Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 40

Review on Article.
Can a few editors go and look at the Union Avenue Historic Commercial District article. I've added a lot of info and pared down in other areas. I would like to see what the current opinion on it's status is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is O. Henry Hall in the NRHP?
It would seem like a likely candidate for it. bd2412 T 01:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. It is listed as the U.S. Post Office and Federal Building (#70000771). I can add an infobox if you like. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:CfD discussion on categories for "of religious function"
Some NRHP Wikiproject members are likely to have useful opinions regarding the proposal I posted at WP:CfD to adopt a consistent name for the categories for religion-related listings on the National Register. Please comment there. --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Two more discussions at WP:CfD
And two more CfD discussions related to NRHP: Category:History of the National Register of Historic Places (only article in this category is History of the National Register of Historic Places) nominated for deletion and brand-new category Drinking establishments on the National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts nominated for merger to the parent category. --Orlady (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Parkway (Brooklyn)
I want to bring this article into attention. It is almost unsourced, it appears like a patchwork of WP labels, not to speek from formal deficiencies. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC) (knowing that they're articles out wich are much worse)

Translation problem with some articles I am translating
Hi. I have ran into an issue concerning the term tile which has several meanings. However I feel that the translations available in dictionaries (printed as well as online) do not meet the meaning used within two articles I found. Worse, it seems (at least for me) that the term is used with different meanings in British and American English in the respective articles not speaking of tiles used for roofs or floors. Actually the article Tile does not help in this case very much.


 * The dining room's ceiling has been redone in tile. from Lace House (Canaan, New York)
 * A red-brick facing was applied to the south face in the 18th century, and the west side is partly brick-faced and partly tiled. from Ifield Friends Meeting House
 * ...other walls are brick to the ground floor and tile-hung on the upper storey.' (several times in Listed buildings in Crawley)

Could please one check if there's English synonymes for those meanings so I can find a translation? --Matthiasb (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The meaning of "tile" in Lace House (Canaan, New York) is unclear to me. I infer it means that  ceiling tiles were added to the dining room, but I'm not certain.  If that's the case, then "the dining room's ceiling has been redone in tile" is synonymous with "a dropped ceiling has been added to the dining room."


 * As for the other two references, I presume based on this, that a "tile-hung" or "tiled" exterior is an exterior surface covered with clay "shingles." I, in the Midwestern US, have never seen such a thing. I imagine that "tile-hung" may be self-explanatory to Britons, but to me it's an unfamiliar concept.  I would say that the structure on the right was "shingled with clay tiles," but that phrasing is only because of my ignorance. Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My guess on the "tile" ceiling is that some form of ceramic or porcelain tile was affixed to the ceiling. It's also possible that the appearance of an historical ceiling type was replicated using modern material -- such as the tile illustrated in File:Ceilingtile medallion.jpg. I think it unlikely that a dropped ceiling would be installed in the dining room of an historic home. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Andrew Jameson is correct with respect to the Crawley example and 5 Langley Lane. In American English if a similar material were used on the roof, we would call it a "tile roof", as in - Roof with pigeons -.jpg. This is very common in Florida and the Southwest USA.


 * I think it's even money whether the Lace House dining room is nice ceramic tile or just fiberboard acoustic tiles (dropped or not) -- perhaps Orlady has not seen some of the horrible things done to historic houses in Massachusetts -- just look through my images of Quincy for vinyl siding.... Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wel I guess that Andrew Jamesons suggestion might be working in German language, since actually shingle translates to Schindel and this word is used as well in German language for wooden roofs as well as for pieces of woods used for siding of houses. We don't have an expression for clapboard (architecture) though. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Shingle" in English is also used to describe roof shingles as well as "siding" shingles--see Cape Cod style architecture or, well, Shingle Style architecture. When used to describe siding, "shingle" normally implies wood material.  I've heard "shingle" also used to describe asphalt siding shingles, but with the qualifier, i.e. "asphalt shingles."  I've never heard of "clay tile shingles," but as I say, that would be the descriptor I would use for the buildings you're referring to. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on federal courthouse naming conventions at WP:USCJ
Please weigh in on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges, since many of the buildings currently at issue are NRHP buildings. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Center City Philadelphia NRHPs
I may have jumped the gun a bit on listing the Center City Philly list as "fully-illustrated." I'm still trying to double check that the demolished buildings (esp. those in the Pennsylvania Convention Center expansion area) are really demolished. But I have to get out of town for several days - might I ask that folks here take a look and see if there are any obvious flaws that I've overlooked? Given the historic importance of this area (birthplace of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, capital under Washington, etc.), I'd like to eventually take this to a featured list. That will take a while, but any help or pointers on that would be greatly appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

RHPs in the news
Just saw this in the paper and it made me think of y'all. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011608445_preservation15.html?prmid=related_stories_section Murderbike (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mill City Museum
I need help editing a draft of the Mill City Museum article. Also please consider contributing to the discussion on the Washburn A Mill article Talk:Washburn A Mill, Washburn A Mill constitutes part, but not all of the Mill City Museum, so I need to know if it would be better to place the article under Mill City Museum or place a redirect on the Washburn A Mill article. It could use some good pictures as well. Thank you. Wkaardal (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a few pictures from a previous visit I made there. As far as splitting the Mill City Museum article from the Washburn "A" Mill article is concerned, I'm not clearly decided one way or another.  Larry Millett, in the book AIA Guide to the Twin Cities, describes the mill itself in one section and then discusses the museum in the following section.  The section on the museum talks about the architecture that was involved in building the glass-walled museum structure inside the oldest and most heavily damaged part of the mill.  So, it could be useful to have one article about the historical mill structure and another article about the museum, the new construction that was involved in it, and the exhibits that interpret the history of the mill.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 01:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting two former CA&E stations articles
Is anybody willing and able to do articles on Ardmore Avenue Train Station and Villa Avenue Train Station? Both are former stations of the Chicago, Aurora and Elgin Railroad, which has a category for former CA&E stations, but only two articles are listed on that category. DanTD (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/coords
I just discovered this page and its many subpages to which it links. It appears that this was a three-years-ago project dealing with coordinates in some way, but I can't find the details, and I definitely don't see how it's a useful page now. Any ideas what could/should be done with it? Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it for deletion; please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/coords. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

categories for NRHP list-articles
For the state-wide Missouri list article (shortcut List of RHPs in MO), the current categories are: Those are fine and good, but perhaps it should also be in a category of National Register of Historic Places lists for, or in, Missouri, too? There are other MO NRHP lists.
 * Category:National Register of Historic Places lists by state
 * Category:National Register of Historic Places in Missouri
 * Category:Missouri-related lists

Also for National Register of Historic Places listings in Missouri, Counties A–B, which provides county tables for the first 11 counties alphabetically, the only category currently is: while it should be in some more, right? --doncram (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:National Register of Historic Places in Missouri

What is a "block" in the context of historic properties in the U.S.?
The recent creation of a category for "Blocks on the National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts" has led me to ruminate on the meaning of "block," as that term is used in the naming and description of late 19th-century and early 20th-century structures in the U.S.

As I commented at Category talk:Commercial blocks on the National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts (and earlier at Category talk:Blocks on the National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts), I have a hunch that in the late 19th century it was fashionable to use "block" as part of the name of a large commercial building. On the other hand, the word might have been reserved for complexes of adjacent and attached buildings constructed at the same time.

Most of the articles in the Massachusetts "blocks" category are pro forma stubs that don't shed any light on the definition of the term. However, Bedford Block in Boston is described as one building. I've been looking around elsewhere for indications of how it might be defined. Here are some examples of what I've found:
 * At Commercial buildings in Sycamore Historic District, Ivoshandor wrote about: "...several buildings known as "blocks" which can consist of more than one adjacent and attached structure, as is the case with the Waterman Block, one of the Sycamore commercial buildings." That suggests that a "block" is a building, but a building that consists of multiple attached structures.
 * The term "commercial block" is used as a noun in Warenski-Duvall Commercial Building and Apartments, contributed by Stundra. The "commercial block" described seems to be one building.
 * Hall's Opera Block in Avon, NY, is described as one building.
 * Adams-Pickering Block in Bangor, Maine, is apparently one building.
 * H. C. Pitney Variety Store Building (Tampico, IL) is described as "part of a two-story commercial block along Main Street." The block consists of two connected buildings constructed a year apart.
 * "Pineville Commercial Block" in Pineville, NC, seems to refer to a whole city block consisting of adjoining buildings constructed at different times
 * The NPS appears to use "Victorian Commercial Block" and "Victorian Historic District" almost interchangeably when discussing a group adjacent commercial buildings, built at different times, in Lexington, KY
 * The Mount Baker Block Building in Port Townsend, WA, is one building.

I'm hoping that some of the architectural historians who frequent this page can enlighten the rest of us on this terminology, and provide input on the question of whether "Block" is a meaningful characteristic to define a category. --Orlady (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know nothing of architecture, but from a few searches it seems the term business block refers to a particular architectural style. Ntsimp (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I found a Microsoft Word document at the Pine Island Minnesota site (here) about their historic downtown that says as follows: "The term business block entered American English in the early nineteenth century and was used to describe a large, ornate commercial building that featured a combination of stores, shops, offices, and apartments. Business blocks tended to have proper names (e.g., the Opera House Block) and had a more enriched façade than ordinary storefronts." HTH, Ntsimp (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of relevant architectural information can also be found in Google searches for the phrases "one-part commercial block", "two-part commercial block", "three-part commercial block", and even "four-part commercial block"&mdash;which returns a single NRHP entry. Ntsimp (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe its somewhat simpler than that. The dictionary definition is "a large building divided into separate functional units." As an example, see the Harlow Block image on the right.  It's clearly a single building, with unified design and construction, having the same floor plate, and sharing materials.  It's just as clearly divided into separate units.  There are likely some structures which tread the boundary between being best described as a "block" and best described as something else, but I don't think that's unusual in architectural definition: there's rarely a bright line. Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (Adding) I think some of the uncertainty is that block (obviously) also means "a usually rectangular space (as in a city) enclosed by streets and occupied by or intended for buildings." I think the NPS is using this definition in the "Victorian Commercial Block" writeup, and it possibly appears in other places. Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that these are simply big buildings shaped like rectangular prisms (and typically brick, I'd guess) whose owners or builders named them "_____ Block". It's not the NPS that decided to call these buildings "blocks" — here in western Ohio, I often see "_____ Block" at the tops of large nineteenth-century business buildings in downtowns.  See this picture and this picture, for examples — the tops of the two buildings in the first picture are inscribed "Martin Block" and "Kibby Block", and "Union Block" appears above a doorway in the second picture.  I've never seen a "_____ Block" that comprised two different buildings (e.g. your Pitney Variety Store Building example), so I'd guess that such a situation is rare.  Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hard to see in the image, but the separate building referred to in the Pitney Variety Store Building article is architecturally nearly identical, with the same windows, cornice, and floor height, and directly connected to the original building (see this Google street view). I think you might consider the store as a (substantial) addition to the original building rather than a separate building altogether. Andrew Jameson (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That Google street view image is a good find, Andrew. It strongly supports the theory that some blocks are multiple structures that were considered to form a single building. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything else to add here? (I'm still hoping -- probably in vain -- that someone can provide authoritative information.) --Orlady (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Properties whose address has changed
What is the correct action to take when it is clear that a property's address has changed? Edward Gardner House, listed at 89 Cambridge Street, is currently numbered Zero Gardner Place. (It's the only house between 85 and 93 Cambridge Street, and the rest of Gardner Place is clearly a small subdivision that may post-date the 1989 listing date.) I also have a second suspected change of address for another property in Winchester (Oak Knoll, now probably 23 Brooks Street) that I may follow up with the local historic commission/society.

Is this something that should go into a list of things for NRIS?  Magic ♪piano 13:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We note changes of location for things such as ships, so I don't see why we shouldn't report this as well. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Was Magicpiano asking about a building that'd been physically moved, or one whose street had been renamed or renumbered? I interpreted his question as the latter.  If that's so, I'd like to second his question: it applies to a couple of rural properties in Platte County, Nebraska.  At the time of their listing, a rural-route system was in use; since then, however, the county roads have been named and numbered.  Ammodramus (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation is correct. These specific properties have had addresses changed (street name and/or number) without moving; both apparently as a consequence of development (specifically, new roads changing the entry to the property) after the property's listing.  Magic ♪piano 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd keep the NRHP-given adress, as long as it might make sense to somebody. After all it's an official reliable source.  On the other hand, I don't see a problem putting in a phrase like ,"now numbered 101 New Street" as long as there is some evidence that it actually is so numbered - reliable sources might be hard to find on this, so I'd accept a "semi-reliable source" such as an iffy commercial website, an offline telephone book, a blogish news source ...  If there is a truly reliable source that says the whole numbering system has been changed in a certain area that includes a listing, but doesn't specifically mention the listing and there are other iffy sources, I might write "at 101 New Street (listed by the NRHP as 201 Old Street)."  Just suggestions ... these type of things do come up and please use your best judgement.  Thanks for checking in here.  Smallbones (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I like Smallbones's suggestion. I'd even accept a Google Street View as long as the number was visible. Einbierbitte (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While this isn't the place to debate WP:NOR or WP:V, if someone asked me to cite these observations, I'd point them to the geocoordinates and invite them to verify it directly. If this violates the letter of WP's policies, they're broken.  Magic ♪piano 00:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A photo of the place with the number showing would work...pictures are an exception to WP:NOR, I believe. Lvklock (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite so simple. First, I have trouble with Magicpiano's suggestion of using the coords. The coords provided in NRIS are rarely sufficiently accurate to locate a particular house. Of the almost 500 NRHP sites I have photographed in the northeast, I'll bet I've changed 450 coords after the fact. (One might ask if our changing NRIS coords is a violation of WP:NOR, but let's not go there.)

Second, the street number is rarely visible on Google Street View. If there's a front yard, they're also hard to see on photos taken from the street. I think the number falls in the same category as a historical plaque which can't be shown on Wikipedia for copyright reasons, but can be cited (see Fort Banks Mortar Battery for two examples) -- so an editor can write, "the address is now 101 New Street. " Some may think it's stretching to say that a street number is "published" by its appearance on the building, but it strikes me as odd that we will accept an editor writing that a book available only in an obscure library says X is true, but have trouble with an editor saying that he saw such and such a building with a particular street number. Both are verifiable by anyone who chooses to go to the appropriate place.

So, I like Smallbones suggestion of simply writing "at 101 New Street (listed by the NRHP as 201 Old Street)" with, perhaps, a few more words to clarify whether the building has been moved or the address simply changed. In all but the simplest case, there might be a brief explanation on the talk page or in a footnote. Keep it simple -- these are not controversial facts that need solid cites to protect Wikipedia from people with their own POV. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would, of course, give accurate coordinates (or at least, sufficiently accurate for use in mapping software like Google Maps); I know NRIS coordinates are inaccurate. To the suggestion that a photograph is sufficient: how do you verify that the photograph showing the street number is in fact of the correct property?  This is a serious question; I have uploaded dozens of photos for use on NRHP listing articles, and precious few of them show either street name or number.  How do you know I've photographed the correct properties? For all anyone knows, I've just been taking pictures around my neighborhood.  My word (that the address is what it currently is) should be as good as my photograph, if ground work is needed to properly verify either.  As I said above, this is probably best debated at the relevant policy pages.  Magic ♪piano 12:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I routinely correct addresses on the lists of NRHPs as I'm adding photos. Some addresses have changed, but in even more cases an actual address wasn't originally listed, just something vague like "off State Highway N". Since the coordinates are so unreliable, it makes sense to correct this to say where the property really is, whether or not some source has got it right. Is this in fact controversial? Ntsimp (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like most folks are a little less strict on WP:V on this question than my comments above. I'll go along with that, particularly with Jameslw's comments.  The problem is that we've got a RS (NRHP nominations) that everybody needs to use that is sometimes a slightly unreliable and not updated.  That's a can of worms that we should probably discuss sometime, but I'll let somebody else open it.  But we should probably get a consensus among ourselves before taking it to the policy pages.  I don't think street numbers on buildings or basic street signs are copyrightable, but they don't work very well in most photos of a site.  I take tons of  pictures of street signs and numbers, so that I can verify to myself where I was when I took photos in a series.  But I think that I've only uploaded one of these location pictures - and that was for a delisted site, see File:Dog Gone it.JPG.  BTW, if that photo doesn't verify the location of the building, I don't know what would.  Smallbones (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How do any of us know that any picture anyone posts for an NRHP is actually of that building? Ya gotta take some things on faith.  As far as how to be sure it's the right place, most NRHP nominations have pics.  In NY, where I take most of my pics, they're available online, and when I have a question I look at the nom pics to verify that mine was right.  If they're not available online, you can always request it "by emailing a request to the National Register staff, at nr_reference (at) nps.gov. If they have them scanned already you will get them back by email; if not, they will send a copy to you by postal mail so send a postal mail address." (quote lifted from doncram's instruction elsewhere)  As far as visibility of the number, generally on my pics you may not be able to read a number in the size pic in the article, but I can zoom in on it and read it.  If it was an issue, I suppose we could take a distant pic and a pic close up enough to read of the number and showing enough detail to show it's the same house and include that either on the talk page or in the article as documentation.  I don't really think it's necessary though. Lvklock (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * At WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Editor help under state specific sources I found this http://mhc-macris.net/ resource that lead me to this result where the fourth item has a picture of this property.  The picture is from a different view, but the chimney looks right to me.  I'm sure you (Magicpiano) can tell better, having been there, but it looks like the same place to me. Lvklock (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also found the pictures in Macris for these two specific properties. I still need to double-check the Oak Knoll property (which I have not photographed yet), but I'm 90% sure based on what I remember of the geography that it's now 23 Brooks.  Magic ♪piano 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that I more or less said that we have to take each other on faith -- both address changes and photographing the right house -- that saying, "Thus and so is true because I saw it there on such and such a day", might be classed by some as OR, but I don't see a big difference between that and saying, "Thus and so is true because this book in this library says so." Either one can be verified by another User who goes to the place or the library. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places in (State) cats
Hi Hmains. I noticed that you're in the process of adding a cat for each state's NRHP listing to separate out buildings and structures (and then to list that under both the state NRHP cat and the building and strucure national cat. Certainly not all, but a large majority of NRHP listings are a buildings and structures so I wasn't sure what the goal was.  Was there already a discussion I missed on setting up the new group of cats?  Thanks, RevelationDirect (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While most HRHP are are buildings and structures, many are not. I leave those in the national and state Category:National Register of Historic Places cats. The reason for doing this is that the national and state Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places cats can then be properly placed and handled under the national and state Category:Buildings and structures in the United States cats, something that was not previously possible. Hmains (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the background. I don't really have an opinion on the change.  I did repost our conversation from your talk page on the NRHP WikiProject so other editors won't be caught off guard when their watchlist lights up.RevelationDirect (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible delisted property?
Today I went to Richmond, Utah and took some photos to add to National Register of Historic Places listings in Cache County, Utah. When I got home I went looking for information on some of these at the Focus site, and found one of the properties on the list doesn't appear there: Richmond City Grandstand & Baseball Field. That's one of the places I took a picture of, so I'm curious&mdash;does that mean it was delisted? How do I find out when? I don't see any way to search through all the weekly action lists. The reference number is 04001130. Thanks, Ntsimp (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's listed here Einbierbitte (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I knew about that. But why doesn't it show up at NPS Focus? Ntsimp (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Could be a mistake in the database (I was able to find this). Maybe sending an e-mail to the NPS would be useful. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 14:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability of historic district properties
Are contributing properties to a historic district notable? I'm planning on continuing my work on the Texas Technological College Historic District properties and wanting to know if several of the buildings might face notability hurdles. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Contributing properties are not inherently notable. In some cases many or most contributing properties are indeed notable in and of themselves--see Detroit Financial District as an example.  On the other hand, some districts may contain no individually notable properties. As an example of this, see Rosedale Park Historic District (Detroit, Michigan).  It's the largest historic district in the nation (by number of properties), but to my knowledge contains no individually notable properties whatsoever.  (Or, as another example, my house is in a HD, and although all right-thinking people would agree that my very presence within it instantly confers notability, I'm not planning on writing an article about it any time soon. :)  Bottom line is that, IMO, the fact that a property is part of a historic district has no bearing on its individual notability, although having the additional reliable source of the nom form may help in building a case for notability. Andrew Jameson (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the contributing properties in the University of Florida Campus Historic District? Some of them like Leigh Hall don't seem like they could ever be anything more than a stub. I can make some of the properties in the Texas Tech district much larger but I just don't want to work on them if they're going to be considered non-notable. NThomas (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * AJ above is correct - the answer is "it depends." For a more concrete answer, but one based only on a quick reading - for both U of florida and Texas Tech, I would have tried to make one big article for the district and contributing buildings.  The individually listed buildings should have their own articles, AND be briefly mentioned in the district article.  Then, if the district articles get too big and clumsy, do separate articles on the most interesting contributing buildings.  But that's just my snap judgement - please use your own considered judgment.  Smallbones (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Shelby House disambiguation
By a Requested Move proposal at what was, i think, "Talk:Shelby House (Botkins, Ohio)", an editor indirectly proposed deletion of "Shelby House" disambiguation, with argument that all the other NRHP-listed Shelby Houses (including variants like "Firstname Shelby House" and "Shelby-Othername House") were not valid disambiguation page entries. The requested move was closed with the Botkins, Ohio one being moved to "Shelby House" as if it is wp:PRIMARYUSAGE for the term, and disambiguation was moved to "Shelby House (disambiguation)".

I reopened a new requested move to reverse that and restore the disambiguation page to "Shelby House". Please consider commenting at Talk:Shelby House. --doncram (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

United States lightship Nantucket (LV-112)
Over the last week or so the subject has been moved from Oyster Bay, Long Island, NY, to Boston. Since she has a new owner, it seems clear that she is not going back to Oyster Bay, but it is not clear that Boston is a permanent home. How do we handle this in the respective NRHP and NHL lists -- delete from: and add to:
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Oyster Bay (town), New York
 * List of National Historic Landmarks in New York
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston
 * List of National Historic Landmarks in Massachusetts

Or something else?

BTW, the listing name, per Elkman tool, is "Lightship No. 112, NANTUCKET", not as shown in the Oyster Bay list.

The Boston Globe article referenced in her article is here. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would make the most sense as the lightship was originally listed while in Cumberland County, Maine. I seem to recall that the consensus was to include the subject in the list where it was originally listed and where it currently spends the most time. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 19:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It'll be listed in both tables with a note that it moved from Place A to Place B. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for nitpicking, but it saves misunderstanding. Einbierbitte, by "both tables", you mean Cumberland County and Boston, right? I'll do that, including updating the Maine tables to show that she's not actually there anymore. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  22:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have updated the Cumberland County, Maine NRHP listing. Her original NHL listing was in Connecticut, which I have updated.. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rock City is losing NRHPs
Does anyone know how many Detroit/Wayne County NRHPs are in danger of being demolished? The Mellus Newspapers Building met the wrecking ball yesterday. This makes me think the Mellus won't be the only casualty. APK whisper in my ear  18:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know offhand, but the people to ask are the folks at Preservation Wayne. Although Detroit in general is always in danger of losing historic buildings, the article you've linked to overstates the case by conflating two issues: preservation of historic buildings and reconfiguring neighborhoods.  Both are contentious, but there's little overlap: headline and intro notwithstanding, Detroit's historic residential neighborhoods are in general in good shape, and never were part of the mayor's "right-sizing."


 * However, there certainly are NRHP buildings that are vacant and deteriorating. The biggest effect of the economy, IMO, on these buildings is that, for many of them, there were plans for rehabilitation, but these plans were shelved when the auto industry collapsed.  As I said, I don't know which NRHPs are in danger of being demolished (other than the ones which already are, of course), but the ones that I can think of that are vacant and decaying are:
 * Three out of four apartment in the Cass-Davenport Historic District (was some refurb work going on, seems to have stopped)
 * Detroit Naval Armory (in decent shape, though)
 * Globe Trading Company (was going to be refurbished, but I don't see it happening)
 * Eddystone Hotel (was going to be refurbished, nothing happened)
 * Farwell Building (some refurb plans floated, nothing happened yet)
 * First Unitarian Church of Detroit (kind of in bad shape)
 * Grand Army of the Republic Building (Detroit) (was going to be refurbished, but seems to have not been?)
 * Lee Plaza Hotel (in bad shape)
 * Michigan Bell and Western Electric Warehouse (supposedly being refurbed, but I've seen nothing yet)
 * Michigan State Fair Riding Coliseum, Dairy Cattle Building, and Agricultural Building (in good shape, but the use of the fairgrounds is up tin the air)
 * Helen Newberry Nurses Home (was being refurbed, but I haven't checked on it)
 * Philetus W. Norris House (in bad shape)
 * Park Avenue Hotel (in bad shape)
 * Michigan Central Station (Detroit's poster child for urban decay and unfulfilled plans)
 * Frederic M. Sibley Lumber Company Office Building (no plans I'm aware of, and in an undesirable location)
 * Somerset Apartments
 * Vanity Ballroom Building
 * West Side Dom Polski (I think is vacant again)
 * Woodward Avenue Presbyterian Church
 * Of these, I'm guessing the Vanity Ballroom Building, Park Avenue Hotel, Philetus W. Norris House, and the Lee Plaza Hotel are in the greatest danger, but that's only a guess. Others are probably fine. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Gracias. APK whisper in my ear  16:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox updates
Hi I've made a proposal at Template talk:Infobox NRHP. Not much difference just some map changes. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 16:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Niagara conundrum
This has been bugging for well over a year and finally have decided to try and resolve it. I'm trying to decide if merging the articles USS Niagara (1813) and US Brig Niagara (museum ship) would be the best course of action (ever time I come close to deciding to go ahead with the merge, I second-guess myself and end up right back where I started). The problem lies in the fact that depending on who you talk to, the Niagara is a full-blown replica or it is still the same ship as the one from 1813, just heavily rebuilt (see Ship of Theseus). The Niagara is on the NRHP, with the NPS believing the ship to be "5% original" (the Constitution is 15% for comparision). The ship was sunk in 1820, raised and restored in 1913, partially restored in 1933, and then restored in 1963 and again 1988. The last restoration was somewhat more extensive, having to include some modern amenities to comply with Coast Guard regulations. Ideally, I like to have one article the history is more continous and making sure to mention the controversy and ambiguity of the extant Niagara.

I did try to have a discussion on this way back when, on one of the talk pages, but it went nowhere. Hopefully, some fresh opinions would make easier to see if whether it would be beneficial to merge the two or to leave it as is. And I'm sure it is going to come up, but, yes, my username has everything to do with this ship. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 20:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To me it makes more sense to have one article than two, and I think the main article would be better at USS Niagara (1813), with the museum ship as a redirect. Even if it is only 5%, there is a physical continuity from 1813 to the present. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's my thought, I left a note at WT:SHIP as well. I don't want to put time and effort into it only to have objections come up. Anybody else? ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 20:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge. Whether or not the modern Niagra is the "same" as the historical Niagra (for some definition of "same"), there's still a continuous history starting from the one and culminating in the other. The seperate articles are the worse for not including each other. Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Completed the merge. Thanks, guys, for the comments. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but could someone weigh in on this. An anon has come out of the woodwork and I think a rebuttal from me would only exacerbate the problem (I'm pretty sure the anon accused of me COI). ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's unreasonable to go into more detail--perhaps including a whole section--encompassing to what extent the Niagra could be fairly called a "replica" and to what extent it could fairly be called a "restoration." Even ignoring the anon's comments, that discussion is an interesting portion of the ship's history, and to some extent unique to the Niagra. Is there any other item listed on the NRHP that's less "original" than the current incarnation of the Niagra?  It sems like the nomination form, if you can get hold of it, might discuss this. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would if I could find sources on it. They only source that is on the identity of the Niagara, that I found, dealt with whether or not the Niagara is the Niagara (apparrently they might've raised the wrong ship in 1913). I do have the nom form, but it was written and submitted in 1973, before the extensive reconstruction in 1988. I'm unaware of any situation that is similar on the NRHP, although it is entirely possible they could have been delisted. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 15:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should discuss this more, assuming sources can be found - also responded to IP on the article's talk page and asked them for more sources. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that Ship of Theseus analogy might be ill-chosen. In the original, this referred to constant repairs of small portions, whereas the anon is quite correct that 1988 represented a full-scale replacement of original materials. I cannot guess how the NRHP got to 5%, but US Brig Niagara tour guides note that the only original materials are slats on the ward-room cabin hatches and minuscule pieces of the keel for sentiment's sake. (OR, I recognize, but this isn't the article.) As to sources, I would point eyes to the article itself. The words "ultimately destroyed" do not lend themselves to a Ship of Theseus parallel. Also, if anyone wants to return to discussing the fact that, in every iteration, she's a mast short to be the USS anything, I'm ready to oblige.Czrisher (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See USS Constellation (1854) for a parallel, but opposite controversy, in which the ship in Baltimore Harbor was found to be the 1854 ship, not the USS Constellation (1797): thus we have two articles.  Acroterion  (talk)  13:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)