Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Col. Adelbert Mossman House at AfD

since there doesn't appear to be a related deletion sorting list, giving the project a heads up here. TravellingCari 15:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I just closed that AfD as a snowball keep, but NRHP-interested editors could benefit from reading the debate as there were points raised as to the quality of recent NRHP articles. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

When to spin off a separate list for a city or town?

Taking off on the above discussion, List of Registered Historic Places in Fall River, Massachusetts was forked from the main Bristol County list after I observed to Swampyank and Marcbela that the city accounted for 110 of ~320 or so listings and should probably be a separate list, as List of Registered Historic Places in Providence, Rhode Island was mercifully separated from its master list. But I still think that the Bristol County, MA, list, could stand to lose New Bedford (30 or so listings, including 6 NHLs, more than Fall River), Rehoboth (way more than New Bedford) and Taunton (a lot as well). It wouldn't have to be done now, but as that list gets more photos it will become very long to scroll through.

So, I ask, should we have some guidelines for when this should be done? Should there be some absolute number of RHPs in a particular jurisdiction to justify a separate list? Or should it depend on the size of the master article? Because, if applied to the counties I do most of my NRHPs in, there would be some interesting results.

Take my home county, for instance (I haven't created tableized lists with the tool yet because I prefer these this way for developmental purposes. When I have almost all of them done, I'll do it then so the resulting list won't have huge gaps). The three cities in it — Newburgh, Middletown and Port Jervis — don't account for a lot of listings, even if you include the Town of Newburgh's listings (meaning also Balmville and Gardnertown) as well (Probably because the city of Newburgh, the most populous in the county, has two very large HDs with most buildings listed as CPs to rather than directly). But Cornwall would seem to merit a separate list, especially with Cornwall-on-Hudson and Mountainville mixed in. And Highland Falls punches above its weight, not even really accounting for it having West Point next door. A rather interesting view of the county.

Similarly, in Ulster County to my north, Kingston obviously would merit a separate list. But then would you do some list like "Stone houses in the Town of Rochester, New York" since that has so many entries as well?

Anyone else with thoughts on this matter? Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

With an eye toward the WP 100k max article size rule-of-thumb, my MO has been to use about an 80k cut-off for county tables. Once they reach 80k, I've spun off city with the largest number of RHPs allowing the main county article to shrink to around 80k. I've taken a similar approach with the Michigan and Alabama state RHP articles. I broke out the counties with the most RHPs into separate articles and once the state article was down to around 80k, I kept all the counties with fewer RHPs in the main state article. I think in both cases, the Michigan and Alabama state articles have all of the counties with 10 or fewer RHPs. I also table-ized the Connecticut, New Hampshire & Vermont lists. In these cases, each county got its own list. In the case of Hartford, I split the city of Hartford out into its own article. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue I've got, though, is the fact that a fully illustrated list will have thumbnails, usually of very high-res images, which will slow down its download time. See how long it takes the nearly-complete List of National Historic Landmarks in New York to load ... and that's excluding New York City's fully-illustrated list. To me the byte count isn't the most reliable guide, since it doesn't include the pictures.

Consider that New Bedford's entries in the Bristol County, MA, list are, proportionally, much more extensively illustrated than Fall River's. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Florida list is a good example, since we've got a significant amount of thumbs. To get it to around 80k, all the lists with over 16 entries were moved to their own subpages. As far as "theme" lists, like the Stone houses suggestion, I'd recommend it. It's particularly apropos for Multiple Property Submissions. A good mixed example is List of Registered Historic Woman's Clubhouses in Florida. Some of the club houses are part of an MPS, but some were submitted individually. So made the page to indicate that. Back to y'all. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also see List of octagon houses and Octagon house. --Ebyabe (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither the NY nor the FL list took long to load on my 5 year old system (my ISP is DSL). I timed the NY list at about 15 seconds and the FL list at about 10. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) There is another type of upper limit. In the process of table-izing List of RHPs in CA, I encountered a table display error, perhaps at the 200kb point. As i added tables, the list got up to 258,006 bytes in size. Below a certain point in the list, templates such as "NRHP color" were not processed, so one table was normal half-way through, then the rest of it and all later tables were garbled. After I split out the bigger county lists and got it under 200kb or so, all the tables displayed correctly. doncram (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Working in Pittsburgh over much of the summer, I was able to get pictures of a bunch of smaller NRHP properties on the eastern side of the city that don't have articles. As I was loth to create single-sentence stubs (such as those discussed in the previous two threads) and as I really don't know anything about many of these places except for their location, I didn't put them on any articles. Should I upload them to Commons now, for the sake of someone who might eventually write articles on them? Or should I just wait for someone to write about them first? Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do upload them to Commons. You can at least add some to List of Registered Historic Places in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Hm, there's another state that could use some table-izing. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Better,Yes, upload the pics to the corresponding NRHP list article List of Registered Historic Places in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, which we can add a table to right now, which accomodates pics and short descriptions. That way you can slot them right in for the specific NRHPs that they depict. Later, when anyone chooses to create the article by clicking on the red-link from the list-article-table, they have the pic right there and will add it. Give me a few minutes to add a table (using the Elkman county table generator tool). doncram (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, upload them to Commons and categorize in Registered Historic Places in Pennsylvania and then hook to them in the List of Registered Historic Places in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. All photos should be hosted on Commons.--Appraiser (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, uploading to Commons first, and linking from wikipedia, rather than uploading to wikipedia is preferred. The 53 NRHP listings in Allegheny County outside of Pittsburgh, and the 154 in Pittsburgh (which i split out), are now in table format ready to receive pics. Hope you like this format. doncram (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Put them on Commons by all means. As luck would have it, I will be attending a wedding in the southern suburbs of Pittsburgh and hope to get some of the local NRHPs (and NHLs we don't have pics of yet. like Bost Building and Woodville). Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I always put my own pictures on Commons. Another question: I see that there are several places near my Ohio home (in Logan County) that don't have pictures or articles, including the first concrete street in the country. A question on this street: the name of the street is Court Avenue, unlike the name of the NRHP. Would it be considered better to have the article entitled "Court Avenue" or "First Concrete Street In U.S.? It seems more sensible to me to call the article "Court Avenue", because that's the normal name and the normal format for the name of a street or road article (call it by its official title, not even an official "nickname"), but I thought I'd best check. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Court Avenue hands down. Whenever the NRHP has idiosyncratic names (e.g. "building at"), the more usual name is preferred. Circeus (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the Style Guide says to name the article by the most common contemporary name. The title of the NRHP infobox should be the official NRHP name, even if it is different from the article name.--Appraiser (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Use correct terminology: National Register of Historic Places

I note that there are a lot of state and local articles that introduce the phrase "Registered Historic Places" and even "RHP's". That is terminology that does not exist anywhere in federal statutes or regulations.

The correct terminology is National Register of Historic Places, which can be abbreviated as NRHP. It is found abundantly in federal regulations and in every State Historic Preservation Office, not the mention the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Why the incorrect terminology was introduced in Wikipedia I do not know.

As a former SHPO (State Historic Preservation Officer) I suggest that all the articles using the spurious terminology be edited to the correct terminology, otherwise Wikipedia is perpetuating incorrect terminology. That means 50 state articles and who knows how many local articles. A big job, yes, but really necessary.

Motorrad-67 (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So, instead of "List of Registered Historic Places in..." we would use "List of Nationally Registered Historic Places in..." or "List of Places in...on the National Register of Historic Places" or something else? I suspect that is how the incorrect terminology got started, because it's somewhat awkward in this phrase to figure the correct terminology. I agree "List of Registered Historic Places" isn't correct, especially since some locales have their own registries that don't correspond to the National Register. I'm just not sure what IS the correct thing. Lvklock (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for raising the issue here. I have thought that "Registered Historic Places" is a correct term to describe one of the entries in the National Register of Historic Places. I don't know whether "RHP" is an abbreviation that wikipedians invented; I certainly do use it as a shortcut term all the time now myself. It is okay to introduce and use a new acronym (ANT), as long as you define the ANT before using it. I would agree, at least, that we should try not to impose any new terms upon the world, and if Registered Historic Place is not a correct term, then we should change it. I myself once went on a campaign to eliminate one term, i think it may have been "National Landmark District", whose usage I noted was spreading, although it was not an official term of the National Park Service or anyone else. It was then in about 50 wikipedia articles and i changed them all. Someone who watched one of those articles pointed out that google searches found that term in wide use, but our examination of the google hits then revealed that it was only small non-profits and private websites that were using the term mistakenly. If in fact the Registered Historic Place term is wrong, it would now require changes in 10,000 or more wikipedia articles, but that is not an obstacle, it would just take a while to implement, if in fact it should be done. doncram (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest "entries in the National Register of Historic Places" or National Register of Historic Places entries." That covers all the permutations: buildings, sites, and districts. All are entries. The Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, who used to be my friend Carol Shull, but who has been replaced by a political appointee, enters buildings, sites, and districts in the register.

I will be glad to help doing the corrections however I can. Motorrad-67 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this a job that a bot could be programmed to do? Do we have anyone on the project who is facile with AutoWikiBrowser? Could it do some or all of the job? I played around with this tool some time back but never really figured out how it's supposed to work. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that the change should necessarily be made. It is indeed very relevant what is current usage within the official NRHP program itself, but if common usage elsewhere is already established then that may govern instead. I would like to see:

• Examples of NRHP official use of terms, particularly when talking about specific RHPs (you know what i mean) and about lists of RHPs as we need to do. We would have a real problem to replace our use of the RHP term. For example, "List of entries in the National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin" is awkward as a title; "List of Registered Historic Places in Wisconsin" seems pretty clear, especially if the intro to the article provides a direct link to National Register of Historic Places as it probably does. How does official correspondence within the NRHP program deal with such awkwardness. I would like to see examples of their descriptions of their own internal lists.

"National Register of Historic Places entries" = 6 words. "List of Registered Historic Properties" = 5 words. Is that what this is about? This is "awkward?" Gee, someone should have told Congress and the National Park Service 42 years ago that this is awkward.

My point exactly. Language abhors a vacuum, and it's been filled. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The shorthand for National Register of Historic Places is "National Register" or "NRHP" or even "NR" for 2 letters. In my 25 years as a state SHPO no state or federal official ever used the term, "registered historic places." It has no official standing or meaning. Sure, "citizens" used all sort of jargon to refer to the NRHP, including "registered historic place" or "historic register," etc. If you look hard enough you might find some document somewhere with this unofficial wording. So, do you want Wikipedia to be as correct as it can be, or to promote jargon with no official standing?

--Motorrad-67 (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

See this NPS budget request, which does use the term, albeit without capitalization. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and here's 30 NPS documents that use it that way too. So I assume then if we just drop the capitalization, it'll be OK? Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that convinces me that "registered historic place" is fine to use. And, it is a justified editorial decision on our part to capitalize that. We could simply include a footnote about this in the wikipedia articles Registered historic place, Registered Historic Place, and/or NRHP (which may all be the same article), and mention in wp:NRHPMOS that it is our editorial decision to capitalize the term. doncram (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you are easily convinced to do something wrong, incorrect, and erroneous. So much for the accuracy of Wikipedia. I am sorry you cannot reinvent the National Register to your liking. I guess you would be happy enough in messing up Wikipedia to your liking. I suggest you seek to become the director of the National Park Service after January. Then, instead of solving the problems of the national parks you can spend your valuable time trying to rename the National Register. Motorrad-67 (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask your friend Carol Shull why she uses the uncapitalized term six times in Teaching With the National Register of Historic Places. Then, she does it three times in The National Register of Historic Places Today. And she uses it here on the NPS website. These pages from an unknown author — [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] use it once. Here's this study (p. 3).

There are more, but I've made my point. I refuse to concede that it's not official terminology just because it doesn't appear in statutes written four decades ago and regulations that are infrequently modified when it is clearly acceptable use by a former Keeper of the Register and within official Park Service documents for public consumption.

Actually, the title of the "Teaching with Historic Places" program suggests we should just call compromise and call them Historic Places, since that would be a proper-noun usage supported by NPS usage. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An "entry on the National Register" would appear to me to refer to a written entry, itself, on a scroll in Washington, D.C., not the RHP itself. Again it would be helpful if you could point to specific examples of usage within the NRHP program, talking about specific RHPs and about lists of RHPs in local areas. Examples where the term refers to an abstract RHP would be most helpful ( It is obviously easy to use a more specific term when speaking of any very specific RHP as "a home" or "a building listed on the National Register", but what terms are used when the specifics are not known? ).

And, glancing at the NRHP's guide How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, it appears that this official document either awkwardly avoids using any term (such as would be useful to include in its title) or uses the term "properties". For example, "The National Register of Historic Places includes significant properties, classified as buildings, sites, districts, structures, or objects." (p.4). I think not all RHPs are properly termed properties, but that guide seems to be meant for owners of individual properties so it may have been an appropriate editorial decision to use "properties" throughout that document. Anyhow, could we use "properties" when talking about RHPs, even when the RHP is a district? doncram (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that one reason for using the word "property" as an all-encompassing term is that some of the entities on the National Register are not actually "places." For example, the NRHP apparently includes airplanes, shipwrecks, statues, and some objects (furniture?) that are housed in museum. See Property type (National Register of Historic Places) for details. All of these can be called "properties," but not all are locations. Note that the word "properties" is needed only to refer collectively the entities on the NRHP; when discussed one at a time, more specific nouns can be used. --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• A google search or two, as done nicely by some at AfD, showing usage of "Registered Historic Place" within NPS.GOV, if it exists, and general usage inclusive and exclusive of wikipedia use.
• What is the terminology in academic articles, like in certain criticisms of NRHP program that are mentioned in Talk:National Register of Historic Places?
• Check some dictionaries, and where else?

Finally, we do have some editorial discretion to decide upon suitable terminology that communicates properly, to be put into the wp:NRHPMOS. I think it is possible that we here in wikipedia are choosing to talk about lists of RHPs like has never occurred anywhere else. We are certainly hugely expanding the cumulative discussion of many obscure RHPs and lists of them in obscure counties. Maybe the usage we have evolved here IS the common usage now, because there is so little usage anywhere else. Although also our terminology may be jargon that should not be promoted (and note my example opposing use of "National Landmark Districts"). doncram (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No it is not the common usage. It is simply incorrect usage. Motorrad-67 (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I humbly suggest that the NPS ought to promote the RHP usage, because no good noun phrase exists for an NRHP listing, and, in its stead, most uninformed people use "National Historic Landmark" which has resulted in many, many errors and confusion in the press. The New York Times even fell for a few of these, describing, say, Brotherhood Winery as a National Historic Landmark. It is true that excluding our own pages, and Commons pages, from a google search on "Registered Historic Places" yields only 3,110 hits ... not enough to claim it's a valid term we can use. But still ... people will come up with their own terms if they are not provided with one, and if the park service doesn't mind people believing that "building/structure/site/ruin listed on the National Register of Historic Places" is identical with "National Historic Landmark", then it should have done something about it a long time ago. Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think you will get the federal govenment to change language embodied in regulations, policies, and documents for the past 42 years. There are lots of things I would love to change in the federal government of much higher priority than this matter. Let's just use the correct lingo and be done with it. This may help people who use Wikipedia learn the official terminology. Motorrad-67 (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, frankly your argument is in accord with Wikipedia policy, but I will only go along with it under protest because I think getting rid of a highly useful and elegant noun phrase just because the federal government, as part of a highly effective campaign to prevent the public from properly comprehending a very useful program, has not bothered to ever address this issue with the media or in any way indicate its preferred terminology. I am reminded of when we, in the U.S. roads project, had to stop using "multiplex", and its derivatives "duplex" or "triplex" to refer to concurrencies, just because the -plex term was used mainly within the roadfan community. Never mind that the usage, which comes from electrical engineering, was perfectly analogous and could, through du- and tri-, be modified to indicate the specific number of routes carried by the same stretch of road (I continue to use it on talk pages). Nope ... we have to use terms like "concurrency" and "overlap" because the state and federal DOTs use them.

Ditto with "Registered Historic Place" as a term for the actual property listed on the Register. It can encompass everything you could imagine, even districts as they are collections of properties. It works wonderfully as a noun phrase, is unambiguous as to what it refers to, makes a clear distinction between what is a National Historic Landmark and what isn't and takes up less space than any alternatives you could come up with.

But whatever. If we are to be mere thralls to yet another mangling of the English language, then so be it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a horrible analogy. "Concurrency" or "overlap" are perfectly clear terms, the latter being more natural than "multiplex". --NE2 04:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you go everywhere you find your name linked? I don't find either of the two other terms more natural. OK, "concurrency" is reasonably analogous but is more often used in reference to periods of time. "Overlap"? Two-dimensional shapes overlap, not one-dimensional linear routes. If that terminology weren't in use by some state DOTs I doubt we'd be using it either. I don't feel like retyping the electrical analogy used above. It makes sense intuitively.

Nor do I feel any obligation to trust the judgement of an editor who thinks state highway articles ought to have graphical elevation profiles, or that small crossroads in the middle of nowhere merit their own articles complete with infobox. An editor whose propensity for edit warring rather than discussing with anything more than insufficiently pithy and petulant one-liners has led to him getting RFC'ed three times, the last of which went to ArbCom. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Motorrad-67; the current terminology is non-standard. (I knew that, but because I am not a former SHPO, I didn't particularly care.) As I see it, the National Register is itself a list, so a name in the form "List of National Register of Historic Places entries" is full of redundancies (essentially, it parses to "List of list entries"). If the article title includes "National of Register of Historic Places," it should not also include "List." Also, "entries" is not standard terminology, AFAIK. The noun that I have always heard (and that is used in the Wikipedia articles) for entities on the list is "properties". Accordingly, the U.S. list article could be renamed National Register of Historic Places properties and the state list articles could be renamed in the form National Register of Historic Places properties in Minnesota or possibly just National Register of Historic Places in Minnesota. --Orlady (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Orlandy makes good points. I like "National Register of Historic Places in Minnesota." Hmmm. Seven words. "Properties" is o.k. too. Motorrad-67 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If the naming does get changed here (which I'm not averse to, btw), we need to remember to match the changes over at WikiCommons, since the state-specific categories are of the Registered Historic Places in variety. However, it's easier to get a bot to do that there, as I found out not too long ago. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not use the NRHP initials in article titles, e.g. List of NRHP entries in X, and spell it all out in the lead? clariosophic (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC) That's only 6 words. BTW, I fail to follow Orlady's reasoning that List and entry are the same thing. Also the correct title is National Register of Historic Places, so why use properties instead of places? clariosophic (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Using "NRHP" in the article titles would be inconsistent with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It's OK to use widely known abbreviations such as "NASA" in some article titles, but NRHP does not qualify on that basis.
As for failing to follow my reasoning, I think in fact you failed to follow my words. The National Register is itself a list. "Entries" are items on a list.
As for "properties," that is the official term that the U.S. Department of the Interior uses for the individual entities listed in the National Register. --Orlady (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

But it would not be easy to switch to using "property". In common usage, a property is a land parcel that is legally listed and owned by a specific owner. Wiktionary's first two definitions are:

1. Something that is owned. Leave those books alone! They are my property.
2. A parcel of land with a single owner. There is a large house on the property.

The RHPs we discuss often do not correpond to a legal parcel. It would be misleading to say "the Soho Cast Iron Historic District is a property in Manhattan", or that a structure or an object like a tower or a memorial stone is a property; it is much clearer to refer to them as RHPs. I don't think we can redefine property in wikipedia to mean something different, though I am pretty comfortable with defining Registered Historic Place, especially if the apparent editorial guidelines of the National Park Service's travel itineraries (rather well-written webpages) allow it in lower case already. In fact, I think i'd choose trying to get the National Park Service to change to this terminology from its non-standard use of "property" more widely, over trying to get consensus in wikipedia to redefine property. :) doncram (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the word "properties" would be needed only for the title(s) and lead sections of the lists. "Property" is a generic term that the DOI uses to encompass all of the different types of entities that are on National Register. See Property type (National Register of Historic Places) for details. Each of the individual "properties" on the list can be identified and described using a more specific noun, such as "building," "house," "barn," "church", "tunnel," "bridge," "historic district," "sculpture," "archaeological site," "airplane," or "shipwreck." --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If we do decide to use "property", here's how I'd do it:

• Lists: "Properties on the National Register of Historic Places in COUNTY/CITY". (List articles don't always have to start with "list of"
• Categories: "National Register of Historic Places-listed properties in ...". Theme categories could follow the example we've been using of "TYPE OF PROPERTY on ...". For the broader, more topical themes, I'd go with "TOPIC-related National Register of Historic Places-listed properties".

Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do for the "encyclopedia," Wikipedia, and the National Register program is to get rid of incorrect terminology and replace it with what is correct terminology. I think a genuine encyclopedia would do no less. However, you folks may decide to use the virtual terminology that you have coined for naming these articles, including the made-up acronym "RHP" that is used nowhere else in officialdom. In that case I urge you to use the only correct terminology, i.e., National Register of Historic Places, up front and throughout every article, including - after using the correct initial appellation - "National Register," "NRHP," and/or "NR." Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your acknowledgment that the editorial policy decision here, for this encyclopedia, could go against your initial most strongly worded suggestions here, and that yet there are compromises possible, along the lines of our adopting guidelines on usage of all of the terms. For example, I agree that if it is determined that the acronym RHP is made-up here at wikipedia, then that should be clearly stated somewhere, and its usage in articles out in "main space" articles should be limited or perhaps entirely avoided. Also, I am concerned that I may have contributed to your getting an exaggerated view of the problems with usage. In fact, I think "RHP" may not have been used anywhere in the encyclopedia portion of wikipedia, the main space articles. RHP is used, and is useful jargon, for discussions here in wikipedia space wp:NRHP and on user talk pages. RHP is also used, and is worth keeping, in shortcuts like List of RHPs in WI (which links to an article that does not use the acronym in its title or contents). I agree that we should be concerned with usage and have clearly thought out guidelines.

Motorrad-67, to your knowledge, is NRHP used, within National Park Service or state offices, by the way, to mean a specific property?

A similar question should be asked, about what is the proper way to refer to districts listed on the NRHP. Is there usage within the NPS for such, e.g. perhaps "National Register District". It would be useful to have a proper noun in many places; I have seen awkward usage of historic district when a district listed on the National Register of Historic Places is meant. doncram (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my "strongly worded suggestions." I just bumped into this annoyingly erroneous terminology and got carried away. I was especially annoyed by the suggestion of making coined terminology and a made-up acronym capitalized as though they warranted proper noun status, which they do not. I have said my piece, too energetically, yes, and am done with the matter. Motorrad-67 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you look at the project page and comment about what's right or wrong about the proposals? Thanks--Appraiser (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Motorrad-67 (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding historic district terminology, see Historic district (United States). Where have you seen awkward usage in this connection? Is it due to the need to distinguish historic districts listed on the NRHP from historic districts designated by others? FWIW, I have never seen the term "National Register District" used by anybody. --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Usage examples

Okay, i am not seeing any documents appearing that demonstrate NPS or state SHPO office use of any terminology different from, much less better than, "List of Registered Historic Places in Alabama", in circumstances like we need (as a list of mixed properties and districts, as a succinct title of a document). Browsing, myself, in lists at the state websites, I see awkwardness.

• Take South Carolina's example: it seems to try to use "listings" but then hastily follows up to clarify that they mean to include districts also: "South Carolina has more than 1,300 listings in the National Register of Historic Places, including more than 160 historic districts." That same page leaps to embrace use of "properties", to describe sites that have been delisted (which, happily, include no districts so properties works). There is a reluctance on the part of SC DAH writers to give a succinct title, for good reason.
• For Minnesota, consider Mary Ann Nord's 2003 book: The National Register of Historic Places in Minnesota. Minnesota Historical Society. ISBN 0-87351-448-3. This is an example of the type we need, a succinct title, though I think it would be better as Registered Historic Places in Minnesota at least if it covered both Federal- and state-listed properties and districts. If it is just the Federal ones, then U.S. Registered Historic Places in Minnesota would be best, in my view. Anyhow this author chooses not to use "List of Register Listings" or any other redundancies.
• Other usage examples? --doncram

• • From google books, another example: National Register of Historic Places, 1966-1991: Cumulative List Through June 30, 1991

By American Association for State and Local History, National Park Service, United States National Park Service, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officeers Published by American Association for State and Local History, 1991 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Nov 6, 2007 ISBN 094206321X, 9780942063219 893 pages -- doncram (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is a bit of usage of "nationally registered historic place". Unless I'm mistaken, it's unambiguous when referring to the U.S., since there's only one national agency that registers historic places. It also allows for phrases like "state and nationally registered historic places". As it's simply a phrase that strings together common words, there doesn't seem to be a problem with WP:NEO. (Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms is slightly, but not very, relevant to this discussion.) PS: hehe, look what I found --NE2 05:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Decision process

What decision process, about the use of the "Registered Historic Place" term and related terms, might work best? Back and forth argument is good for bringing out many of the issues that need to be considered, but too much of it can be detrimental to people's feelings. I am concerned that decisions should be reached that are comprehensive and that fairly balance different views and evidence put forward. I don't think voting is the right method, and I don't think we need to rush any decision either. I am thinking there are probably wp:MOS policy type people, not subject to long experience with either wp:NRHP jargon or NPS/state/industry jargon, whose involvement, in the right framework, would help. Are the questions we have suitable for an RfC, or a village pump proposal, or should the discussion be moved to a MOS page, or is there some other relevant mechanism available? doncram (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you User:Motorrad-67 for bringing this issue to our attention. I had never really thought about the issue before, and (attitude notwithstanding) I appreciate your drawing our attention to it. I have started a project page to help us come to consensus about the changes that we could make that would be correct and satisfactory to all interested parties. Don, I think we can work on the project page and come to consensus prior to initiating the actual changes. I would suggest adding alternatives for each item if anyone has a different suggestion than the ones I started with. Also add additional bullets as necessary. I suspect we can reach consensus on 80% of the issues without much headache. Here's the WL:Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals.--Appraiser (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, this page is exactly the right place to have the discussion, since this is a gathering place for people interested in and knowledgable about the subject matter. Thanks to Appraiser for creating the subpage. Others with particular knowledge and interest can be invited, of course. I would hope, however, that participants would take the time to inform themselves by reading relevant parts of WP:MOS and by reading both Wikipedia articles and reliable sources on the NRHP and its terminology, rather than asking naive questions here and relying on the answers of the first Wikipedians who respond. --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In terms of group process that works to get to good decisions, i think it is generally better to hold discussion of principles and values that are to be taken into account, separately and/or with brainstorming on specific options. And, brainstorming is usually best done freely without criticism of brainstorming suggestions, i.e. before voting. The subpage has gone into voting on specific suggestions, while i think considering more examples of usage in various states and elsewhere (including any specifically relevant lists within the NPS), would still be helpful. Happily people seem pretty flexible about changing their votes at least. doncram (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NYC Cultural Institutions

This has been cross posted to Museums, National Register of Historic Places and NYC as it has relevance to both and I don't think enough eyes are on the article. Anyone want to weigh in at this discussion err currently post about fixing that list. I'm not debating the existence of the list, but rather its usefulness. It's currently, as my boss would say, "a crazy salad" and needs to be broken down. Much as we like to be comprehensive, I don't think we can list everything vaguely cultural in NYC on one list, nor should we try. Am open to suggestions. Thoughts? Please weigh in at that discussion for the sake of keeping everything in one place. TravellingCari 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Historic Places Database

http://www.hpdb.org/

Just a heads up. I doubt it's going to be any great use for the project (though it is far more easily browsed than the NPS' database, which gives me headaches and nothing else; I'm glad I don't actually need to access the stuff), given it's basically an IMDB that asserts copyright over US government data (!), AFAICT, and does not allow much anything to be done to it. Circeus (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Courthouse images

I made a contact with flickr user Jimmywayne22. Jimmy has been licensing his pictures of courthouses as Creative Commons Attribution/Non-commercial/No Derivatives, but changed his pictures of missing Wisconsin courthouses (missing to Wikipedia) to Creative Commons ShareAlike Attribution. I know that many courthouses are RHPs, so it might be worth it for someone to open a dialog with Jimmy about the rest of the U.S. He also has a collection of post office images, which are also frequently RHPs. Royalbroil 02:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Mississippi

On July 25 [6], the National Park Service removed several properties in Biloxi, Bay St.Louis, Gulfport, and Pascagoula from the NRHP. The question came up as to whether these removals were because of Katrina. I contacted the NPS. They verified that these properties were removed from the NRHP because they were all destroyed by Katrina. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Minimum standards for new stub NRHP articles

At least three new stub Massachusetts NRHP articles created by Swampyank were recently put up for Speedy Deletion (see User talk:Swampyank. One just went to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Col. Adelbert Mossman House. Swampyank has been on a campaign to create NRHP stub articles using the Elkman NRHP generator output, and working off the List of RHPs in MA. In my view, Swampyank's stub articles push the limit: they include cut and pasted Elkman output and have bodies consisting of just one text sentence, and they lack Talk pages and are not included in any wikiproject. I had already commented to Swampyank that creating talk pages and adding to wp:NRHP and wp:MA is desirable; Swampyank has responded that that would slow down the article creation, which is certainly true, but might be a good thing.

I think the new page patrollers and the other editors who commented in the AfD have a legitimate point that minimal stub articles are of dubious value, and that pushing their buttons should be avoided and/or verges upon being disruptive. (Full disclosure: I myself created many minimal NRHP stub articles for NHL and other NRHP articles and for a while got Speedy deletion notices. I eventually responded by putting more effort into my stubs, including usually checking for and adding HABS links, and often adding a note about the availability of NRHP nomination documents.)

I suggest that the standard set by the Elkman NRHP generator be honored in new NRHP articles (meaning the minimal suggested Talk page be included). The suggested talk page minimally adds the article to wp:NRHP, the appropriate state wikiproject, and puts in a reqphoto. Bureaucratically speaking, that would mean trout-lashing(?) or otherwise trying to influence anyone who generates more than a few NRHP articles without meeting that minimum standard.

Also, I suggest the standard be raised slightly: adding a note in the article proper, perhaps, and adding notes in the Talk page, about the likely availability of sources to improve the article. Perhaps the generator-suggested Talk page text could be expanded to include something like:

"Sources to improve this article"

• A National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination document for this site is available. It may be available on-line, and otherwise will be available for free from the National Park Service for this site (Email your request, providing your postal address, to nr_reference (at) nps.gov, to receive a hard copy, usually in about two weeks).
• HABS or HAER photos and text narratives may be available for this site. Search HABS/HAER here

Further customization of the sources note, to address state-specific on-line sources for IL, NY, VA, various other states, could be added to the Elkman suggested output. As with multiple other refinements to the Elkman generator, implementing this depends of course upon Elkman's continued kind support. doncram (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I recently went through the Massachusetts lists and added the WP:NRHP template to as many Talk pages on these articles as I could find. And there were a lot. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

After stubbing the Florida list (and during the stubbing process, since it took a few months), there were attempts to delete some of the stubs due to their brevity. Because if I'd tried to make each one of any significant length, I'd still be working on de-redlinking the darn thing, doncha know. :) Anyway, I usually could indicate they were notable since they were on the NRHP, plus I always included at least a couple of refs and an infobox. What also seemed to help, though, was adding wikilinks in the appropriate town/city articles under Points of Interest or National Historic Status. An example is Eustis. The more articles linked to, the better. Minimal standards are a good idea, but I don't think short stubs are necessarily a bad thing. They're like seeds, from which better articles can grow. Or something like that. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As I'm not really active here these days, feel free to take this opinion with a grain of salt. But personally, I think it's a much better use of time to create good useful articles before going on article creation drives that result in virtually useless stubs. A bare minimum stub provides basically no more information that is useable to a person that would look up the subject than a redlink would. it would probably frustrate people more than it would encourage them to write the article themself. Murderbike (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Might there also be some way of autoadding the "Architecture by year" category if it applies? I've chased down a bunch and added the appropriate cat, but I'm lazy and my fingers get tired. So anything that would eliminate the work would be a plus. :) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if that can be done well automatically, as the date reported as "built" out of the Elkman generator, based on NRIS data, is often in fact a "significant" date, like when a historically important person bought a house, despite it having been built on an earlier date. Also, many of these sites are not important architecturally, so adding automatically to Architecture by year categories seems unhelpful. doncram (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak to the former, but as to the latter, many of my own articles about buildings that aren't of architectural significance have been categorized in the appropriate architecture-by-year categories. So on that count, at least, I think there may be precedent. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 05:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This may be a bit trite, but this from my user page is what I try to follow in creating articles:

The Five Ws

In journalism, the Five Ws (also known as the Five Ws (and one H) or simply the Six Ws) is a concept in news style, research, and in police investigations that most people consider to be fundamental. It is a formula for getting the "full" story on something. The maxim of the Five Ws (and one H) is that in order for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of six questions, each of which comprises an interrogative word:

1. Who?
2. What?
3. Where?
4. When?
5. Why?
6. How?

The principle underlying the maxim is that each question should elicit a factual answer — facts that it is necessary to include for a report to be considered complete. Importantly, none of these questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no".

In the context of the "news style" for newspaper reporting, the Five Ws are types of facts that should be contained in the "lead" (sometimes spelled lede to avoid confusion with the typographical term "leading" or similarly spelled words), or first two or three paragraphs of the story, after which more expository writing is allowed.

The "Five Ws" (and one H) were memorialized by Rudyard Kipling in his "Just So Stories" (1902), in which a poem accompanying the tale of "The Elephant's Child" opens with:

I keep six honest serving-men (They taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who.

clariosophic (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I might also add a G for Google. I never fail to be amazed at the additional info a simple Google search can pull up. Also always check What links here before submitting an article. It can bring surprises such as links from 2 or more NRHP lists which tells you that you have a disambiguation problem. clariosophic (talk)