Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 36

Legend needed
In doing some work over at National Register of Historic Places listings in Rensselaer County, New York, I found that we are in need of a color legend to show what the colors in the left-most column represent. I've made a crude version of what I'm talking about, which could very well be incomplete (or even use the wrong colors, since I was unable to discern what color a NHL was). If somebody better at coding could take a stab at NRHP Legend, it would be appreciated. It's difficult to understand the tables if something like this isn't there to lead the way. If there is already a legend, do tell, because I haven't seen one yet.  upstate NYer  02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I like your version of a legend. Here's another version, hard-coded as a wiki-table, which is used at List of NHLs in AL:


 * Here's the version at List of NHLs in IN, also hard-coded:


 * Those ones are for NHL pages. Here's the version in List of RHPs in Syracuse, a NRHP list-page:


 * It's nice that you have put your version into a template. That exact version would be useful in many other NRHP lists.  But depending on where it is used, you want to be able to include more or different items in a legend.  I see you found Category:Historical Site color templates, as yours is appropriately added to that category. doncram (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, unfortunately I'm not good at coding, and am not fully educated with respect to all the different types of WP:NRHP properties and whatnot. Some refinement would be appreciated. In fact, the text could definitely be made smaller so it doesn't look so bad if a second row is needed or something (or even to be less intrusive as a one-line template). The box code is actually stolen from Smile, so that should tell you how unskilled I am with the html and wikicode. :( But like a said, a standard template would be good to add to the top of these kinds of lists. Could probably even have a bot do it once the design is finalized (I assume there are hundreds if not thousands of these lists).  upstate NYer  07:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like the idea of special markers for MPS groupings — the idea of having markers for different types of listings is great for accessibility reasons, but I don't think we should have anything in the numbers column except for numbers, symbols such as ∞ for indicating the type of listing, and the numbers themselves. Adding MPS markers will only clutter up the column with something that can appropriately be added to the Summary column.  Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, I agree. The legend is an overall key though, and it is useful to footnote the many (26 out of 76) entries in the Syracuse list that are all associated with one MPS, and the several associated with another MPS.  The footnote is attached at the end of the NRHP listing name, not in the numbers column. doncram (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I still disagree: the listing name column isn't for anything except the listing name, and † isn't part of any listing names, so it doesn't belong there any more than it belongs in the date-listed column. That's why we have a Summary column.  Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a whole bunch of different types of NHRPs, I don't think the symbols are necessary. Though, I guess if you're doing it for the colorblind, but then again, you can just change the color scheme so that in B+W all the colors are different shades. But the symbols should be universal, really.  upstate NYer  03:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Big Four House
After a recent patch to Infobox nrhp that suppresses the blue NRHP bar in any infobox that doesn't supply a refnum (which thanks to new parameters "partof" and "partof_refnum" should only be CPs that are not individually listed), I was going through Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup, which now contains all articles with infoboxes that don't have a refnum and aren't CPs or NHLDCPs. When I came across Big Four House in Sacramento, California, the article was in really bad shape with a naked link to the NRHP nomination form and comments from User:Doncram in the text of the article (he tends to work like that in mainspace instead of userspace, but meh.. whatever). I cleaned up the nomination form link and started trying to find a reference number for the infobox, which was my main goal in visiting the article. I tried looking up "Big Four House" and other terms in Elkman's infobox tool, but I couldn't find anything. Then I looked at the NHL summary link for the house and found the reference number listed as 76000541, the same number as the nomination form already linked to in the article.

When I searched Elkman's tool for this reference number, however, it returned the "Southern Pacific Railroad Station" in Davis, California (linked at Davis (Amtrak station)). The nomination form (which has information about the "Big Four House" and not the "Southern Pacific Railroad Station") says that the Big Four (which are people) founded the Southern Pacific Railroad, so there is at least some connection with the two.

The NHL summary page said the house was designated in 1961 before the NRHP was started in 1966, so the house should have been among the first listed on the NRHP on October 15, 1966, but the date on the nomination form was September 1975 and it talked about events that happened as late as 1967. The Railroad Station wasn't listed until 1976, so a September 1975 nomination form date would fit, but nowhere in the form is there any mention of "Southern Pacific Railroad Station"... only "Big Four House".

The nomination form mentioned that the Big Four House had been moved in 1966 from its original location at 220-226 K Street, Sacramento to the North side of I Street between Front and Second Streets, still in the city of Sacramento, and the address listed for the Railroad Station is the corner of H and 2nd Streets, in Davis, California, an entirely separate city. Most of the Davis (Amtrak station) article was written by User:Duran7 (talk) way back in 2006 (and he hasn't made an edit since 2007), and I'm not sure how reliable it is.

I am thoroughly confused as to the connection of these two properties. Maybe there's an error in the NRIS database? Perhaps whoever made the NHL summary page accidentally put in the wrong refnum and it propagated into the creation of the pdf at the wrong location? Maybe the two buildings are actually the same place, and there is an error in the address of the railroad station? All I know is that there are currently two properties in different cities linked to the same reference number, which I thought was impossible. Can anyone sort this out? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Argh, a thorny issue, swept under table while doing NHL article drive of July 4 or bust, 2008. I just dug out another connection between the Davis railroad station ("Southern Pacific Railroad Station", Davis, CA) and the Big Four House.  The Davis railroad station's NRHP application would have been under development/consideration at same time as, and is named very similarly to, "Southern Pacific Railroad Company's Sacramento Depot" which got refnum one digit different, and was NRHP-listed on April 21, 1975.  The Sacramento Depot is located near the original location of the Big Four House.  Definitely there are 2 or 3 webpage and/or database errors, which can only be unraveled by correspondence with the National Register and/or California SHPO.  I detail this out more at wp:NRIS info issues CA.
 * I also added mention of Big Four House now, at top of National Register of Historic Places listings in Sacramento County, California article, while it is omitted from the table there. It should automatically have been NRHP-listed on October 15, 1966, but does not appear in the Federal Register cumulative listing of 1966-1978 items.  Its NRHP status is unclear i guess. doncram (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Camden Expedition Sites
I've come across yet another site that I can't quite figure out. Camden Expedition Sites, listed as an NHL in 1994, consists of 8 (possibly 9) buildings or sites, each individually listed on the NRHP, that were combined to form a single NHL. Some of the sites were listed on the NRHP before 1994, but some were listed on the same date as the NHL listing. On the Camden Expedition article, thanks to User:Doncram (again), there is a comment about the unknown number of sites - 8 or 9 - included in the NHL. The NHL summary listing includes the refnum 70000127, which when I searched Elkman's tool turned up "U.S. Arsenal Building" (linked Tower Building of the Little Rock Arsenal). The discussion on the Camden Expedition article identifies this building as the possible 9th building, the one whose inclusion is questioned. On the Tower Building article, however, it is not listed as an NHL. My questions: Is the refnum on the NHL summary page incorrect? Should the Tower Building's infobox display the NHL designation? Does the Camden Expedition count as an individual NRHP listing and thus require its own refnum? Can anyone help? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to have a reader of my work :). Camden Sites was/is indeed gnarly.  Back in September 2007 i was just getting started, and at about the same time I opened in my userspace what is now projectspace wp:NHL info issues, because i was encountering messy NHL issues with both document access and with conflicting information.  I wasn't yet confident with collecting info there (what would be done with it?) and i didn't copy the Camden Sites issues into that issues list to address with the NPS.  Since then, I have had success getting some NHL webpages updated for typos, but little success in getting the NPS to reconsider more complicated matters such as this.  My best guess, now, based on what I wrote in the Camden Sites article and reviewing the NHL doc, is that locals and/or the state SHPO advocated having the Arsenal/Tower Building included in the NHL, but that was not accepted because it was a historically inaccurate and/or lame stretch to say that the failed Union expedition's forces returned to it.  The other sites are actual battle sites.  It seems to me now that indeed there should be a NRHP listing for the Camden Sites as a group.  There are other cases we've encountered since, where an NHL is declared for a combo of NRHPs, like for the combo of the Boston Public Garden and Boston Common, and i think that is a different award / recognition / collection that should have a different refnum.  So the NHL issues to be noted are:
 * Lack of refnum for the Camden Sites (is there one, was it just not recorded into NRIS, or is it the refnum given in the NHL webpage)
 * Lack of refnum for the Tower Building (is it NRHP-listed separately, or as part of the Camden Sites after all, and is it the refnum given in the NHL webpage for Camden Sites)
 * What local or state designations apply? Perhaps Tower Building only has lower level designations, which would be fine to cover in its article instead.
 * Is the NHL webpage about Camden Sites accurate (have not just checked, but does it have a pic of Tower building, not one of the sites)?
 * These issues can only be resolved by correspondence with the NPS and/or the state SHPO. I don't know if there is an active Arkansas wikipedian who would be interested in taking the lead, tho someone did develop the Tower Building article to GA status and defend it during a GAR that i contributed to.  In absence of interested Arkansan, I would rather take other NHL and NRIS info issues forward, instead.  But these issues noted here should at least be recorded into NHL info issues.  Again, great to have an interested reader, though the scrutiny makes me uncomfortable, too. :) --doncram (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC
Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York) is currently a Featured Article Candidate. Reviews would be appreciated.  upstate NYer  21:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No Redirect class for NRHP banner?
The NRHP banner needs a redirect class. Who wants to make one? DanTD (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added this for you, the category is Category:Redirect-Class National Register of Historic Places articles. I also took the liberty of renaming Image-Class to File-Class as per the change in namespace some time ago. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you even gave redirect categories to NA articles that don't need them. I've started doing null edits for all the redirects that aren't showing up in the category yet. DanTD (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Further categorization for historic district categories
User:Hmains has been placing the various U.S. historic district categories into "protected areas" categories. Several of us have objected to that, for the reason that historic districts are not actually protected under U.S. law. On his talk page, Hmains explains (Hmains (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)):
 * "OK. My goal is to get historic districts into some better category structure than just 'landmarks in foo' or 'history of foo', since these trees do not often extend down to local entities. If protected area is not appropriate, as I can now see, how about 'Geography of foo' since districts are some kind of land area. "

Below is some further discussion copied from the user talk page. I hope that other Wikiproject participants can offer wisdom and ideas. --Orlady (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by Orlady (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC):
 * There has been rather extensive discussion of the historic district categories at the NRHP wikiproject -- over a period of several months.
 * Until a few months ago, all several thousand US historic districts were in a single national category. That category is automatically assigned by the nrhp infobox. A bot process was started to place them into state (and territory) categories. After that process was completed, the auto-categorizing feature for HD categories was supposed to be removed from the infobox template. Unfortunately, that bot process has not been finished -- the bot owner has been otherwise occupied, apparently. Until all of the individual HDs are in state and territory categories, I think that further futzing with their categorization only adds complications to a complicated situation.
 * Historic districts are not necessarily geographic entities ("places"), so they should not be treated as such, except on a case-by-case basis (for those district articles that do double duty as "place" articles). Historic districts are, however, topics under "history", and most individual districts are also included in National Register categories. Because some historic districts are not listed on the National Register, there is an opinion that these categories should not be placed wholesale into National Register of Historic Places categories.


 * Comment by Hmains (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC):
 * Even at the national and state levels, they are physical objects that need to be in a physical-type category, not just in a legal 'places' category. Are they 'geography' or are they 'buildings and structures' or what?  A choice is needed.

Some HDs are not even physically contiguous (examples: 1767 Milestones consists of individual milestones spread over a distance of some 100 miles or so; William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures includes a house and some nearby railroad properties that are historically associated with the house, but apparently not contiguous). I know of a National Register listing for a historic district in my local area (this is an HD that does not have an article) that consists of two neighborhoods that are physically and historically distinct plus another building (not related to either neighborhood) that is located sort of between the neighborhoods and was used to define a contiguous historic district. I suspect the reason to combine those different components was to reduce paperwork in a government agency.
 * Comment by Orlady (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC):
 * Neither and both. (I don't understand your contention that it is necessary for them to be one or the other.) Many HDs include buildings or structures, but some are just landscapes or archeological sites. Some HDs are very small in land area (for example a house, grounds, and outbuildings).


 * Comment by Hmains (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC):
 * I am not dealing at the article level, I am dealing the category level. The category is 'Historic Districts in foo state'.  Does that category go into 'Geography of foo' state or ' Buildings and Structures of foo' state or what.  One or multiple is fine. Historic distracts are physical: they need to physcal category trees.  There is not much other than Geography and Buildings & Structures available.


 * Comment by Orlady (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC):
 * Yes, but the characteristics of the articles and subcategories in a category ought to be considered in determining how that category should be categorized. Let's take this part of the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places -- that's an active wikiproject whose participants have a lot of relevant knowledge and opinions.


 * Comment: MOVE DISCUSSION TO WT:PAREAS I don't think this is an issue for WikiProject NRHP as such. It's more appropriate for WikiProject Protected areas.  There is paused -- not resolved -- discussion at wt:PAREAS about what are Protected areas and (a different question) what does that WikiProject wants to cover.  If the people who care about protected areas want to put the whole NRHP system into the Protected areas category (or to put the WikiProject PAREAS banner on Talk pages), as a NRHP member I don't think WikiProject NRHP needs to care.  Many members here are also members at PAREAS, by the way, but it should be talked out there.  The longterm PAREAS members have not been choosing to comment in the contention at the Talk page there.  It is pretty moronic (extreme positions held adamantly by parties who are inexperienced and relatedly, uninformed, IMHO), and has similarities to now-long-running contention here that many have considered to be ruining this WikiProject NRHP for many people, too. doncram (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No. NRHP-listed properties do not belong in the protected areas classification because they aren't protected. If I own a building in an NRHP-listed historic district in my city, I am free to tear it down, cover it with vinyl siding, put neon lights on the roof, or otherwise wantonly destroy its historic character. NRHP listing is not protection. Some state and local historic districts have protection under state or local law, so those can be individually slotted into protected areas categories, but U.S. HDs as a class are not protected.


 * The issue at WP:PAREAS (this discussion) had to do with whether historic/cultural values are an appropriate basis for treating a protected property as a protected area, or whether only ecological/natural values qualify a property for being considered a protected area. That issue appears to me to have been resolved, although Doncram disagrees with the consensus. --Orlady (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * After reflecting on Hmains' contention that historic district categories need to be slotted in some sort of a physical category, I have concluded "No, they don't." The HD categories currently are appropriately included in history categories, as HDs are a history topic. I don't think the HD categories also need to be included in any physical category. Except for vestigial articles that have not yet been properly developed or categorized (a condition that unfortunately applies to many HD articles right now), almost all individual HD articles are included in at least one physical category that is appropriate for what they are: houses in "houses" categories, cemeteries in "cemeteries" categories, villages in "villages" categories, neighborhoods in "neighborhoods" categories, schools in "schools" categories, university campuses in "universities" categories, islands in "islands" categories, archeological sites in "archeological sites" categories, etc. YMMV, but I cannot see any unserved navigational need that would require that the historic district categories also be slotted into some sort of overarching "physical entity" category. --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't really been reading this conversation, but I posted a while back in a thread here about how I think the HD categories should be handled. See File:Historic District Categories Example.PNG for my idea. They way I would like to see it set up would distinguish between federal historic districts (those on the NRHP) and local historic districts. What do you guys think? (If this is completely irrelevant to this thread, sorry. Like I said, I didn't really read the above stuff.) --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Knox Covered Bridge, Chester County, PA in Valley Forge HD
Knox Covered Bridge, aka Valley Forge Covered Bridge, is a contributing structure in the Valley Forge Historic District. It is also 1 of 15 covered bridges left in Chester County (see http://www.ohiobarns.com/covbri/pa/ches/pachescb.html), 13 of which are on National Register of Historic Places listings in Chester County, Pennsylvania and the List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania. A PDF for the Multiple Property Submission (Thematic Resources) on the covered bridges in Chester County here, says "Four of the bridges are already listed on the National Register (3 individually, 1 as part of Valley Forge National Military Park)." It also lists the Knox Bridge as a Burr Arch built 1865 and "{NHL 1-20-61)". But the Knox Covered Bridge is left off our lists. [Interestingly the 15th bridge, Hayes Clark CB built 1871, was not submitted, perhaps because the construction date is listed as 1971 in the MP Submission].

I'd like to list Knox Covered Bridge on the Pennsylvania NRHP Bridges list. Is there a standard way to do this, or should I just go ahead? There's no way we could put all the contributing structures in the Valley Forge Historic District onto the County list, so I understand the need to not just add things willy-nilly. Smallbones (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll add it to List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania on Tuesday if nobody objects, with a note on the talk page there.  It is, after all, just one line on a very big table.  Smallbones (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

orphan tags on NRHP articles
Hi ... User:Miyagawa has been slapping orphan tags on the NRHP stubs I've been recently creating. I've been creating similar articles for a year and a half now and haven't had this issue previously. I've asked him to please indicate what the criteria are for avoiding having these tags applied to NRHP stubs? Bridgewater Railroad Station‎ and Holland Patent Railroad Station‎ are two articles that have orphan tags. They are appropriately linked to the county list and other articles as need be. Any insights on this?--Pubdog (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See the definition from WP:O — "Orphan: An article with fewer than three incoming links which meet the criteria for linking below". Solution is simple — introduce links from other articles, such as the articles on the communities in which they're located.  Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I found here that  it is recommended to only place the orphan tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles. One or two incoming links may be sufficient as long as they're relevant. So why are they being adding?--Pubdog (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nyttend.--Pubdog (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Holland Patent Railroad Station‎ is used by the Adirondack Scenic Railroad, I added it to that article. On the other hand I can't think of which other article to add Bridgewater Railroad Station to. DanTD (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to add it to the Bridgewater "See also" section, but now I see that Dan did that already. It's better to work it into the text if possible, but I don't immediately see how I would do that, and adding it in the See also is much better than not having it at all.  Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for your assistance with this issue.--Pubdog (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. But the real time to be grateful is when there are no reasons to have those orphan tags. DanTD (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Front Page Cleanup
I just spent about 3 hours overhauling the front page to clean it up and make it more user-friendly. There was an overload of information there, and now it has mostly been moved to subtemplates that already existed (I didn't clean those up, though... they looked more intimidating haha). One main thing I changed is the way recognized content is displayed. I added a bot that will come around occasionally and automatically update the lists of FAs, GAs, FACs, GANs, FLs, etc., so we don't have to. As soon as the bot makes its first run, the manual lists can be removed. I also changed some other things like how new articles/pictures are handled. Instead of transcluding the "/New articles" and "/New pictures" subpages, I made it so that new images/pictures should be added to the main page and then at the end of the month be archived into the subpages. This makes the TOC and consequently the whole front page look more organized. Other than that, I just really moved around some things and followed an organizational scheme instead of just throwing everything out there like it was before. I happen to like this front page much better, but if you have any problems, comments, or suggestions about it, you can either reply here or on my talk page. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While it was sorely needed, I did appreciate having the xlink to the NRHP and NHL pages at the NPS site. Can we put those back? Or create some sort of "resources" subpage with the links to the federal state database pages? Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Look at the Resources section right above "Members". I think the information you want is in those links. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me! Altairisfar 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me too. The "Editor help" and "Resources" subpages were previously transcluded onto the main page, but had grown long.  However, now that they are separate pages to visit, i look at them and can't tell logically why they are split.  Shouldn't WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Resources be merged into WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Editor help?  They are both providing resources/help to editors.  And, some short description of what is provided in the subpage(s) could now be included in the main page, now that these are split out.  Thanks for tackling this! doncram (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They were split up before, so I guess I just left them as they were for fear of taking on too much at once haha. I actually haven't edited that much with them.. I just took out what I needed and dumped a bunch of stuff into whichever one I thought it fit into haha.. I guess I'll get around to cleaning up those subtemplates, merging them, and making them easier to spot on the main page. Right now I'm working on a little backdoor cleanup, putting templates such as Template:Infobox nrhp2 and nrhp3 that are no longer in use up for deletion. User:MSGJ volunteered to delete the templates no longer needed here (except a few like the sandbox, testcases, doc, etc.), and I keep staring at this not knowing where to start haha... And on top of all that, I'm waiting for the job queue to sort out the remaining erroneous 14,000 articles in Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup, so I can start on those again.
 * Apparently this wikiproject hasn't had an oil change in years, so it's going to take a while, but I hope to shorten the list of subpages necessary for this project and make everything in general easier to navigate. There are so many things out there that no one even knows about because somehow over time they've been lost in the clutter, and I'm trying to get them out in the open once again. Help is always appreciated (wink wink) :P. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like to look gift horses in the mouth, and certainly the new front page looks good, but I wonder if perhaps the new bot is a little much of a good thing --- 50,000 bytes of additions just now -- almost 1,200 DYK articles. If I had unlimited resources, I'd tell the bot to look and see how many page hits each DYK got while it was up and pick the top 100.... or maybe just the most recent 100, with a total count appended.


 * As far as helping with the rearrangement, if Dudemanfellabra will point me at a task that won't conflict with what he's doing, I'll do it.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well.. I didn't know how much the bot was going to add haha, but it seems that we have a plethora of DYKs.. What if we removed that showing on the front page? DYK isn't all that big of an honor (IMO.. no offense), and GA/FA is much more noteworthy. The bot doesn't have a setting that I'm aware of that will cut the list off after a certain number, so it's all or nothing. In light of the fact that we have 3216546432890 billion DYKs, I think I'm going to remove them. I'll also remove all the manual lists that were up there before. Sound good?
 * I think I'm going to start with WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide and get it up to date. Hopefully I'll be able to bring a lot of the stuff that's on the other subpages into that one and maybe be able to delete a few in the process. If, Jim, you'd like to help hammer out the guidelines over there, you're more than welcome. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a big fan of DYK, but yeah, there's too many to just list on the main page. Leave a link to where we can find them. Ntsimp (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I just left a comment for the bot at User talk:JL-Bot/Project content asking him if he could add a parameter for a list limit. If you want to comment there, feel free. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New article and photo announcements
Overall i like the simplifications and other changes. But for the "New articles" and photos announcements, I think it's a mistake to set up a new process rather than using the scrolling window displaying the most recent ones. The current setup would have u edit the main page to announce a new article (causing a hit on everyone's watchlist, not just for those who choose to watchlist the new articles announcements article) and require someone else to move each one, later, to an archive. The scrolling box was working well here (and similar one at wp:capdis by the way), i thot. I do like how the new articles are one per line, with nothing off to the right, so that longer titles and/or annotatations can be added. Sometimes in the past people have included a parenthetical note about their new article, which i liked. Perhaps change section title to more clearly allow people to announce anything they are proud of, like an article expansion? --doncram (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For one, there are no other scrolling windows now, so a scrolling window would look out of place. Also, come November or December, there would be a huge list of 11-12 sections, cluttering the page. If only a single month at a time is left up there, the page is less cluttered. At the end of every month, someone should just copy over that section to the archive, which is linked. This would probably be done by whoever was the first person to make a "February 2010" section (in this case). The January section would be archived. It's not really that much of a hassle. About the watchlist thing, it's kind of good that new articles/pictures cause a hit on everyone's watchlist.. they get more attention that way. Instead of the probably tens of people that watch the new articles page, 100s of people get the notification and know about the new article. New notifications on your watchlist aren't that annoying, are they? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Grand Canyon on the Register?
File:National Register of Historic Places Property types collage.jpg seems to say that the Grand Canyon itself (not just certain properties and districts associated with it) is on the Register as a site. I've searched, but I can't find anything from the NPS saying that the Canyon or parts thereof are on the Register. Am I missing something, or is this image in error? Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Short answer: you're right and you surely know it. Long answer, for the record -- The Grand Canyon is a National Park, and therefore, unlike a National Historic Landmark, is not on the NRHP.  We don't even carry it on our auxiliary list at the bottom of List of National Historic Landmarks in Arizona because, as a plain "National Park" (not a "National Historical Park"), it does not have its status for primarily historic reasons.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  11:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've filed a request at the Graphics Lab to have the Grand Canyon replaced with a photo of Pikes Peak, which is an NHL. Nyttend (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Architectural classification categories
Lots and lots of NRHP articles use architectural style categories, and most of these divide up by state. For example, Category:Gothic Revival architecture has categories for most US states (e.g. Category:Gothic Revival architecture in Maryland). I've gone through and taken care of Gothic Revival, re-categorizing well over 200 articles. If you are making a new article and use one of these categories please consider using the "in state" category instead of the general category.

For reference, you may see all the "by state" categorizations in Category:American architectural styles by state. Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am working on one for Makawao Union Church now User:W Nowicki/Makawao Union Church which I think will be the first (perhaps only?) in the state of Hawaii. Should we create a category just for it? I suppose we might find others later. W Nowicki (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally have put singletons under "style architecture in the United States" but I'm not adverse to single page state categories either.Mangoe (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeking Guidance on Rochester split from Monroe County, New York
Hello: In December, I split the Rochester listings from Monroe County, New York to create National Register of Historic Places listings in Rochester, New York. I had found downloading the 155 entries of the combined lists to be unwieldy and thought moving the Rochester entries to a separate list, as I had done for Buffalo and another user had previously done for Syracuse to be natural. The Monroe County list now has 70 entries and Rochester has 85. Powers has taken exception to this, admittedly, unilateral decision on my part. I am seeking guidance on when a split is appropriate. My thought was that users of these pages would also appreciate that the city lists were separate from the surrounding county, especially when there were so many for each city (Buffalo = 80, Syracuse = 75). I also created the associated New York NRHP template so that the separate city lists would be clear. Please advise. The discussion can be found at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Monroe County, New York--Pubdog (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a downside to splitting the Rochester listings from those in the rest of Monroe County. As Pubdog points out, it's been common practice in other counties to do this when one locality has a substantial number of listings and the remainder of the county has enough listings to warrant a separate list. Although there aren't all that many photos in these lists right now, fully illustrated lists with 150 entries can take quite a long time to load. Powers ... what's your objection to the split? --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merely disassociation of related content. It turns the list of places in Monroe County into a list of some of the places in Monroe County.  It forces people to look at two lists to see all of the listings in the county.  The city limits are not as well known as county limits are, so some properties near the borders may become hard to find.  Powers T 03:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully understand the need to split up some listings because of the lack of speed in loading them. I worked in splitting National Register of Historic Places listings in Chester County, Pennsylvania with a couple other editors. (309 listings into 3 sublists) Having some help - another pair of eyes - might be useful.  User:Shereth above suggested something about the coord template that might speed up loading, and I think that is quite important.  Is it already working? Smallbones (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly support split — it's long-accepted practice to split overly large lists into multiple pieces, and in my experience (over 35 different states), we always split out individual municipalities if there are one or a few municipalities with a large percentage of listings. Smallbones' example of Chester County is an exception, but only because the listings were very evenly distributed among municipalities, so splitting out any individual municipality wouldn't help much.  When half of the listings in an overly-large list are in one municipality and the rest are in all the others, it's a great idea to split out one municipality.  155 listings in a single county is definitely long enough to be split.  Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed We're splitting out towns in Massachusetts that are much smaller than this. It makes a lot of sense, even in cases like Boston where it's the tail wagging the dog (267 entries in Boston, 18 in the rest of Suffolk County). (BTW, Sanfranman59, it's not the photos that take the loading time, it's the coords, see my benchmarks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 34). . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  11:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't see how it "makes a lot of sense". Perhaps almost three hundred entries is too many, but I thought 155 was a nice number and it was good to see all of the listings in the county rather than just some of them.  Are the coords really necessary on the list articles, given the performance hit they cause?  Maybe if we took those out, we wouldn't feel as much need to split lists that really aren't all that long.  Powers T 15:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd much rather keep the coordinates in. The coordinates give reason to keep more together, so that the linked Google/Bing maps are more useful, showing all NRHP-listed places in the larger area.
 * But hey, if someone local wants to keep it together for accessibility, and says that the distinction between county vs. city are not well-known, I think that is okay. I have used such reasons in wanting not to split out Buffalo a while back (which has recently been split out).  I am uncomfortable with some other splits that have been implemented, such as List of RHPs in Indianapolis where the center has been split out, leaving an awkward donut-shape, and other state/county cases where fragmentation of lists makes it harder for readers and editors.
 * And note there are larger lists, with List of RHPs in Detroit now at 234 entries and 169,000 bytes in size. Splitting has been discussed for Detroit, but there hasn't emerged any good split plan.
 * There is no urgency to doing the split now. (Note, i did give reasons at the Talk page of the list-article why i might prefer splitting sooner rather than later, but I think the reasons are outweighed by preference to defer to interested local editors.  More local editors may emerge, given time, too.) Here, why not discuss split options and let it be for a while.  Since Pubdog did implement a split of table and that takes a lot of editing, how about re-merge by moving the Rochester table back into the Monroe county list-article, which would have two sections.  I think that is a compromise which does accomplish something useful (providing linked Google/Bing maps that show all the properties). doncram (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. National Register of Historic Places listings in King County, Washington is another example where there is a city table for Seattle and a separate section and table for the rest of the county. This was preferred by local editor(s), i think User:Murderbike, for whatever reason.  It's at 77,000 bytes size and is fine.  The main thing is to facilitate and not block development of NRHP individual listing material, in separate individual articles and in the list-articles.  If grouping all of county together is felt to be better by some active editors, let them keep it that way! doncram (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for referencing the King County, Washington list as an example of a compromise. Although I would still contend that the split of Rochester entries is appropriate for the reasons stated above, I would not object to Powers re-merging as presented for King Co. Please note that the NY NRHP template will also have to be edited as a result.--Pubdog (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If I had to vote between keeping the list as one and keeping coordinates, I'd vote to keep the list as one, keep the coordinates, and tolerate the longer load times. While the coordinates are occasionally significantly wrong, they are usually close enough to make them a good way to plan trips, whether it be to just see the sites, or to photograph them for Commons.  The longer load times are a nuisance, which this proposal would help, but the coordinates are close to essential. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  23:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the idea of removing the coordinates from the tables. As Jim says, they are invaluable in planning visits to the sites in a geographic area. It's become one of my favorite hobbies over the past couple of years to take photos of sites on the Register and it would have been immeasurably more difficult without the maps generated from our lists. --sanfranman59 (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur that removing the coordinates from the tables would be disasterous. I too rely on the Bing / Google maps to locate NRHP sites for photos and find this resource invaluable.--Pubdog (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the coords would still be on the individual articles, but maybe that's less technologically feasible; I don't know. Powers T 12:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From the earlier discussion, it sounded to me like the °N, °W template could be tweaked to prevent excessive function calls (or whatever it was that was slowing load times) in large lists while keeping the same utility--kind of a template, in other words.  However, I don't know if anyone ever followed up on that. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I partially re-merged the articles, putting the Rochester table into the Monroe County NRHP list-article. It's at 51,000 bytes.  LtPowers and others, let's continue at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Monroe County, New York about further developing the list-article.  There must be HABS pics available, for example.  Split decision to be revisited later, if/when size is more of an issue.  Pubdog did great work creating articles for all of the Monroe County NRHP listings already, by the way.  Now we should improve those and get pics!
 * About getting use of a better coords-lite template, i am all for that, for the Detroit article especially! --doncram (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Powers ... what makes the coordinates in the lists so convenient is that they are all in one place and maps of all coordinates on the page may be created by clicking the links in the "Map of all coordinates ..." box. I use these maps all the time when going on my NRHP treasure hunts/photo expeditions. --sanfranman59 (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been struggling to split off cities and villages in Westchester County, New York, and while I successfully created new lists for New Rochelle, New York and Peekskill, New York, I'm still trying to sort out those in Ossining, Tarrytown and Sleepy Hollow. Daniel Case wants me to split the county between Upper Westchester and Lower Westchester, but I'm not entirley certain where the dividing line between Upper and Lower Westchester ought to be. Using the Cross Westchester Expressway might be considered the logical choice, until you realize the fact that the expreessway goes through too many towns. What I have considered was merging the two proposed lists for Tarrytown and Sleepy Hollow, and maybe throwing Irvington in the mix. Also, there are a lot of new entrys being added to the Nassau County, New York list, that should be added to individual town lists. What happened to the Suffolk County, New York list should happen to the Nassau list too. DanTD (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)