Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Discussion needing input

There is a concern I have raised (it has been raised in the past) at Talk:Dickson Mounds about the inclusion of information indicating that Dickson Mounds is a National Historic Site. I have concluded that it is not, removed all such references to it, and commented as such on the talk page. Input and research from the skilled group here on this issue would be much appreciated.IvoShandor (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As you will have seen, I added to the article some explicit discussion of the error that is in the official museum webpage. I think it is best to address factual errors in sources head-on. Such an error should be discussed at least in a footnote to the article, and perhaps it is best to put it into a footnote, although I put the error discussion emphatically into the main text. I also edited the article in other ways such as giving it the alternative name Dickson Mounds Museum.

However, we have further inconsistencies that should be cleared up. Currently National Historic Site and National Historic Sites redirect to the wikipedia article National historic site which is misleading. That article attempts to make up a kind of a definition for a term "national historic site" out of thin air. I wonder about putting it up for AfD. Currently, the article describes "national historic sites" in a generic way. In its section on national historic sites in the United States, the specific National Historic Site program is mentioned, but so is the NRHP program. It would be very reasonable for a reader to take from this that any site which is listed in the NRHP is a U.S. national historic site / Nationl Historic Site, and that therefore the Dickson Mounds site is a National Historic Site. I believe we want National Historic Site to mean the specific program, and this article on generic National historic sites just muddies the waters.

I guess I think that the National historic site article should be wiped out and replaced by a disambiguation page. Material there ought to be moved to new, separate articles on Canada's National Historic Site program and on the U.S.'s National Historic Site program, and a pointer to the NRHP program could also be provided. But it should be clearly stated that there is no universal definition of "national historic site". Perhaps this should be implemented by moving the current article to "National Historic Site program of Canada", because it appears to me the current article is more about Canada's program than the U.S. one, and that would preserve its edit history. Then set up the disambiguation at the original location. Also, List of national historic sites of Canada should be renamed to List of National Historic Sites of Canada. Comments? doncram (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

List of National Historic Sites in Canada sounds better to me. I would also suggest National Historic Site (Canada) (which actually already exists and points to that page) and National Historic Site (United States), though, for the move of National historic site because that's how most disambiguation pages are set up.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the NHS (Canada) vs. NHS (US) that u suggest, spelled out like u did.

Per the "of" vs. "in" distinction discussed in the big renaming of NHL categories a few months ago, though, it would probably be "List of National Historic Sites of Canada" because the sites are "of" the nation, but then "List of National Historic Sites in Ontario" to describe those "in" but not "of" the province. There are wikiprojects using "of Canada" name, by the way, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Governments of Canada. A new wikiproject to cover the National Historic Sites, People, Events, and Monuments of Canada is perhaps needed, as another subproject of WikiProject Canada. Yes they have National Historic People, and National Historic Events, with numbers and dates established. The monuments aren't National Historic Monuments, though, technically, so the wikiproject name would need some discussion in Talk of WikiProject Canada, first. doncram (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ivoshandor was musing about starting up Canadian register of historic places a year ago, at Talk:Canadian Register of Historic Places, as a subproject of NRHP. However i am sure a subproject of WikiProject Canada would go over much better with the loonies. :) doncram (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, right now in the Template:Registered Historic Places we have linked several categories, but not the article related to those categories (which is probably good because they are mostly not good). Here's a list I just compiled with a bit of info on each, check 'em out for yourself. If we can improve these we should link them from the template.

• National Historic Site: See above discussion
• National Historic Landmark: Needs badly improved, about "Start" class now
• National Battlefield: redirect to National Military Park, article is a Stub
• National Historical Park: includes info on National Historical Park, and National Historic Site, about Start class
• National Memorial: Stub class article, dedicated to the topic at hand
• National Monument: also its own article, "Start" class, a few refs, couple sections

IvoShandor (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and National Park Service, which should be the topic of a long, detailed article including the history of and other sections but is really just a dedicated list of NPS sites. We will have to do something about this. IvoShandor (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC) I was looking at the list, lol. IvoShandor (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

NPS director Mary A. Bomar

We further need new list-articles: List of National Historic Sites of the United States, List of National Memorials of the United States, List of National Military Parks, National Battlefields, National Battlefield Parks, and National Battle Sites of the United States, List of Historical Parks of the United States. Some of the above-mentioned articles refer to such lists, but wikilink only to two-column sections of the big List of areas in the NPS article. Full-blown lists, with pictures and descriptions and established date and more of an intro, are called for. Note, there already are full-blown lists of the U.S. National Parks, separate from the two-column version included in List of areas in the NPS already.

The reason why we have such obvious gaps in WP:NRHP is that the individual articles and lists of NHSs, NMEMs, NMPs, etc. were all started by WP:PAREAS back in 2005-2006 or so. WP:PAREAS did a good job with that, but it was at a time before WP:NRHP existed, and they did not have the sources and information handy that we now do. (Thanks Ebyabe for creating W:NRHP back on October 17 2006, and to IvoShandor and Appraiser and Bedford and other early NRHP joiners apparent in the history back then!) It is time for WP:NRHP to revisit and redevelop these. I and others (some present here) have been clarifying in the WP:PAREAS talk area that WP:PAREAS should not include many of these, as many or most of these are not environmental parks preserving biodiversity, which is what protected areas are. Perhaps WP:PAREAS did not develop these very much, also, because of their own cognitive dissonance over the fact that places like Jefferson Memorial are obviously not natural areas. We are only just now ready, with the NRHP2 infobox, to handle National Memorials etc. properly in NRHP2 infoboxes. doncram (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal:United States

I notice that currently it would be pretty hard for an interested wikipedia reader to find his/her way to NRHP from the current Portal:United States. I'm not very clear on what portals are good for, or whether any large number of people bookmark portals and start browsing from them. But if portals are any good, then it would seem strategic for this wikiproject to ensure that NRHP topics are represented in potentially salient portals like this one. The Portal:United States features a selected biography (Teddy Roosevelt), a featured panoramic photo (Williamette, Oregon), a featured city (Minneapolis). And it provides a list of U.S.-relevant categories, starting off with "Buildings and structures in the United States". However, one could not easily get to NRHP from that or any other category listed there. One way to revise the portal to make it easier for readers to find their way to our material would be to create a big category "Historic sites in the United States" if there is not one yet, and edit that into the list of categories at the portal. doncram (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There does exist Category:Historic sites in the United States, but it needs cleanup. You would get the idea there that Category:National Heritage Areas of the United States (which i have never particuliarly heard of) are as important as the National Register of Historic Places. The categories of National Historic Landmarks and other relevant categories are not represented. The only two direct members of the category are Battle of Musgrove Mill (sounds like the event not the site) and Manor St. George. Could someone with knowledge/experience with categories fix this up? doncram (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Musgrove's Mill Historic Battle Site created; Battle of Musgrove Mill categories removed. doncram (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at Category:National Register of Historic Places I see that several of the relevant cats are subcats of it, so it would be redundant to list them in the higher level cat, Category:Historic sites in the United States, if I get a shot I'll try to see what it's missing. IvoShandor (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. Note Category:California Historical Landmarks is one that is missing. (I would add it, but how does one add a category to another category, anyhow?) Any other U.S. state or local historic site categories that exist should also be added. doncram (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You just edit the "child" category and add the desired parent category to it (at the bottom, as usual). Do you want all the state-designated historical categories to be in the general "Historical sites" category?

Oh, okay, u edit the one category directly to be a member of another category, gotcha. Yes, any other state-designated historical categories. And City of Chicago Landmarks, and NYC Landmarks and any other local ones. I take it that some more state categories must exist already. I look forward to seeing the expanded Category:Historic sites in the US, pls. say when! doncram (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked for the articles, but I suspect that each state has a list of state-designated sites and they will each eventually have articles. Perhaps there should be an intermediate category: "U.S. state-designated historical sites" or something, to collect the 50 lists. --Appraiser (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I recognize that Category:National Historic Landmarks in Alabama, Category:National Historic Landmarks in Alaska, etc. are subcategories (children?) to Category:National Register of Historic Places (parent?). If it is only proper to include the parent category directly, then perhaps some brief intro text could be added to the Category:Historic sites in the United States to point out that the NRHP category is huge, and includes many subcategories, if that would not otherwise be clear. doncram (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that all of the RHPs are in Category:National Register of Historic Places, when it seems to me that they should be in Category:Registered Historic Places. Why? Can it be changed? Or better, perhaps: Category:U.S. Registered Historic Places or Category:Registered Historic Places of the United States, which would subsume Category:U.S. Registered Historic Places in Virginia or Category:Registered Historic Places of the United States in Virginia. Some of us went through a big discussion about "of" vs. "in" distinctions along these lines not long ago, but maybe that was for recategorizing only the National Historic Landmarks of the United States. In my view right now Category:National Register of Historic Places should perhaps only include the overview articles (National Register of Historic Places, National Memorials, etc.) and list-articles (List of Registered Historic Places, List of National Historic Landmarks etc.). doncram (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest moving Category:National Register of Historic Places to Category:Registered Historic Places of the United States. This can be done quickly by a bot as long as interested parties agree to the change. Once done, we can re-create Category:National Register of Historic Places for the relatively small number of articles that should be in that category.--Appraiser (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Some NRHP page hit counts

Hit counts for selected articles, starting with some of interest to me. Please feel free to add rows. doncram (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

	Article	Apr2008 total views	Apr2008 average daily views	Peak within Apr2008 daily views	Comment
•	National Register of Historic Places	27364	912.1	1500
•	National Historic Landmark	17615	587.1	727
•	Weippe Prairie	2041	NA (new)	1800	4/21 DYK: last listed DYK, no picture
•	Carter Hall (Millwood, Virginia)	7964	NA (new)	2900	4/22 DYK: first listed DYK, with picture
•	Manzanar	64649	2154.9	38000	4/26: Wikipedia Main Page Today's Featured Article
•	List of NHLs in SC	1207	40.2	88	List article under active development that month
•	List of NHLs in NY	2178	72.6	111	List article inactive, but fully developed
•	List of NHLs in IA	666	22.2	51	List article inactive, but fully developed
•	Yellowstone National Park	39457	1315.2	2200	High profile FA (not in NRHP)
•	WP:NRHP	784	26.1	40
•	WT:NRHP	760	25.3	103
•

References:

Kudos to KudzuVine

User:KudzuVine is not even a WP:NRHP member ( i can look that up easily in our re-alphabetized member list now thank you!), but he has added almost 1000 pics to NHL webpages, usually mining the HABS database. Adding HABS pics well, like he does, is not trivial. You have to crop the pic, and it is a meticulous matter (if not a pain) to put in the photographer, date of pic, link to pic at HABS etc. all properly. Awesome what he has been doing, starting with the List of NHLs in SC but ranging all over since then. doncram (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

List of bridges on the NRHP

I have decided to make a list of bridges and tunnels on the National Register of Historic Places. It will have to be split (presumably by state) because otherwise the list is too big. User:NE2/NRHP bridges will be the general format, which I automatically generated from the downloadable database. In addition to obvious formatting issues (which should be pretty easy to fix using AWB), non-bridges/tunnels that happen to include "bridge", "tunnel", or "viaduct" will have to be removed, and those that don't include one of those words will have to be added. I'd also like to add the year the bridge was built if possible, though that will be a lot harder. Does this look like a good idea, and are there any suggestions? (cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges) --NE2 10:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, could be useful, at least to the bridge nuts among us (me included). My only thought is, does this kind of thing violate WP:OR? Or is that taking it a bridge too far (oh, yes, I am hilarious - hold your applause). :) IvoShandor (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea. For consistency with other NRHP lists (e.g. List of List of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota), I would change some of the columns you've suggested. In the standard we've adopted, the first column is simply a number to allow the reader to reset sortable tables back to the original; we have decided to omit the NRHP number because the typical reader doesn't care; we have an Image column with images at 100px; Name, State, County, Date listed, Type, and Notes make sense; should you add another column for a GPS coordinate? Since these are all NRHP, I would use the NRHP color for the top row and as the default for the first column. If a bridge is an NHL, NMON, NMEM, or some other specific type, the color can be changed accordingly for column 1 of that row. Why don't you start one of your Pacific states and we'll work on that before copying the format for the remaining states? Thanks--Appraiser (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I started List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon as essentially the "test case". --NE2 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)... I like it too. A similar list-table in development is List of NHL ships that has one table of all 133 ships, shipwrecks and shipyards that are NHLs (which I have used to make a statement or two in the National Historic Landmarks article, by the way, and which has been supporting identification of museum ships and maritime museums for WP:MUSEUMS). Another similar example is List of RHPs at colleges that mainly Appraiser has been developing, which probably should be converted into table form (hopefully with one column for NHL and perhaps one column for state, in order to support statements I'd like to make in the National Historic Landmarks article).

Your current table has about 230 items, not too big for one Table. One table would be preferred. However, i notice that it omits at least one bridge John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge, so i guess it is just a partial list, and maybe in fact there are way too many. Not sure that a separate table/article for each state is needed, though, you haven't presented enough information to make that clear. Like how many NRHP bridges are there in Idaho, say? Perhaps bigger groupings of states would serve, or the list could be split into alphabetical chunks like List of Liberty ships: A-F, which covers 722 ships and is followed by three similarly sized followon alpabetical chunks.

As you note, your first-cut list includes a few items that are neither bridges nor tunnels. I happen to notice one of those is Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel which is a wind tunnel that is an NHL; that one and some other notable wind tunnels are currently listed within the "wind tunnel" article (perhaps to be split out into a separate list-article someday). If you come across any other wind tunnels that are NRHPs it would be helpful if you could add them there, specifically to Wind tunnel#List of wind tunnels.

About whether this verges into WP:OR, I have sweated that a bit about the similar lists, but conclude that by creating this lists we are only piling together public (verified) information. It does create new knowledge, like the actual count of how many NHLs there are in the country, which I believe is not known by the U.S. government even. But reading WP:OR, i believe it does not cross into the banned kind of original research, as it is factual and not pushing a POV. There has been a related discussion thread running at the Village Pump and/or Citing Sources or somewhere recently, about articles describing current research frontiers which push into OR a lot more than the very objective ones that we are talking about here. Good idea for the list-article, go for it! + applause, very muted, for Ivo :) doncram (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The "first-cut list" only had three states. I was unable to save a page with all states; there may have been too many links. --NE2 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it counts as original research -- it's really just a database query. Speaking of which, if you want to put in geographic coordinates, the National Register Information System has a database, sort of on the side, that contains UTM coordinates for each place in there. There's an algorithm for converting UTM coordinates to degree/minute/second coordinates, which I implemented in my infobox generator. I could share the code if you want it, or I could implement the query on my own server, or something similar. Oh, and if you're looking for the year built, the NRIS contains the year that a building or structure was built. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Where's this database? I found a refererence to a "UTMD.DBF" but that database wasn't in the download with the others. --NE2 22:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's at [1]. I think "spatial.mdb" was the database they were using, but they may have changed formats. Actually, I just noticed another tidbit there: "Google Earth Layers". I'm going to have to check that out. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect; thank you. --NE2 22:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to run the algorithm on something like User:NE2/NRHP bridges? --NE2 23:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll put together some kind of web form that lets you enter UTM coordinates and then converts them to degree/minute/second coordinates. I'll try to get it together by tomorrow or over the weekend. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I've found some of those; I'm wondering if you can do an automated conversion on a Wikipedia page from "UTM [coordinates]" to lat/long. That's the one part I'm missing for a basically automated method of quickly creating reasonably complete tables. --NE2 05:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want a page to test it on, List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in New Jersey is ready. --NE2 10:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a good source for when a place that has been removed was listed? I believe the database has only the removed date. I found [2] for Oregon but I won't necessarily be able to find such a list for every state. --NE2 01:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also having issues with the Booth-Kelly Railroad Bridge, Newport Avenue Bridge, and Umpqua River Bridge No. 01822. The former says "DETERMINED ELIGIBLE/OWNER OBJECTION", while the latter two both say "DATE RECEIVED/PENDING NOMINATION". Other sources show that the Umpqua River Bridge was in fact added, but on 2005-08-05, not on 2005-06-22. Is this an error in the database? --NE2 01:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A property can be determined by a state office to be eligible for NRHP, but NRHP policy is not to name something if the owner objects. In fact, in historic districts there is effectively a vote I think, and if more than half of the owners vote against their properties being in an NRHP district, it doesn't pass. And there are historic districts whose boundaries are gerrymandered to exclude eligible properties where the owners didn't want to belong. About a bridge in such a category, it is fine to have an article about it within wp:NRHP in my view. The state documents may be fully sufficient to provide verifiability and notability. I don't understand what is meant by "Date received / pending nomination".

In general, there are errors in the NRIS database, as there are in the NHL webpages and in many other sources that we use. Where we know there is an error, because we have a contradiction between two sources, the discrepancy should be noted in any article about the place, and perhaps in a central place so that we could systematically notify the NPS to achieve corrections. I guess I urge you to create stubs for those ones right now, and describe the discrepancy. Maybe we should have a central place for recording of known errors in NRIS. I have been maintaining a list of errors in the NHL webpages and in the NPS Focus system, but I don't believe there is a central list of errors in the NRIS database (i haven't bothered to record errors in it that i have noted). doncram (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some individual buildings as well that are determined eligible for the National Register, but the owners object and they aren't listed. I think Qwest Building in Minneapolis fits this description -- it has a certification code of "DO". I'm assuming that US West (the owner at the time in 1984) didn't want the building listed on the National Register, in case they had to alter the building significantly (e.g. putting on a big addition to house more switching equipment). That might be the case with the Booth-Kelly Railroad Bridge, for example -- Union Pacific, BNSF, or some shortline might have put the kibosh on National Register listing because they didn't want any regulatory hassles or permitting information in case they had to modify the bridge. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What does "DATE RECEIVED/PENDING NOMINATION" mean? In the case of the Umpqua River Bridge No. 01822, it looks like they just forgot to update it when it was actually listed, but I'm not sure if the Newport Avenue Bridge was listed. --NE2 05:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

When the CIRCA field is "X", what does that mean? "C" is presumably "circa"; is "X" "before", as in "before 1860"? --NE2 09:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break Properties determined eligible by the Keeper have the same protections under Section 106 of the NHPA (also Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) as listed properties. Asking for a determination of eligibility (DOE) from the Keeper(sometimes done under environmental justice laws and E.O. 11593) is quicker than the nomination process and gets the same result - Federal undertakings have to take the property into account. DOEs are listed in the NRIS.

Other times it's a civic minded citizen nominating a property and not telling the owner. In that case a DOE is made and is so noted - "Determined eligible - owner objection" In that case it still has the protections under 106 but is not listed. Einbierbitte (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that listing often comes with local benefits and that this would only affect federal projects that would encumber upon a eligible property but I know it doesn't stop them from being demolished or altered (obviously - as a Register listing does no such thing either). That's pretty interesting, do you have a link the text of the legislation? IvoShandor (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at 36 CFR 800 Einbierbitte (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists of bridges on the NRHP are done

All of the links on Template:NRHP bridges are now blue, and the majority of bridges have full information. (Thanks very much to Elkman, who wrote a script to convert UTM to lat/long.) There are a few caveats:

• I started wikifying the "type" column, but stopped after a while because it was taking a long time and I wasn't always sure what the terms meant.
• It may be useful to list what goes over and under the bridge, which I did on the Oregon list.
• It may also be useful to verify and adjust the coordinates; for instance Pittsburgh's Three Sisters are misaligned.
• Most errors in the NRHP data, such as typos, have not been fixed.

--NE2 23:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I did not understand you were doing that. I thought, per posting further above, that you were doing Oregon as a test case, and that is why I was participating in discussing the Oregon article, and i did not understand that the discussion was over. Oh well. What you have accomplished though is very impressive. doncram (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean, WOW! It really is impressive. I'm really glad NE2 and Elkman just did this so boldly. It already is quite an accomplishment, and probably will accelerate the creation of articles for the red-links. The picture-column feature was admired by a commenter in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges. I think the tables look quite inviting for the bridge enthusiasts out there to sink their teeth into. Doing similarly for other topical areas too, like railway stations, say, would open up big swaths of our 85,000 NRHPs to get real articles created by hobbyists/specialists in each area.

I think, however, that it would perhaps be better to rename/convert these all to "List of bridges and tunnels in ____", for each state, not limited to just NRHPs. After all, each NRHP bridge belongs on the List of bridges in each state. And these lists already include numerous bridges that are not NRHPs (the gray-shaded rows in some states, like in List of bridges in OR are former NRHPs). The U.S.-wide list of bridges needs to be broken up into state-specific lists, anyhow. Each of these NRHP state list articles could be renamed to be more general, and get paste-ins of the corresponding state-wide lists of bridges and of tunnels, that are sections within [[List of bridges in the United States and List of tunnels in the United States, to be added to each table by future editors, presumably "bridgers" or whatever they call themselves. :) doncram (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick question to anyone who might know: How are we treating bridges that span the border of two states, put them in both state lists? IvoShandor (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should put them into both state lists. People were persuasive about List of NHLs in OR and/or List of NHLs in WA that a state-spanning structure should appear in both lists. For NHLs by the way, it seemed that the NPS was designating a "primary" state for places like Eads Bridge which spans IL and MO, and Hoover Dam, and others. But eventually i note discrepancies where its count of NHLs in two states include the same item, in their nation-wide PDF list of NHLs. So I have revised List of NHLs by state to include total count of NHLs in each state, separate from a column of counts of non-duplicated NHLs with a lot of then-necessary footnotes, in order to try to come up with an accurate nation-wide count of NHLs. Which i believe is not available anywhere else. doncram (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Historic districts in the United States

This category is bulky and unmanageable. There are some state and city subcats but we could add state subcats for each state. The problem is the "nrhp_type" parameter input "HD" automatically adds any article using it to the above category. We would either need 50 separate state parameters or just remove the auto categorization and depend on manual entry into the appropriate cats. Thoughts? IvoShandor (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Added note, Category:Historic district contributing properties is not currently any kind of issue but it could eventually become far larger than the districts category, so it might be something we want to organize now while it's still small. It would be easier to add subcats one at a time, as they are needed than it would be to do it all at once, like a reorganization of the districts category might require, obviously. IvoShandor (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the Historic District category, Template:Infobox nrhp2 removes this categorization. I support organizing the category by state, though. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

nrhp2

Is the Template:Infobox nrhp2 sufficiently tested now to replace the code in Template:Infobox nrhp with the new code?--Appraiser (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, IMO it is. I think User:Doncram has been adding it to new articles that overlap the NPS articles, and they've all done ok. The Method of Change section above raises some concerns about simply replacing infobox nrhp with infobox nrhp2. NRHP2 has several new parameters and changes some of the old ones (i.e. designated is now designated_nhl and nrhp_type is no longer used). These parameters are explained on the [[Template:Infobox nrhp2/doc|Documentation page]. If we were to simply copy/paste the code from nrhp2 into nrhp, all the articles that are marked as special nrhp types wouldn't display the special categories (nhl, nmon, nmem, etc.) I propose slowly phasing out the current nrhp infobox. This would be done by creating all new nrhp articles with the nrhp2 template and editing older articles to include nrhp2 (either manually or by bot). If done this way, there will be no immediate need to edit all articles (as would be the case with simply replacing the code) because the articles with the nrhp infobox will still appear functional. It won't matter if some articles still contain the old template because there will be no visible difference. Over time, as fewer and fewer articles use the old template, we'll be able to delete nrhp and continue to use nrhp2. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK. I was under the impression that the new template was going to be backward compatible (offering new features without breaking any existing ones). If it's not, then I withdraw the question.--Appraiser (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In my view NRHP2 is still under testing, although I certainly do like how it is working for many articles. But because of the possibly high cost of a conversion (in terms of manual editing requirements, especially as Dudemanfellabra and I do not really know much about what can possibly be done by a bot created for us), I think it is still possible that in the end we would want to go the route of revising the current NRHP infobox, implementing only such changes as would be backwards compatible.

What do you think about any/all of the articles now using NRHP2?

I do think one change for NRHP2 that should be implemented, is to put the map display option to show in "Image - Info - Map" order rather than in "Image - Map - Info" order. I believe I prefer Image-Info-Map for all of the articles that have both image and map. doncram (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I love the option of having both the picture and the map in the infobox. I agree with doncram, though...I would rather have the order "Image - Info - Map" because then a reader will realize that there's info there without having to page down. I think the map is slightly less important. I also agree with Appraiser and doncram that backwards compatibility is important. Lvklock (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists of railway stations

Deansboro Railroad Station, rear view

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations, related to parent wp:TRAINS. It has a List of railway stations#United States which has only about 30 railway stations listed for the entire US! I know we have created many times that number already, including some NHLs and at least one that is really pathetic.  :) How about a navbox for Railway stations by U.S. state, and a list-article for each one? Would have to search on "depot" and "station" and "trainshed" and similar terms. doncram (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about creating a new Category:Railroad-related Registered Historic Places which could be a subcategory of Category:Infrastructure-related Registered Historic Places, but perhaps full-fledged lists similar to User:NE2's bridges lists would draw in RR enthusiasts, as User:Doncram has suggested. I would include stations, tracks, and any other railroad-related infrastructure.--Appraiser (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that also when I was checking to see if Stanford L&N Railroad Depot (Stanford, Kentucky) already had an article. I searched through various categories and was surprised to see that the railroad stations (depots) were not as well organized as I expected. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Relatedly, the category structure within Category:Rail infrastructure as a whole is not so great. I went into the subcategory Category:Railway roundhouses and find that there most of its sub-subcategories that have just one member. Way over-categorized! There are only a handful of railway roundhouse articles...hmm... okay, just created List of roundhouses to capture, hmm, the 9 existing roundhouse articles that i can find, and to put in red-links for the 11 NRHP roundhouses that I quickly find in the Elkman NRHP infobox generator. Oh, one of those is a blue-link.

I don't think it is necessary to create "List of NRHP roundhouses". There's need for a world-wide list of roundhouses, and any NRHP roundhouse is notable and should be on it. Likewise i don't think there's a need for a NRHP roundhouses category.

Elkman and/or NE2: Can I get a table report of the 11 hits on "roundhouse" in the infobox generator, like the nifty reports now available for any one county? Or could you just create it and put it into List of roundhouses. I would then add rows to include the non-US and other non-NRHP roundhouses. Perhaps a general tool that would make a table for any search would have a lot of similar applicability. :) doncram (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the National Register database has a "historic function" field in it that indicates what the structure was used for. There's a code in there indicating that a structure was used for rail-related uses. I could put together a query that lists all the rail-related structures in a state, which would include depots, roundhouses, shops, and so on. (For instance, Bandana Square, St. Paul, Minneapolis, & Manitoba Railway Company Shops Historic District, and Northern Pacific Railroad Shops Historic District are rail-related structures.) Thoughts? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that would be very helpful and would support many new list-articles. I don't know what the available historic functions are, but I take it you could offer a drop-down list of the historic functions, and a drop-down list of the states (or all). (Like you offer a word search in the name field, plus the drop-down list of the states (or all), in the regular infobox generator.)

That doesn't provide exactly what I was looking for, for the roundhouse application. For the roundhouse or other applications, I would hope for another option: a word search in the name field, plus the drop-down list of the states (or all), which generates a table rather than the regular infobox report. I actually imagine this would have a lot of uses. Maybe this could be combined with the historic function search, too, making one table generator having word search (or none) + historic function (or all) + state (or all). However it makes sense / is most feasible for you, would be great. P.S. Pls. note i made other requests about the Elkman generator in Talk thread further up, a short while ago. doncram (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As somebody who has run into his share of stations listed on NRHP, I like the idea. I should also point out that there are quite a number of subway stations, elevated railroad stations, and railroad museums that would fit the bill for this category. ----DanTD (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists would be good, Dan is right, there is a lot of stuff that might be included depending upon the list inclusion criteria. Another thing railroad station lists would facilitate is more ease to figuring out which pages need to disambiguated as far as railroad stations go. IvoShandor (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Registered Historic Places in the City of Angels

Check out List of Registered Historic Places in the City of Angels, started just on May 15 and now with more than 50 pics and articles for many of the 186 RHPs it covers. It's up for DYK in the cohort of articles started on May 15, so would be DYK on May 20 i guess, if it is accepted. Question: Is it too "poetic" to name the article this way, using Los Angeles' nickname? Personally, i just felt like naming it that way. There already is List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles County, California. I sorta feel that "List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles (city)" or similar would be less interesting. I don't know if the name issue has to be resolved instantly, so that the DYK goes forward. Is it okay to leave the name a bit poetic temporarily or permanently. doncram (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't mind, but I don't know how "encyclopedic" it is.--Bedford(Worship) 05:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to call my airline and see if I can book a flight into the City of Angels. Or maybe I'll just take the Golden State Freeway there and exit where it says "City of Angels". --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The main objections I have to naming it "City of Angels" are (1) if someone wants to search WP for registered historic places in Los Angeles, they're probably not going to enter "City of Angels" and (2) it opens a potential can of worms with other nicknames ... The Big Apple, Second City, the Motor City (or Motown?), the Queen City (I think a number of cities claim this one), Big D, Music City etc etc ... not to mention all the state nicknames. In my opinion, it sets a bad precedent to use the nickname in the name of the article. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There's not even a question. I can't think of any category or list that use a distinct name from their main topic. Circeus (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A DYK reviewer had the same view. Okay, renamed to "List ... in Los Angeles". I'd like to see lists of RHPs in Motown, etc... but...(sigh). Thanks! :) doncram (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Roanoke Building

Can someone please help me confirm the NRHP status of the Roanoke Building? Please respond to my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed, reference to weekly list added. IvoShandor (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Error in NRIS boundary data for some HDs in Meridian, Mississippi

I've been working on a map of the locations/shapes of the registered historic districts in Meridian, Mississippi, and I've come across a problem. I got a map of the city and I've begun to draw lines on all the boundary streets of all the districts and find the actual shape/location of the districts. While mapping out the Highlands Historic District, the streets/avenues NRIS gave me didn't make a shape. Four of the five streets made a box, but 5th street was thrown in there for some odd reason. After research, I found out there's an error in the NRIS data. The Meridian MRA says the district is bounded by 15th St, 34th Ave, 19th St, and 36th Ave. Nowhere does it mention 5th street pertaining to this district, but Elkman's query (and all NRIS data) displays 5th street for some reason.

I'm also led to believe that there's another error - this time with Merrehope Historic District. The NRIS says it's located between 33rd Ave, 30th Ave, 14th St, 25th Ave, and 8th St. Well if you grid those out, you find a box made by all the streets except 25th Avenue, which seems randomly thrown in. The MRA doesn't have text on the Merrehope District, so I can't back up my claim, but if one mistake was made, could not another? I'm going to remove 25th Avenue from the description in the article based on these assumptions. Is this justified? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There are definitely errors in the NRIS database and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they have some incorrect HD boundaries. Given that you found documentation to support the error you found in the Highlands District, I think it's reasonable to assume that 5th Street is not an official boundary for the district. However, absent similar supporting documentation, I'd be hesitant to assume that 25th Avenue is not the true boundary of the Merrehope District. How do you know that 25th Avenue is wrong and not 30th Avenue? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know which is wrong, but I live in the area and know where Merrehope is. It is at the corner of 31st Avenue and 10th street - very close to the bottom left corner of the box made by all the streets. Since it was in the corner, I assumed the district boundaries wouldn't stray too far from the home itself. I simply assumed the area would more likely stretch 2 blocks east instead of 7 to keep Merrehope in a somewhat prominent location in the district; I would expect the home to be closer to the center of the district since the district is named after the home. The largest district in the city is 7x7 blocks and the smallest is 1x3. I guess now that I look at it, 25th Avenue could be the correct boundary (making the district 7x6 instead of 2x6), but I have nothing to go on other than the home's location within the district. Using either avenue, the district is square, so they are both possible. I have no idea how to handle that without any documentation, though haha. Argh; stupid errors. :P --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already, you might check the website of the agency that handles NRHP applications in Mississippi. You could also write to either the NPS or the state agency and ask them to send you the written materials submitted in support of the application. A local library may also have the materials. I haven't been able to figure out how to get my hands on these materials for San Francisco sites without paying through the nose. But the Ohio Historical Society sent me a CD with PDFs for all the sites in the town in which I was born and raised for $0.75 a pop. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I found some evidence that semi-justifies my claim - though not directly. This site lists the all the districts in the city along with some information including the size of the districts in acres. The largest district, Mid-Town Historic District, is 7x7 blocks and 1020 acres. If 25th Avenue was the correct boundary, the Merrehope district would be 7x6 and thus be close to 1020 acres. Highlands Historic district (2x5) is 220 acres. If 30th Avenue was the correct boundary, then the Merrehope district would be 2x6 and close to 220. That page tells us that Merrehope is 350 acres - much closer to 220 than it is to 1020; therefore, I deduce that 30th Avenue is the correct boundary. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your deductions are speculation and should not be used to change info from what is verifiable (i.e., reported in NRIS). There are some very irregularly shaped historic districts, that appear gerry-mandered and that sometimes include separated lots. In many historic district designations, individual owners get to opt in or out, so even if the intended area was a rectangle it could end up having holes in it. There is no reason to expect that all of the historic districts in Meridian are rectangles. It is perfectly possible that some part of each of the streets mentioned in the NRIS description is in the district. A correct way to deal with this is to get the definitive information: request hard copies of the historic district nominations from the National Park Service, by email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. doncram (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know the districts don't have to be square. East End Historic District isn't a square, but one can deduce the shape from the streets involved because they all intersect with each other and create a shape - a polygon - not a rectangle. In Merrehope's case, all the streets don't intersect. Four would make a rectangle (not that they had to), but the 5th is just randomly thrown in. Map out the districts and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm looking at a map right now; no matter how much gerry-mandering and opting out and whatever else is done, the district boundary can simply not include 25th Avenue. I highly doubt that all residences between 30th and 25th avenues would have opted out of the district and only one/several houses on that avenue opted in. (Would not there be more streets/avenues in the description to mark out the holes?) Also, since there is a verifiable error in the NRIS data for Highlands, there is a high chance that there is another in Merrehope.

On another note, how is NRIS verifiable? In just my time (c. 2 months) on this project, I've seen several errors with the data. Since the data is flawed, how can it be a reliable source? Even if my deductions are speculation, they're logical. No, I don't have (yet) concrete evidence that the NRIS data is wrong, but I mean... It's logic. It's math; math is never wrong. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Are your outlines different than the polygons in http://www.nr.nps.gov/NRISGEO/ ? -- SEWilco (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't know there was any such thing. I don't really get what that site is or how to use it, so can you link directly to the sites in Meridian? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say, myself, I only use the NRIS to confirm the listing date, which is also available through my state historic preservation office, thus verifiable. I wouldn't rely on the NRIS as a sole source for anything else, at all. What is this "no style listed" nonsense that keeps appearing in article infoboxes? I can only assume that comes from the woefully inadequate government database, but it is just another of the many examples of obvious errors in the NRIS. Your best bet (Dudeman) is to request the NRHP documentation through your State HPO or the NRHP (as said somewhere above), if they aren't available online where you are at. IvoShandor (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ivo ... but I also agree with doncram that unless you have documented evidence to the contrary, the NRIS information should be used, even if you think it doesn't make sense. For the districts that Dudeman originally asked about, it's reasonable to use the boundaries of the Highlands District from the MRA and not those in the NRIS online database. But without supportive documentation, I don't think he should assume that the database is wrong about the 30th Avenue boundary for the Merrehope District. Also, as doncram states, districts definitely are not necessarily neat rectangular or square shapes. Furthermore, not all buildings that are physically located within the boundaries of a district are necessarily a contributing property to the NRHP listing. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I simply cannot see the benefit of adding information if it is wrong and known to be wrong, there is no benefit and it is something I absolutely will not do. As an addendum, I don't think anyone thought the district had to be a square or that all properties within were contributing, but maybe someone did.IvoShandor (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound evil or mean, sorry if I did. This is something I have come across before writing history articles on the Black Hawk War, older histories often contradict each other and modern sources. There are editorial judgments to be made, sometimes that means leaving out a racist rant that is "verifiable" or information that is dubious but verifiable. Or at the very least reporting discrepancies between sources. If something is wrong and one knows it to be wrong, it's not really verified, imo.IvoShandor (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I'm definitely not suggesting that anyone should put information into an article that is known to be wrong. But from the information that Dudeman has presented, I don't think we know whether the true eastern boundary of the Merrehope District is 30th Avenue or 25th Avenue. Although I think it unlikely, it's even possible that the district ends at 30th Avenue except for a few buildings that are on 25th Avenue. I know that here in San Francisco, entire Victorian buildings have been moved around the city from time to time. It seems to me that more research is needed in this case before we assume that the NRIS database is wrong. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

doncram is quite correct about the sometimes odd shapes of districts. Sometimes the streets listed in the NRIS are, at best, an approximation. The best bet would be if you could find a map of the district. Might Mississippi have resources online for that? I know Florida has maps available for some of the districts here, which immeasurably helped with my last trip to St. Augustine. This one and this one, for example. Good luck in thy searching! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To sanfranman: Cool and the gang, I must have just misread you. :) At Ebyabe: indeed, sometimes they'll gerrymander the boundaries to include one specific property on one side of the street while excluding others or as said some owners do object sometimes, but I fear we have tread off from the original topic. :) IvoShandor (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)