Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Portal

I think it is time for an NRHP portal. Ebyabe had something in user space awhile back. I think that a good idea for the portal would be to inlcude an "Weekly updates" section where we could list all places added to the NRHP each week, this would assure that users could easily update the state lists here. And of course, we could add the portal to our banner, which is on so many pages people are bound to visit our little portal. IvoShandor 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! It's stored at PortalNRHP. Have at, folks. :) -Ebyabe 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought about having a portal, too. Great minds think alike Einbierbitte 21:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

I decided I need to learn more Wikicode and this seemed like a fun way to do it. I haven't counted my NRHP-sites-visited yet, but I was sadly disappointed to learn I've only visited 40 landmarks. Gotta get moving! Anyway, have fun with these if you want. I may play with them a bit still; I'm really not happy with the picture for the landmarks, but it'll do for now. Check out User:G LeTourneau/userboxes for the details.

This user visits sites on the National Register of Historic Places.

User:G LeTourneau/userboxes/NRHP2

User:G LeTourneau/userboxes/NHL1

Nice. I like the color and composition. I'm going to use the NHL box once I tally up my total. . . Ipoellet 15:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bulk Stubbing

Would bulk stubbing from the NPS database be something we should pursue? I downloaded the database and was playing around with it some and it doesn't seem like it would be extremely difficult. pw 14:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The bot is created (see User:NrhpBot) and its been flagged as a bot. I've incorporated some of User:Elkman's infobox code and geocoding info in to it. Starting small, with just Hamilton County, Ohio, but hopefully should be up and running for larger areas soon. pw 19:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure the time and effort are worth it to create 1000s of sub stub articles with almost no information in them. Just a thought. If you wouldn't mind leaving Illinois out I would greatly appreciate it. If not that's okay too, but I would rather start the articles from scratch if it's all the same to you. IvoShandor 06:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I can leave it out if you would like. The main reason I'm doing it is to get the page names, infoboxes, geo coords, architect links, architectural style and other stuff in here from their database and make sure the "List of Registered...*" red links all match up since commonly when an article is stubbed not all the data from the database is transferred over or the title is not the Nrhp title so the redlinks still exist, etc. If you would rather do the infoboxes by hand or with Elkman's tool for IL, thats no problem.

If you have some suggestions to improving the stubs, like adding the significant names or other info from the database or other databases feel free to suggest that too as it would come in handy. pw 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the one big thing is oddly titled articles that already exist, I still find them. Other than that I can't think of anything offhand. If I do I will be sure to contact you. I would note that a number of states maintain databases that usually contain additional info.IvoShandor 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I have it do some searching before creation, on google and stuff (using refnum, etc) to see if the page already exists. If it does i don't stub it, I only stub ones I can't find. But yeah, it still creates articles that already exist sometimes. To curb errors I have it check to see if any pages with a name like "List of Registered historic places in *****" link to it, if not, I flag it for manual review since something is wrong somewhere. If more than one list links to it I also flag it for review, since only one link should really link to it. pw 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

At Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks by state the intent is to have a list/table article for each state. The NHL is about 5% of the NRHP, so NRHP articles might be 20 times larger. But also might be more likely to have more stubs and short entries for a longer time, as it should take time for people to dig up details. Adding coordinates can reduce that time so it is easier for people to find what is nearby. (SEWilco 00:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

I just came across the vastness of the bulk-stubbed historic buildings wiki within Archiplanet.org, for example [Adams Power Plant Transformer House, in the Archiplanet.org wiki]. It does not seem inviting to me add information into that system. It's just too empty and depressing. Better to make the tools like Elkman's infobox generator, and to improve instruction on how to use them, for semi-custom construction use by real people having real interest in particular sites.doncram 05:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as I have the NRHP database loaded up, want me to emit {{coord}} entries for the entries? Having coordinates can make it easier for people to find nearby sites to visit and update. Do you want just the named coordinates grouped by state? Grouped by county? Or do you want more of the data, such as being discussed at Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks by state#All the states? And where do you want the 40,000-60,000 items placed? (SEWilco 03:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

I haven't tallied them but based on the NHL subset I estimate half to two-thirds of the entries have coordinates. (SEWilco 03:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Yes, please! Regarding emission. :) How about putting it in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/coords, or maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/coordinates dump? And arranged by state and county would be lovely. Thanks so muchly! :) -Ebyabe 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Only the list of coordinates is wanted, then? If that's the case, I'll wrap them in county section headings. I'll include the state in the section heading so browsers won't be confused when jumping to counties with the same name in multiple states. (SEWilco 16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Index to the coordinates list is in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/coords. The location is named within the coordinate, visible in Edit mode. Add whatever other instructions you want, such as whether people should delete items which they have copied to wherever you want them to end up. (SEWilco 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

After instructions are in the /coords page, that page could be mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/location verification. Moving coordinates to appropriate pages, even before checking the coordinates, is part of checking the location. (SEWilco 06:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

That list is not expected to have coordinates for all the places in the Register. The address and coordinates for some sites are not public, and locations for which the coordinates were not defined were omitted. (SEWilco 06:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

Looks like something broke for Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/coordsH#New_York.2C_New_York_County, also, at least all the NY county landmarks all have these already... dm 07:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The data is fine. It just hit the template transclusion limit. New York State has so much history it needs articles by county. Or whatever NY calls its political divisions; I just appended "County" to all the county field values. (SEWilco 01:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

NY editors: apparently all the counties in NY do not yet have coordinates. I just added them to the Kings County, NY, list, and List of Registered Historic Places in New York County, New York does not have coordinates (it also has a lot of redlinks so obviously all the coordinates are not within articles). (SEWilco 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

I added instructions to the /coords page that coordinates which have been moved should be replaced with a link to the article which they were moved to. That way it is apparent when the coordinates have been put someplace. I'm doing List of Registered Historic Places in Kings County, New York, now. I notice that a "Historic District" is not in the coordinate list and neither is the Brooklyn Bridge (maybe because it is between counties). (SEWilco 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

Infoboxes

I've been going through and adding or updating the Infoboxes. One of the things I've started doing is changing the inversions of the architect names from last name first to first name first and for places open to the public, adding the street addresses.

Some questions that I have:

• The NPS naming convention is that the original or historic name of the property is preferred (see Bulletin 16A). I think that since the Infobox uses information from the NRHP and is meant to "honor" NRHP properties, the title of the Infobox should be the NRHP title of the property - notwithstanding any other "official" or other name of the property. Many times the official name already exists in the article title and in the body of the article. Your thoughts?

• The use of more than one Infobox. Ships, Lighthouses, Bridges, Railroad Depots, High Schools and more all have infoboxes. No place for NRHP info. Is it appropriate to add the NRHP Infobox? With minimal information - date of listing and reference number - or other information not included in the other Infoboxes?

Einbierbitte 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My two cents--I think it's going to depend on "is it a bridge that happens to be on the NRHP list, or is it a NRHP site that happens to be a bridge?" -- in other words, Republican River Pegram Truss is a bridge that has maybe ten cars a day pass over it... the argument could be made that the only reason it is still standing is because of the NRHP. However, other historic bridges might be "historic" in nature and on the list, but have significant traffic--thus making it more of a "bridge" than a "historic site" ... --Paul McDonald 03:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Who's to say we can't work on, say, the bridge infobox (in collaboration with that project, of course), to include some optional NRHP parameters? I would note too that we have museums, libraries, skyscrapers, parks and a few protected areas that overlap as well. Putting {{Registered Historic Places}} at the bottom should always be done, of course, but I think we should find a way to add NRHP info in a number of infoboxes. Daniel Case 19:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There are undoubtedly many bridges outside of the United States that are listed by their country's historic register, so we wouldn't want to make the infobox section too NRHP-centric. As an example, there's Forth Bridge (railway), which is a Category A listed building in Scotland. There's also Category:Grade I listed bridges in England and Wales. Any parameters added to {{Infobox Bridge}}, {{Infobox Lighthouse}}, and others should be generic enough to indicate any other country's listing standards. The type of register, date listed, and reference number would probably qualify -- any others we need? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've personally always thought the infoboxes should be more modular, so that you can define one as having both skyscraper AND historic building. As long as they start from the same parent (ie: things), then you wont get a nrhp and a musician sharing a combined infobox. I've occasionally added a second infobox, but it doesn't always look right. dm 15:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel Case and Dmadeo that maybe there should be some flexibility in the Infoboxes. Besides Bridges and Lighthouses, there are also Infoboxes for Locomotives, Ships (civil and military), Railroad Stations, Protected Areas, Skyscrapers, Colleges and Universities, High Schools, and perhaps more that'll come to me later. I like Elkman's suggestion of adding just the bare minimum of information - type of register, date listed. Einbierbitte 21:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As one who has been sadly silent around here of late (too much to do at work, hurray), I'd like to chime in and say that I, too, would like to see some way of combining userboxes. It would make everything much neater and easier to read. Not just for us, either - I've seen lots of userboxes where I thought it might be something nice to have. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 01:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

NRHP addition date vs. NHL designation date -- For the many NRHPs that are NHLs, it would be useful to be able to include NHL designation date in the NRHP infobox, but I don't see how or see any that do. It would help cleaning up entries in the NYS NHL listdoncram 23:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

For an example of how I've handled this issue in the past, see Caguana Ceremonial Ball Courts Site. Ipoellet 01:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Added a parameter to the infobox for this. I tested it on the site mentioned just above (Caguana), and looks to work fine. Adjustments can be made if needed, but at least the parameter now exists. Have at, y'all! :) --Ebyabe 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Very Very COOL! Thanks for adding that, I've started adding it to the NHL's in NY I've worked on previously dm 05:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you, Ebyabe! Ipoellet 20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, but hey, no big, it was an easy one to add. :) -Ebyabe 23:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox issue, I agree, some sort of consolidation would be wonderful. A "one box fits all" deal would be great. I believe, though, that there may be projects that like things done a certain way, and would not appreciate such generalization. But if people involved in some of the other projects would like to bring the subject up, perhaps some good would come out of it. My NRHP philosophy has been to not replace another project infobox with ours, but maybe add ours below it. But that can obviously get messy... -Ebyabe 23:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A nice example where the NRHP infobox is embedded well below within the article, is Cooper Union, which i recently came across. Less nice examples where there is a BRIDGE infobox followed by a NRHP infobox are Old Blenheim Bridge and Shushan Bridge new stub articles that are works-in-progress. Would appreciate suggestions on how to make those appear better.... doncram 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Could the map be added to the bridge infobox instead of the NRHP one? That'd help some, I think. -Ebyabe 23:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Manhattan Landmarks are complete

I'm happy to announce that with help from User:Daniel Case, User:Einbierbitte and many others, that we now have an article for each of the 85 Manhattan entries in the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. Personally, it took five weekend skates to get pictures of almost all of them as well as detailed perusal of the AIA guide, the Guide to NYC Landmarks and other reference material. Whew! dm 04:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC) (I always forget to sign :(

Good work! You forgot to sign though. : ) IvoShandor 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! Many kudos for a great effort! Ipoellet 04:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but what have you done lately... :) Can you snap a photo for Quarters A, Brooklyn Navy Yard and otherwise head out into the boros?doncram 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

HA! The Brooklyn navy yard is somewhat difficult to get onto. I'll see what's possible and legal. At least some people have gained legal access. dm 06:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone writing for Wikipedia ever gone through media liaison/press office channels to get at information or locations? Could you get accorded the courtesies that reporters get? Ipoellet 20:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

EMPIRE STATE BUILDING: I am a little bit nervous about having just edited the Empire State Building article, it being so salient. Mainly, I added more NHL reference information, which i am sure is fine. But i added an NRHP infobox under the Skyscraper infobox, and I moved a photo inside it... that widened the size of the photo and hence the layout of the article changed somewhat too. I don't yet know any way to limit the width of the NRHP infobox and/or its photo. Any attention to that would be appreciated. doncram 00:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

One of this Project's Good Articles, Presidio of Santa Barbara has been nominated for Good Article review. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer3000 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does one find the discussion and participate in review? Does not appear in Good Article review listing at Good Article review, as far as i know. I like the Presidio of Santa Barbara article. I found one minor thing to add to the infobox, did that. Otherwise, i think it perhaps could mention Mission Santa Barbara, especially if there was known to be significant relationship. In general, seems to me that some type of link to nearby NRHPs could help NRHP articles, not sure how to make that work well.doncram 17:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That discussion concluded, after about a week or so. The article remained listed as a good article. IvoShandor 18:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I'm sure this question has come up before. Are NRHP sites inherently notable? Is Fire House No. 1 notable?--Appraiser 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the general consensus has been yes. Regardless of that, I say yes as well. IvoShandor 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If the State Historic Preservation Office is willing to nominate a property to the National Register, and the keeper of the National Register of Historic Places accepts the nomination and lists the property on the National Register, then that clearly counts as notability. The National Register nomination form itself counts as a reliable source, independent of the subject, and should count as significant coverage (because of the amount of research required to defend the nomination). Still, there are a few places I'm hesitant to do articles about, such as the Orchard Gardens Railway Station. It's on the National Register, but when I went there to take pictures, it basically looked to me like a shack alongside the tracks. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Got a link to the Register form, any other sources besides the one above? I'll do it, and make it high quality too. I just love those oddball places. IvoShandor 20:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, from the infobox generator that appears to be on the Register as: "Minneapolis St. Paul Rochester & Dubuque Electric Traction Company Depot", at 5th & 155th location mentioned in source above.doncram 22:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, does anyone have opinions about omnibus articles that cover multiple, related NRHP sites at once? Or do we have an ideal of a one-to-one relationship between site and article? Some examples of what I mean:

• Prineville is a smallish town in central Oregon that has 4 NRHP sites: 2 houses and 2 former banks. Should these be consolidated into one article (Registered Historic Places in Prineville, Oregon?), where some really good writing could use these sites to illustrate the sweep of Prineville history, and to give context to one another? Or should they be written as 4 separate articles, reflecting the distinct history and research methods embodied in each NRHP listing?
• Crater Lake National Park contains several NRHP sites (and one NHL). But a couple of these sites are... restrooms. I agree that an NRHP listing inherently satisfies Wikipedia's notability criterion. But I am nevertheless heartily skeptical that anyone will ever bother write a whole article about a restroom. Would an article like Registered Historic Places in Crater Lake National Park, that covers all 8 NRHP sites in the park, be an acceptable solution?

-Ipoellet 00:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For some like that in Florida, I made lists. You can find the list of lists here. A good example is this one, I'd say. -Ebyabe 00:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ipoellet: I usually approach it on a case by case basis. If there is a lot of info about related sites that can conceivably be made into an article, I usually just give it its own page (only because its likely to be split off if anyone ever goes to the trouble of expanding it). That being said, many, many sites on the Register are scarcely known about, let alone written about, outside of the nom form and a few obscure books, so there is certainly an argument for broader articles. I approached a similar dilemma with Sycamore Historic District and ended up with some high-quality individual article about a few contributing properties as well as some quality articles that combined dozens of contributing properties into one article. (See DeKalb County Courthouse (Illinois), Civil War Memorial (Sycamore, Illinois) and Houses in Sycamore Historic District.) Hope this helps. IvoShandor 09:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I've been adding geographic coordinates is because people are not aware of sites. Being able to see on a map what is near you makes it easier to find sites to visit or research. (SEWilco 16:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC))

IMPORTANT: NRHP link notice

For those following the weekly govt updates, they got one of the links wrong. The one for August 31 takes you to the August 24 listings. There were additions for August 31, but the page they're at is here. -Ebyabe 16:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Least Deserving NHL?

See Florence Mills House a property that apparently was landmarked by mistake! I thought dm did a good job editing the news that the wrong address got NRHP and NHL landmarking, but I have edited it to be a bit more in-your-face with the fact of it, relying upon an additional quote from the National Park Service that i found in an already-cited reference, and adding other references. I wonder how/where in WP:NRHP does one discuss that a site should perhaps be delisted? For this site, I'd like to nominate it as perhaps the "least deserving National Historic Landmark", given that wrong address was landmarked, and it seems to me, even when it was landmarked the original building that had existed at time of Florence Mill's life was already gone. (It is mentioned in the article that the original house is gone, but also the current photo does not match 1976 photos of the site at time of landmarking.) Hopefully it is okay to be a bit skeptical, here. doncram 18:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think we have the option of telling the National Park Service that their National Historic Landmarks aren't really deserving of that status. I've seen a lot of National Historic Landmarks that are designated so because they're associated with some famous person important in American History, whether or not the house is architecturally significant. Still, upon reading the article, I'm wondering, "Who is Florence Mills?" --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the article is so far merely a "fortified stub", that is to say it has little text but it is loaded with links to more information. I've been manufacturing those. In this case, the informative links do not include the NHL/NRHP nomination document that is provided by the NPS for most NHLs, but not for this one. The cited NHL summary and "Places Where Women Made History" links do describe her as being the lead in "Shuffle Along", important in the evolution of Broadway musicals, which I think I recall from a long PBS show on early Broadway musicals. And that she was a symbol for many African-Americans and helped along the spirit of the Harlem Renaissance. So I think her life could be honored, but the rationale for this address being that place is not so good. Interestingly, the "Places Where Women Made History" article suggests to me that a plaque ought to go to the AME Zion church where her funeral was held, it being such a record large funeral.

The stated [NHL policy for de-designations] is essentially that professional error can be grounds to de-designate a property, but, arbitrarily, not for sites designated prior to 1980. Hers was designated in 1976. Odd. Certainly there are politics involved, in setting that arbitrary line, just as politics would be involved in making other designations and de-designations, too. But if an alternative site with more valid association with her life could be found, say the church of her funeral or a theatre where she performed, to replace the invalid site, then perhaps it would be more feasible for politicians to see their way to making a change. It just seems wrong to continue designation for a known-to-be-incorrect site. doncram 06:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would note that a large number of NHLs (especially in the early days of the program) have been designated purely for political reasons. NHL designation can be big local news, leading to votes and more votes for elected officials perceived to be involved in said designations. IvoShandor 09:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

IvoShandor -- What you're saying is interesting. Especially if you have any sources for that perspective, it would be great to add some discussion of the political nature of landmark designation to the article on National Historic Landmarks. That article can really use some beefing up. I am concerned about putting 257 links to it, from the NYS NHLs. It really should be a flagship article for this WP:NRHP, but it is not that great, IMHO. doncram 21:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been in the back of my mind for some time, though I would like to see National Register of Historic Places become featured. A bit of work and it will be there, I just have to de-bureaucratize it. Take a look if you have time. The archived peer review contains many helpful hints. I do believe that some of the sources used in the NRHP article outline the political nature of some of the landmark designations. There was one early one in particular that was highlighted and I cannot think of it right now. I will have to reread some stuff. I would also note that I have at home access to databases like JSTOR, which contain a wealth of information on historic preservation in the United States, particularly the NRHP and NHL programs. So some expansion and work will definitely need to be done soon. I will help out where I can, I am sure to have some time, eventually. IvoShandor 21:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I find that the National Register of Historic Places article is very much more satisfying. I happen to have been focusing on NHLs, and neglected to go to that article before. I wonder if the political nature of NHLs can be dealt with, in part, within that article. There sure are a lot of the NYS NHLs which were automatically added to the register in 1966 because they were previously designated NHLs. It is striking to me that there are 3 Vassar College-related NHLs, out of proportion. And the Florence Mills NHL designation of the wrong address not in fact associated with that black American artist, although in broad strokes it seems appropriate to designate some sites other than those associated with "rich dead white guys" like Jay Gould Estate and John D. Rockefeller Estate, etc. doncram 01:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am wary about straying too far off topic in the National Register article, it already needs a ton of work before an FAC will be successful. I suspect most that discussion is more appropriate for the NHL article. Once the NRHP article is pared a bit, which I think needs to happen, perhaps something will fit in somewhere. WOO! Vassar! Yeah that's out of proportion to be sure, are they part of a historic district? IvoShandor 01:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There are only two Vassar College-related NHLs: Main Building (Vassar College), for its status as the main building of one of America's earliest women's colleges, and Vassar College Observatory, for its connection to Maria Mitchell. No, the college isn't part of a district. The third Don might be thinking of is Springside, Matthew Vassar's estate on the other side of the city.

The champion campus for NHLs AFAIK is Columbia, with three: Low Memorial Library, Philosophy Hall and Pupin Hall. You could even add a fourth if you count Arden, which they run as a conference center but is not open to the public. Daniel Case 03:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

State-by-State reporting of WP:NRHP article quality status

I drafted a tabular report on the Project Page, showing article quality state-by-state. I manually assigned to states the 16 Featured Articles and the 38 Good Articles, out of 7174 articles in the project. Would it be possible to get this done as an automatic report somehow, more completely? doncram 22:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And, would it be possible to get a similar report for articles having an NRHP infobox that denotes type = nhl? There are a finite number of NHLs out there to work on, so this one could have a column showing the total # in existence in each state. doncram 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

New York State Landmarks in progress, quality question

I'm a new contributor, having come across the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York and having seen User:Daniel Case's contributions there. I got started adding articles, learning by doing, with a few tips from Daniel (Thanks!) and from following his and others' good examples available. Have found NHL nomination forms at NPS for many sites. Hmm, only just now do I see there is an infobox generator in use here, I should have visited this talkpage sooner to learn of it...I have constructed about 20 new articles' infoboxes by hand. Completing out the list of 258 NY landmarks, state-wide, is quite close now, depending on quality of articles required. About 35 articles are needed. I personally believe that a somewhat stubby article not having a photo, like Adams Power Plant Transformer House is worth having, though i sense others may differ. That one does include a PDF link to some NPS photos, but for some others it is still hard to find any photo online to link to. Interested in others' thoughts.... doncram 17:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Historic American Buildings Survey (main link) often has good photographs, especially for buildings that are architecturally notable. I believe all of their images are in the public domain, being a work of the U.S. government. This is the entry for the Adams Power Plant. The one downside is that most of their images are in black and white, mostly due to the need for archival permanence (being able to store images for at least 75 years). Still, HABS/HAER is always a good resource. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the NPS photos within the PDF files appear to be public domain. For example, go to http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do and search on "Adams" in "New York", click on "Adams Power Plant Transformer House", yields the URLS of the PDFs and further info: "Publisher: National Park Service / Published: 06/11/1975 / Access: Public access / Restrictions: Public domain / Format/Size: Physical Document with text, photos and map". Does anyone know how to extract and save some appropriate photo, from the PDF?doncram 01:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Doncram- Stubbing can be a very important process on Wikipedia - often tedious and thankless, but also critical to jump-starting article development in some areas that aren't getting the attention they deserve in the time they should. I've had a look at your Adams Power Plant Transformer House article, and it's somewhat more informative than many (even most) stubs out there. I'd urge you not to have any hesitation about pursuing the path you've started. Be bold! You're a welcome addition to the Wikipedia community, and I personally look forward to seing a much more complete set of NHL articles out there. Welcome aboard! Ipoellet 21:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy to claim that ALMOST ALL of the 258 NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS in NEW YORK STATE now exist at least as a stub article, yippee... :) Thanks Ipoellet for your encouragement and Thanks again Elkman for the Elkman NRHP infobox generator, it has been invaluable! Lots to do in cleaning them up and making the entire list more presentable.doncram 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that last claim was so wrong. I didn't realize the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York then had "blue links" that didn't go to valid articles. Many went to the name of the historic person, not to a historic house article, for example. Since September 6, twenty-one NYS NHL articles have been created. New claim: NOW, they all exist as stubs. More than stubs: I think every single one has a link to its NHL summary webpage at the National Park Service, and there should also be links to every corresponding NRHP Inventory/Nomination document and accompanying photo sets. They don't each have a photo, but for almost all of them you can follow a link to see a photo. Dmadeo and Daniel Case have added photos into the articles for many, and done other work improving the articles and the list article. And Daniel got a DYK for the Locust Grove (Samuel F. B. Morse House) article among the new ones created. doncram 21:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

• 20 September 2007 - expires 25 September
  • Denmark Vesey House (PROD by User:Betacommand; PROD nominator states: "Notability" Excerpt: "The frame, one-story house was constructed in the early 19th-century and was occupied in 1821-22 by Denmark Vesey, a free African-American man, and the leader of an infamous aborted slave insurrection in 1822.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a National Historic Landmark, and is notable. I added info and references to the article, and stated on the talk page my opposition to it being deleted. Thanks, however, to whomever posted this notice to the WP:NRHP page, to call it to our attention. The article still could use further development. doncram 00:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Pulaski Skyway

I reorganized and partially rewrote this several-year-old featured article, and would like comments on whether I did a good job. Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulaski Skyway/archive1. --NE2 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Seattle pictures

I thought someone on this project might like to see what I've been doing at List of Registered Historic Places in King County, Washington#Seattle. - Jmabel | Talk 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see another photo maniac joining the group. And I say that being one myself. Keep up the good work, and enjoy the travelling. :) -Ebyabe 23:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. I checked out your information for the two National Historic Landmark buildings that are on your list. I added NHL information (including original NRHP registration text and photos for the Georgetown Steam Plant article. And I opened a Panama Hotel article. But i don't find the 3rd NHL building in Seattle, the Pioneer Building, on your list. The National Park Service picture for the Pioneer Building differs from your picture for Pioneer Hall, apparently a different place. Maybe you can add that one to your list? Keep up the good work! doncram 20:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pioneer Hall is unrelated to the Pioneer Building; they are miles apart. I don't know what you mean by calling the Pioneer Building "the 3rd NHL building", but it is on the list (per NRHP) as "Pioneer Building, Pergola, and Totem Pole" (the three were added to the Register together). It is also part of the Pioneer Square-Skid Road Historic District. - Jmabel | Talk 18:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I see it is and was on your list after all, although then it was out of alphabetical order, separated from Pioneer Hall, and I let that trick me into thinking it wasn't there. I meant by 3rd NHL building that it was one of 3 National Historic Landmark (NHL) buildings in Seattle; I had just gone and added NHL info to the articles on the other two. There are also ships located in Seattle that are NHLs. doncram 07:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I ran across what you were doing there while searching for A. E. Doyle buildings. Very nice work there. I linked to the image from the Doyle article pending creation of a J.S. Graham Store/Doyle Building article. (the article's a little thin to support more images--we should add a gallery...) Keep up the good work! Katr67 02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use of PD material vs. Plagiarism in WP:NRHP articles

There's a warmish discussion going on in Talk:Bathhouse Row about copyright violation vs. plagiarism vs. fair use of public domain text and photographs. Some help would be appreciated. For example, under what circumstances is it appropriate to cut and paste long passages from National Park Service websites? Is it okay as long as there is a link to the website at the end of the article, at the end of each paragraph? How should a quote be cited properly, can you just point to the website or do you need to cite the paragraph number on a webpage, like you can cite the page number in a quote from a printed book. Is it only okay if you put the passage in quotes and cite the source explicitly?

BTW, I've noticed that in articles about NHLs that happen to be ships, where the ship article is already there, that often there is mention of some American Dictionary of Ships or some such source public domain material. Maybe the whole text was lifted directly. It could be that practice in WP:Ships is different and can be different than how we would want it to be in WP:NRHP. doncram 19:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The style of material is a Historic topic? More of a style topic. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 89. (SEWilco 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

I appreciate your pointing out that archived discussion, which you participated in, but which did not come to a final consensus. Others there argued for using quote marks (convincingly, IMO), you and some others argued against the need for quote marks. It is archived, not to be continued there, right? If so, then why not talk about the issue here. Also, it is relevant to talk within WP:NRHP specifically about the appropriate use of National Park Service website material, such as you have drawn from in the Bathhouse Row and Rohwer War Relocation Center articles within WP:NRHP. For example, do editors here want to deal with 2400 or so mass-produced articles copied from the NPS's NHL summaries? I personally would prefer not to, and would like to talk about it here to head off that possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Archived MOS discussions are not closed. Reopening of topics is invited. See the message in the Archive box at the top of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. (SEWilco 02:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

If it's public domain, then it shouldn't matter as long as there is some attribution at the bottom of the page, in the references. Plagarism strikes me as something that is more of a problem in the academic world, After all, this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, by its very nature all of the ideas come from somewhere else. It would be a tall order for someone writing an encyclopedia which prohibits original research to claim credit for the intellectual property of another. I think copyright violation is the problem here, not plagarism. If the material is public domain, there is no worry about copyright violation, attribution, then, is more an ethical choice than it is a legal one. My two cents.IvoShandor 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has some teaching experience, I can assure you that the PD or copyleft status of the original material is no defense to a plagiarism allegation (note that both the GFDL and almost all the popular CC licenses require attribution). If you hand in a report by a government geologist as your own science paper, you can and will be disciplined as much as if you had lifted copyrighted text from a website or textbook. No, you won't and can't be sued for infringement (at least of public domain material), as happens to authors such as Doris Keans Goodwin who get caught copying with cosmetic word changes. But if you get kicked out of school or get your degree yanked, and publicly branded a plagiarist, that won't matter very much.

So I would really prefer that we not accept editors' unattributed copying of PD text as OK, unless they plan to immediately rewrite the article (it may not be in accord with the MoS anyway). With the availibility of so much on the web, including Wikipedia articles that could all too easily be passed off as papers in whole or part, making plagiarism so much easier than it used to be, we cannot let students get the idea that it's OK to rip off material not fully protected by copyright.

I commend everyone's attention to this page:

Even when material isn't protected by copyright, it is still important to give appropriate credit to its authors and creators when we include that material in Wikipedia. Failure to do so is plagiarism: falsely claiming original authorship of the work. Plagiarising material harms the work's real authors by denying them deserved credit for their work, and it harms Wikipedia by making it more difficult for editors and readers to refer to the material's source. It may also violate the terms of Wikipedia's license: the GFDL.

Material which is plagiarised but which does not violate copyright doesn't need to be removed from Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced. Add appropriate source information to the article wherever possible, or move unsourced material to an article's talk page until sources can be found.

Daniel Case 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Under existing Wikipedia rules, material without sources conflicts with WP:V and WP:CITE. The use of unattributed material is already discouraged. (SEWilco 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

I and probably most new wikipedia editors in the NRHP area, especially those working on buildings and historic districts, are more familiar with academic norms than about how wikipedia can work using PD material. From browsing more in articles about ships, I am seeing that it does appear to be a different and viable way to go, in developing articles, to take PD text wholesale and edit from there. At Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, it is stated that "Because DANFS is a work of the U.S. government, its content is in the public domain, and its articles are often quoted verbatim in other works. Many websites organized by former and active crew members of U.S. Navy vessels include a copy of their ship's DANFS article. Editors of Wikipedia often use the DANFS entry as a starting point for ship articles (e.g. USS G-1 (SS-19½)." I see from the edit history of the USS G-1 (SS-19½) article that it did develop further. In the Ships area, widely on the web, there is general practice of using the DANFS material; in NRHP area, from what I have seen, there is not comparable web coverage of NRHP sites and what coverage there is comes more from an academic approach. Many webpages on NRHP sites on buildings are put up by local historical societies and the people involved are academic types. From what I have seen, webpages out there on NRHP's that are fighting ships or tugs or lightships are more often put up by sailor associations or Coast Guard alumni, etc., and they seem less academic. I think that there may be issues of cultural sensibility here, that what is okay for wikipedia to include about ships is offensive when applied to buildings and historic districts, at least to amateur and professional historians interested in buildings and historic districts. doncram 19:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time working with dead congressmen who often have very little following, except for us OCD people who want articles about all of them. Frequently these articles begin verbatim from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, (e.g. James F. Strother (West Virginia)). They usually get wikified and cleaned up over time. Given my experience, I wouldn't hesitate to copy PD material from the NRHP sources.--Appraiser 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Armillary sphere

Offensive to those with academic work ethics which require original writing? Are any academics offended by assigning reading of Moby-Dick when all the students will have to buy copies of a PD work? What about academics who recover obscure historical documents and reprint them, such as The Negro [1]? You've seen them, but do you know a modern text on how an armillary sphere is used?[2] (SEWilco 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

General comment: Personally, and other editors may differ, if I use public domain text, I paraphrase and cite it like any other source. A big reason, for me, is clarity, and no ambiguity. I use a lot of public domain texts writing and researching topics related to the Black Hawk War, and it would be insane not to attribute this material, because often it illuminates the evolution of scholarship on a given topic. For me, I just cite all sources, this avoids any questioning of the material later and makes things clear at a glance. IvoShandor 22:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiHow Can One Create a "list-box"?

At the bottom of the Hoover Dam article is a nice "list-box" (I don't even know what to call it) of the NRHPs in one county of Nevada. Never mind that Hoover Dam spans Arizona and Nevada. I like the "list-box" though I would not want to clutter up every NHL / NRHP article with one listing all the others in a county, that could get tedious. I'd rather make themed list-boxes, like National Park Service Lodges (Bryce Canyon Lodge, El Tovar etc.) or buildings designed by Minard Lafever, or Hudson river mansions. How, though? Do you make a proposal somewhere? Should themes for NRHP NHL site-related "list-boxes" be discussed here? The inquirer wants to know. doncram 19:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That navbox is generated by {{Nevada State Historic Places/Clark}}. Look at the Categories at the bottom of that template's page for links to related boxes...and look at the Categories which that Category is a member of to find more general templates. There might already be Wikipedia:Navigational templates or Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes for Architecture which are relevant. Or relevant Wikipedia:Categories which should be added to articles. (SEWilco 20:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC))