Here's the nomination form for metal truss bridges in the 1861-1939 period.  (They don't talk too much about individual bridges, though.)
 * If you don't already know about the infobox generator and the query by county pages I've done to query the National Register database, they'll prove helpful.
 * Otherwise, good work so far! --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added the Infoboxes to some of these articles. Einbierbitte 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Organization on Commons?
Is there any generally agreed upon way to organize NRHP content on Commons? I'm specifically looking at Category:Registered_Historic_Places_in_Illinois. Some places have gallery pages, some are in their own subcategories, and some are just listed in the main category. I'd be happy to spend some time to clean it up if there's a consensus on how it should be handled. For now I've been adding sites into their own subcategories, but I think I'd rather see them in gallery pages and save the subcategories for more meaningful classification. G LeTourneau 17:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I set up my own sort of system under Category:Registered Historic Places in Florida. See whatcha think. :) -Ebyabe 23:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like the basic concept is county subcategories with either gallery pages or individual images inside - I'd like to go with something along the same lines.G LeTourneau 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Never thought of the counties but that would be useful across the board. I take so many pictures that I give each place its own cat but those could easily be put in the county cats. I like having a cat for each place, especially useful or the work I do on historic districts. IvoShandor 18:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. I'll start moving the sites into subcategories or assigning them for the pictures that are out there under the main cat.  Please yell if anything I'm doing looks goofy. G LeTourneau 18:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got it started - everything is in county categories. There's still quite a bit of cleanup to do, and I'd like to match the category names on commons with the article names here.G LeTourneau 03:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are enough pics, I'll create a subcategory for a specific location. Almost always find that necessary for the districts. It's often a debate with myself as to whether to create pages or categories. Categories are easier, 'cause you can add them when you upload each picture. Either way, you can then add the appropriate wikicommons link or Ebyabe 18:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, if only there were a version of AWB that worked on the commons, my life would be complete. :) -Ebyabe 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do cats until I have a page for the place, not applicable for the hard working Floridian above. I do think city cats can be useful for bigger places with more listings. Cities in Illinois like Chicago, Rockford, Peoria, Springfield and Bloomington all probably have enough NRHP places to justify a NRHP city cat, there are probably others as well, but I have specifically worked with these so I know. IvoShandor 18:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved almost every specific site into it's own category (except buildings in historic districts.) I agree that we should probably use city categories in some cases.  I think there was  already one for Springfield - I just plopped it into the Sangamon County category and left it at that.  I'm also working on a version of List of Registered Historic Places in Illinois for commons:  Commons:User:G_LeTourneau/sandbox2.  I find that page really useful, but it's a mess right now because the Commons categories don't match the Wikipedia article names (another item on the to-do list.)