Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

NPS takes aim at NRHP.COM

See this. doncram (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Assessment of D.H. Lawrence Ranch

Since this article was designated as a stub, I and others have added a considerable amount to it. My latest contributions include photos taken on a recent weekend visit.

I would be glad if the Project were to re-assess it and return in a while as more is added about the buildings and the "Lawrence Tree" on the property. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Western New York Update

Since Maryland has NRHP stubs done, I moved on to and completed stubs for all current Elkman NRHP infobox database entries for Western New York --- Allegany County, Cattaraugus County, Chautauqua County, Erie County, Genesee County, Livingston County, Niagara County, Orleans County, and Wyoming County counties. Hopefully someone out there can supplement the stubs and add pics! I'm in Maryland, but a Western New York native!--Pubdog (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. I have pics for a few of the Niagara Falls ones, will get them added this weekend. Also have a trip planned out that way in a couple weeks. I'll see what more I can get then, pic wise. Lvklock (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Really nice work! It's great to see good stubs like these, with statements of the importance of each place supported by NRHP application doucment references. I know this means u spent a good long time with NYS's klunky OPRHP document system, but at least NYS has them on-line. doncram (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Carmichael Inn

Does anyone know if the Carmichael Inn in Loudon County, Tennessee was de-listed? It appears on nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, but it doesn't appear in any searches on the NRHP site, and its reference number doesn't bring back any hits. I seem to recall signs out front of the building that boasted about being on the register. Bms4880 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... It's not in the MS Access version of NRIS (not by ref number,name, county, or anything else). The county tourism website sure suggests that it's still standing. The Courier newsletter from the state historical commission reports delistings -- or maybe you could just phone the historical commission and ask... --Orlady (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, a recent issue of that state newsletter says "Five properties were removed from the National Register because they no longer existed. They are: Bivvins House, Bedford County; Alcoa South Plant Office, Blount County; Batte-Brown-Blackburn House, Giles County; Fairview School, Hickman County; and Minglewood Farm, Montgomery County." --Orlady (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I found this, which seems to suggest it was de-listed: "The Inn, which was once on the National Historic Register..." It's still standing, or it was two weeks ago, and is thriving as a restaurant. Bms4880 (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That same site says the Inn was dismantled and moved, which would have irked the NPS. It now sits adjacent to the Wharf Street Coffeehouse, which has its own listing under "Orme-Wilson Warehouse." I'll just write one article that covers both. Bms4880 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a similar circumstance with John Callahan House. In that case, it was listed in 1971 as the Pinkney-Callahan House. After its move, it was listed again in 1973 as John Callahan House. I spent some time walking up and down St. John Street in Annapolis until I figured out (from other sources) that it had been moved! Entries for both are still included on National Register of Historic Places listings in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.--Pubdog (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's truly bizarree. I wonder both names still appear in NRIS? Bms4880 (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I think I figured it out--Pubdog (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Santa Clara (Caltrain/ACE station) and Santa Clara Depot

I brought this up on Wikipedia:TWP, but the two articles for Santa Clara (Caltrain/ACE station) and Santa Clara Depot look like they should be merged, but both articles are packed with detail. Anybody care to tackle this? ----DanTD (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about the Historic American Buildings Survey

In particular, are the images in the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record/Historic American Landscapes Survey public domain? The copyright statement says that "material in these collections is generally considered to be in the public domain," however, "occasionally material from a historical society or other source is included in the photographs or data pages" and "these materials are noted by the presence of a line crediting the original source." OK, so how about, this nice photo created in 1933 and specifically credited to one S. Lucas. Is that PD? Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The photograph is in the public domain.

HABS photos are usually in the public domain. The files might occasionally include more recent photographs from historical commissions, hence the warning, but these will be noted with a "Restrictions" sentence. Bms4880 (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The restriction clause wasn't clear to me; that's the information I was looking for. Andrew Jameson (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

They might also include older photos from historical records, which might be copyrighted. --NE2 07:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But I assume a "restrictions" clause would still be present in that case? So my original example (this nice photo created in 1933) is still PD, right? Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes; it would appear that photographer "S. Lucas" worked for HABS. --NE2 16:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

City / Town names?

Is it appropriate to remove the City or town name field from Listings pages which are for only one city, that is, compare National Register of Historic Places listings in Somerville, Massachusetts and National Register of Historic Places listings in Quincy, Massachusetts? Presumably the city or town name field is a vestige of their being in a county listing which grew too long. (Obviously this is not a high priority, but is easy enough if one is editing the listing anyway to add a photo, perhaps.) . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Typically, in single-city lists, the "city" field would be replaced with something like "neighborhood" (frex, see National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles), the intent being that readers would still be able to sort a long, somewhat overwhelming list into more manageable geographic chunks. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly that's true in Los Angeles or Boston, but there are perhaps a dozen or more single city listings in Massachusetts where there are no useful neighborhoods and where, in some cases, there may be only 25 or 30 names in the list. It just seemed silly to me to waste screen space on a column that not useful.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I share your view, Jameslwoodward, but I have found that many of the NRHP Wikiproject participants see great value in maintaining uniformity of formats across the Wikiproject. --Orlady (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Remove it. It's silly. --NE2 16:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you are free either to remove it, or to revise it to be a column of neighborhoods within Somerville. The NRHP list has 81 entries. The linked Bing map shows a wide area covered, some in East Somerville area, some clearly far away from that. I've heard that "Somerville is a city of neighborhoods – or more precisely a city with many squares." Clearly some of the listings are in small real estate areas associated with different squares. The Somerville, Massachusetts article lists 20 neighborhoods. I don't know if there are official neighborhoods or any available map partitioning Somerville into unofficial neighborhoods that could be used to classify the NRHPs unambiguously. doncram (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually Somerville itself uses 7 "wards" to identify the locations of its local historic districts, in list linked from Somerville's Historic Preservation Dept. webpage. Perhaps those 7 wards correspond to the original seven hills of Somerville? Unless you want to do something more substantial, i suggest relabelling the column to be about wards, and entering the ward for a few entries. The first entry, the Adams-Magoun House, is in ward 5. doncram (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As some of you probably know, I added two new NRHP lists for New Rochelle, New York and Peekskill, New York recently. If you can't find any neighborhoods for those cities, feel free to remove the "City" parameters. ----DanTD (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all... As usual we don't really have a consensus, but fortunately no one seems to be jumping up and down on one side or the other. I lived in Somerville for eight years, in three different houses and can say definitively (a) I can't tell you what ward any of them is in (I don't even know whether the wards have names or numbers); and, (b) there definitely are neighborhoods with names, (the Charles Adams-Woodbury Locke House is certainly in/on Winter Hill), but I'm not sure I could do the whole city and certainly some of the other cities aren't going to get neighborhoods without a local expert doing it.

What I will do is change the "City or Town" column head to "Neighborhood" in those Massachusetts lists which are single city/town, and look at a map and fill in some neighborhoods in Somerville. Thanks, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed that column when I moved the National Register of Historic Places listings in Mobile, Alabama out of the county-wide list. Earlier, Nyttend had done the same with National Register of Historic Places listings in Birmingham, Alabama. Mobile's 19th century areas have few well-defined neighborhoods, in fact most people here define their "neighborhood" as what historic district they reside in. One exception was the Spring Hill neighborhood, which I went into a little detail about when writing the summaries for each entry in that area. I feel that unless there are well-defined and well-known neighborhoods in a city or town, the column isn't particularly helpful in this type of list. Altairisfar_talk 04:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If the wards are not meaningful in Somerville, which it sounds like they are not, then the column should be dropped instead of creating a neighborhoods column. I defer to local knowledge. doncram (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost article

Hello, everyone! I'd like to do a report on this WikiProject for an upcoming edition of the Wikipedia Signpost. Are there any members here who are familiar with the history and workings of the project and who would be willing to answer a few questions? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I wouldn't mind. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be willing to answer some questions. I've been around WP:NRHP ever since it started, though Ebyabe was pretty much the first one to get the project going, back in October of 2006. User talk:Ebyabe/Archive 2 gives a little bit of the early history of the project, which basically started as an offshoot of Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas. If you have questions and/or want to conduct a detailed interview, feel free to contact me at my talk page. I may not be able to answer questions right away this weekend, though, since I'll be doing some scuba diving at the Madeira and possibly the Hesper. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I joined later, but have been involved in several major accomplishments of the WikiProject, and I'm happy to answer questions, too. A few thoughts now: Accomplishments I have been involved in include: developing an influential table format for lists of NRHP places when tables were still still new and big lists were especially uncommon; developing articles for all of the U.S. National Historic Landmarks; redeveloping the NRHP infobox; completing out a good system of lists of all NRHP places; working with the National Register to improve/correct their database). I think it is extraordinary that we now have a better handle on how many places are NRHP-listed, or are NHLs, than does the National Register or anyone else. Also newsworthy might be: We have developed many stub and starter articles and a number of fully-illustrated list-articles. We probably have more NRHP coverage than all other historic sites coverage world-wide. There have been several big collaborative cleanup drives. But in contrast to some other wikiprojects, there has been little/no concentration of joint effort on "important" articles (we don't use importance ratings) or in collaboration-of-the-week type efforts. There are geographical clusters of very good articles and lists, but these are not necessarily GA-rated. We have very few featured articles or lists. There has been sustained effort to be able to support new wikipedia editors who might like to take photos and do starter-level articles in whatever is their local area. Currently, I think it is fair to say there are no big outstanding goals or and no new big initiatives planned, at the WikiProject level. I welcome a Signpost article as part of taking stock and then considering new possibilities. doncram (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, great! I've prepared some questions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject report/National Register of Historic Places; responses (on that page) from anyone here would be very appreciated. Thanks again! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has now been published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-28/WikiProject report. Thanks everyone for all your help! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I saw the release of the article and felt a bit snubbed. I guess it was my bad, in terms of any chance to influence what was said, as i missed the announcement of questions here. But i did comment somewhat upon extraordinary accomplishments of the wikiproject above, which the writer did not pick up upon, which i don't quite understand. Oh well. I think it would have been appropriate to mention some more accomplishments of the projects and some other significant contributors. No complaints about what Ebyabe and Elkman covered, as far as that went though. doncram (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson Boyhood Home

Could anyone help develop a draft article and DYK for Woodrow Wilson's boyhood home in Augusta, Georgia, which is a 2008 NHL (somehow not yet with an article)? Draft and DYK hook ideas at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NHLsandbox16. doncram (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Listing for the Keweenaw National Historical Park

The Keweenaw National Historical Park is listed on the NRHP as refnum 01000108; this implies it was added to the Register in 2001. However, the infobox generator (as well as any other reference I can find) says the Park was listed on October 27, 1972. That's impossible, as the park was created, via legislation, on October 27, 1992 (reliable source). OK, so I assume the "1972" is a typo, but was the Park actually listed on the NRHP in 1992, or was it listed in 2001? Is a "National Historical Park" automaticaly listed at the moment of its creation? Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

List of DYKs and List of Fully Illustrated Articles -- Questions

Should Doncram's Fiddler's Reach Fog Signal be added to the DYK list?

What qualifies as "fully illustrated"? What about

• "Address Restricted"?
• Sites that can't be photographed -- for example the wreck of the USS New Hampshire (1864), "Although the hull is mostly buried in the sand, small artifacts and copper spikes may still be found." I added a photo of the ship (many years before the wreck) to National Register of Historic Places listings in Essex County, Massachusetts -- does that qualify?

Should we add a clarifying note in both sections so newbies wouldn't have to ask questions? Should the "fully illustrated" list (and maybe several others) be in scroll-bar lists like the DYKs?

I like having both lists. Goals are good. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 10:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered about the fully illustrated question myself. I've worked on several county lists with "Address Restricted" archaeological sites that can't be located by the general public, so they have little hope of ever having a photo for every entry. I love the idea of adding the fully illustrated entries to a scroll-bar list, since it is beginning to get rather long. I've taken all but five photos, out of 102 entries, for one list that I hope to add to it soon. Altairisfar_talk 15:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO, "Address Restricted" doesn't mean we can't get a photo. I've added at least two such photos to lists myself. But the list I most want "fully illustrated" includes two properties that have been demolished. I don't think that should count. Ntsimp (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's great if you can locate the property, but the cases I'm talking about are archaeological sites that do not have anything more than general location (such as what county it's in) information available. In the case of one, the only information that even confirms that it exists comes from the NPS, it isn't even noted in any archaeological journals that I've found.

With demolished properties you can always get a photo, even if it is only of the empty former site. I've had to do that on a couple of occasions, following the precedent set by National Register of Historic Places listings in Detroit, Michigan, among others. Altairisfar_talk 15:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

About DYKs, there seem to be only a small fraction of NRHP DYKs getting listed manually in the Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Did you know (DYK)s section of our main wikiproject page. Note that in recent months there has been a bot-provided list of DYKs also appearing, lower down, within the section Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Bot notifications. Only one of 13 WikiProject NRHP-associated DYKs identified by the bot during Sept 18-Sept 23 has been manually listed. I'll enter my own recent ones now, but is the manual DYK list now redundant?

About pics, the New Hampshire ship pic of it before it became a shipwreck is also fine by me, although there are divers among us and we could hold out for a pic of every shipwreck. But also I think any pic of an artifact from a shipwreck or archeological site is okay.

The address restricted ones bother me more. I wonder if they should be dropped from the NRHP tables entirely, and just covered in a descriptive sentence listing them. Not just because they are hard to describe properly, but also because providing info and implicitly calling for more info about them in a table that wants coordinates and addresses seems unhelpful towards their very preservation. If the address restricted sites' rows are removed from a county or city NRHP list-table, and the remaining rows all have pics, i think that should count as a fully illustrated list. doncram (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding DYK's, isn't the bot-generated listing somewhat ephemeral, or is there a permanent bot list record somewhere else? I kinda like the subpage list, although I hadn't noticed the bot list and wasn't aware that the DYK subpage wasn't being updated with all of our new DYK articles. So I think you've raised a valid issue. I don't have much of an opinion about the address restricted sites, other than the photo issue. I've just done the best that I could with limited information on the few that I've done and resigned myself to the fact that if I don't know where it is, I can't photograph it. Altairisfar_talk 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The fully illustrated lists are in scrollable windows now. Did one for NHLs and another for NRHPs. --Ebyabe (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "address restricted" sites, if you can only find exhibits in a museum relating to them, I definitely think those should count. One could try contacting historical societies in the area of the sites, they might be able to help. There's also the possibility of contacting the archeaological organizations that excavated the sites. Here in Florida, UF and UWF have done a lot of the work on places in the state. If you ask nicely, I'm sure they could help. I figure the worst they could do is say no. For what it's worth. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan to me, thanks for the suggestion. I think that most of the sites that I've done will be under the supervision of Auburn or UA, although it may take an eventual trip to their archaeological departments; I've already checked the Alabama Department of Archives & History to no avail. Thanks for scrollable lists! Altairisfar_talk 17:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the ships — Elkman is a good example of the diver; he's taken pictures such as File:Hesper 016.JPG, which incidentally is also address-restricted. Ebyabe, your museum idea is seen at Washington County, Nebraska, where Billwhittaker uses a picture of the ship to illustrate the Bertrand Site. Moreover, it's not always that difficult to get photos of restricted addresses; I've taken fourteen of the sixteen pictures for the fully-illustrated Hardin and Logan county lists in Ohio, including three restricted address sites (the ones I didn't take were a courthouse and a historic street next to the courthouse), as well as both restricted addresses in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, which now lacks only two sites on significant roads that I couldn't reach by bicycle. I've also followed what Altairisfar says; it's not that difficult to get pictures of building sites, which (besides illustrating lists and potential articles) are useful as evidence for demolished-but-still-listed at WP:NRIS issues. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting over on indents:

I've noticed that "Address Restricted" is sometimes really "Address Missing" -- I found Lyon's Turning Mill in Quincy, Massachusetts with an easy Google search.

Related question: Is a map appropriate as an illustration in these lists -- I'm thinking of cases where the NRHP is a road or collection of roads that are not easy to describe -- see Mystic Valley Parkway or Blue Hills Reservation Parkways? To my way of thinking, a map is much more helpful than a photo of most roads -- many such photos fall in Category:If you've seen one, you've seen them all. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the Hesper is address-restricted just because there are no streets that lead up to it. It's hard to generate a street address when the street ends at the lake shore. :) Seriously, though, some of the "Address Restricted" sites are listed that way because they're archaeological sites, and the NPS and/or SHPO don't want people to go looting around those sites for artifacts. Actually, in the case of sunken ships, looting for artifacts has been a problem as well, but the dive community is now building awareness that if divers take artifacts off a shipwreck, there won't be anything for future divers to see.

Of course, there are a few sites where they didn't want to list an address because of policy reasons, yet it's rather obvious to see where they are. Upper Sioux Agency State Park is listed as "Address Restricted", yet it's a Minnesota State Park and you can visit it. Similarly, Soo Line High Bridge is rather obvious that it spans over the St. Croix River, and Denis Gardner wrote about it in two of his books. I'd say that in cases like these, where the site can be found from sources other than the National Register, we can go ahead and list addresses and take pictures. On the other hand, we should respect places such as gravesites, burial mounds, prehistoric campsites, and the like, and not list addresses or take pictures if their addresses aren't available from public sources.

As far as roads are concerned: Yes, we should definitely provide maps of the roads in cases where a map would provide better context. Going-to-the-Sun Road would be a good one for a map, for example. I've toyed with the idea of making street maps of some of the historic districts in towns, but I found that the NRHP spatial database is lacking when it comes to truly showing the boundaries. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Teatro Yagüez

It looks like an edit war is about to erupt over this article. A few weeks ago, I removed a phrase stating that the theater was named a National Historic Landmark in 1976 as part of the US bicentennial celebrations. According to this PDF list, it is NOT an NHL. I have cited the website and list to back this up, and three times now have removed the words "National Historic Landmark" and replaced them simply with "landmark"; nevertheless my edit has been reverted twice, by two different editors, who seem to want the words "National Historic Landmark" to remain in the article regardless of their accuracy. I'm not sure how to proceed from here - anyone else want to cast an eye over the whole thing and see what I'm missing? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're missing anything. The editor who reverted you most recently is a member of the family that owned the theater (see User talk:Maymon)and is a brand new editor. The other is much more experienced, but has been quiet for a month or so. I added my two cents at Talk:Teatro Yagüez. If Maymon reverts you again I'll put a very polite note on his talk page, perhaps mentioning both the fact that he needs a citation for claiming NHL status and WP:COI. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I like having someone else take a look at things to make sure I'm not going wrong with something; better two pairs of eyes than one. As for talk-page messages, I didn't want to take things quite that far as yet, given that it seemed like things had quieted down for a bit. I was honestly a bit surprised to see it pop up on my watchlist again like it did. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. If it pops up again, I'll follow your lead... . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Auto-categorizing Robot

After getting the opinions of several project members, I filed a request for a bot to add HD categories to HD articles. The bot has been approved (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/The Auto-categorizing Robot for details); it will add the state-level HD category to an article unless the infobox isn't clear enough (in which case the article will get the nationwide category) or unless there's a more specific category already, in which case it won't do anything. If you have questions, direct them to me or to ThaddeusB, who has written the bot. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment moved from below to combine like sections. My recently approved bot has begun automatically categorizing historic districts into specific state categories as described in the BRFA.

The first 600 or so pages have been done, but I thought I'd pause for a bit (a couple days) before continuing in case anyone has any suggestions before letting the bot loose on the other 19000 pages. A log of the activity so far can be found here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Related questions.

1. A random sample of a dozen articles in Category:Historic districts in Massachusetts are all in both Category:National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts and Category:Historic districts in the United States. Isn't this over-categorizing, since the former is a sub-cat of both the second and the third? Should we ask the bot to remove them from the two higher cats? If yes, then should we also ask the bot to do that generally?
2. What's our policy for this on new creations and existing articles? Delete the two when it's an HD? Or use all three?
3. Are our category names intentionally inconsistent? "Historic districts" (lower case d) versus all upper case in the other? . . . . . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

1. A. The category overlap situation is temporary. After the bot finishes its task, the NRHP infobox will be edited so that it will no longer place sites in the US Historic Districts category. However, articles are being separately placed in the National Register category because some HDs are not National Register HDs.

2. New articles should be categorized in the state HD category. If they have an infobox, they will be automatically placed in the US HD category until the infobox is changed.

3. "Historic district" is not a proper noun. "National Register of Historic Places" is a proper noun. --Orlady (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Most of the existing overlap is due to the infobox auto-categorization. The bot will correct any page that directly has both. For example, [1]

It will use the specific state category whenever it can confidently determine it (~90-95%) - otherwise it using the national one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question

Can someone shed light or direct me to a source? Quincy, Massachusetts did a survey and photographs of all its historic sites (see Historical and Architectural Survey - Gold mine) financed by a federal Community Development Block Grant. The library that hosts them thinks they are, therefore, in the public domain. Will the denizens that watch copyright issues for Commons be OK with that or how do I find out more? I should add that the photos are all B&W and some are better than others, but we have only thirteen out of 108 sites illustrated now.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Us "denizens" will have problems ... you need to prove that the photographer allowed them to be released in public domain. The only other way is if they were taken by a U.S. federal agency during the course of their official duties. So the best thing to do is leave them alone or take photographs yourself. Royalbroil 12:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Royalbroil is correct. Unless it's different for CDBGs, the group's work is not public domain simply because they received federal grant money. Bms4880 (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I kind of figured that, which is why I posed the question before any uploading. BTW, no disrespect was intended with "denizens" -- indeed, I have a lot of sympathy for those of you willing to take on the task of explaining why a person can't upload this or that image.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I thought that it was appropriate for a Commons admin to answer this question. Royalbroil 22:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Coord Suggestions

I suggest

1. being conscientious about adding the line "|coord_display = title,inline" to the NRHP infobox in individual articles. This will force the coords to show up in the title bar of the article and, according to {{coord#purpose}} is required for tools such as Google Earth to pick it up. AFAIK, this has no downside except the nuisance of doing it.
2. that we discuss adding "|region:US_type:landmark" following the name in the coord string in each row of the listings of NRHPs (ie National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston, Massachusetts). This has the effect of setting the scale of the map that shows up when you call up a map by clicking on the coords. The difference is great -- for a location in Boston, without it I get the east half of Massachusetts as the starting screen; with it I get the neighborhood. To see the difference go to User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox2 and click on the two coords. I say "discuss", because this may have a downside -- it will add 25 characters to each listing and may actually slow down the already slow parsing of some of the longer listing pages..... . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think we should set "coord_display=title,inline" as a default in {{Infobox nrhp}}. If they're displayed as a default, then we don't have to do extra coding in our infoboxes. The only time we'd really need to suppress displaying them in the title is if some other infobox or something else in the article is displaying competing coordinates in the title line. Any thoughts? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's a great idea, however, it has one catch... Whoever changes the code in the template would have to be sure to disable the "title" function if embed = yes. Otherwise we'd have a lot of embedded NRHP lighthouses (and probably other things as well) with both sets of coords in the title bar. That isn't pretty. So that ends up with:

• normal (standalone) default is coord_display = inline,title
• if embed=yes, then default is coord_display = inline . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• While I agree the default should be to put the coords in the title, turning in on by default would probably cause problems. My suggestion, change Elkman's code to display inline,title by default. Put a comment in saying remove title if there's a conflict. All new or replacement infoboxes will get it going forward and at some point, we can run through and clean up the gaps. dm (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I've done as suggested, and I've set the "coord_display=inline,title" flag in {{Infobox nrhp}}, and set the region type in the county list generator. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And a quick test shows that the infobox change works -- thanks very much . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! dm (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Winter Island Historic District and Archeological District -- raises a general procedural question

Two of our members disagree about how to handle this page. It raises a more general question.

In the past year or so, User:Swampyank created a great many (hundreds?) stubs for NRHP sites in Massachusetts. As one who is now doing some work on the Massachusetts NRHP sites, I appreciate having a place to start. As one who has created about fifty lighthouse stubs, I appreciate his or her effort even more, particularly since the numbers are much larger.

But, in the last week I've found eight cases where the Swampyank stub overlapped an existing article -- either direct substitutes such as G.H. Bent Company Factory, or cases where the two overlapped significantly such as Gov. Thomas Hutchinson's Ha-ha. In each of the eight cases, I've made a judgment call as to which one should survive and then redirected the other. I've "BEen BOLD", not asking for discussion of each one. So far, no one has commented. So, I'm a little surprised by the strength of the edit summary "which was removed for merger without any supporting sources and with no discussion, consensus". Should I have looked for consensus before taking action on each of my eight? The "no comment" on all eight suggests that my actions were OK and that Polaron's were OK in this case. Better that the discussion takes place if and only if someone thinks it's warranted... Thoughts?

On to the case at hand. -- While I'm aware of the ongoing debate about how to handle Historic Districts and the political division that they comprise, it seems to me this doesn't fit in that mold -- the Historic District and the geographic "Winter Island" are coterminous and there is no political division -- it's all a small part of the City of Salem. Since there's not a lot to say about Winter Island, I see no point in having two articles and would agree with Polaron that the main article should be at the simpler title "Winter Island", since someone looking for information would almost certainly use that name rather than the formal name of the HD, and, anyway, that's what redirects are for. That's certainly the policy we've followed for lighthouses, since the NRHP name is often not the common name. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Audible sigh. It looks like Winter Island is being dragged into the Connecticut-Vermont-Rhode Island historic districts edit war. For background, see Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut and similar pages for the other states. --Orlady (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're doing what one normally does in the case of coming across two stubs for the same topic under different names, so I don't think there's any problems with your mergers. The fact that no one disputes your mergers but mine was probably says more about what Doncram thinks of me. He's now reflexively reverting any mergers I make. Swampyank himself has done several village/historic district mergers in Rhode Island with no complaints. I would have thought that in an obvious case like Winter Island, it wouldn't be a problem. Like you I have found several articles where there is substantial overlap in the topic but have chosen only to merge the obvious ones. Normally, I would say merger decisions should be left to people who are actually familiar with the topics in question, especially if they are local. --Polaron | Talk 15:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am also afraid the battleground is extending. Here, I suspect Polaron intervened on Winter Island in MA as a way of extending from CT's Mashantucket Pequot Reservation Archeological District vs. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and related redirects, where P doesn't like the current state and the closing decision taken by an unrelated editor (for a requested move P made at Talk:Mashantucket Pequot Reservation Archeological District). In that case P continues to battle by switching the related redirects, inconsistent with the decision taken, and P has failed to provide any references supporting his views (as noted by the closer). I've asked an administrator to put blocks protection on those articles. At Winter Island I reverted similar changes that were not supported by sources. I did try to be emphatic in my edit summary in doing so, hoping to cut short expansion of the battleground.

A very high proportion of P's edits are opening new issues by creating new redirects or by redirecting existing articles, and I note few instances where P has come through later with any sources supporting the changes. For one more instance, I am still dealing with P trying 3 times to merge two Puerto Rico articles back and forth, one of which i had recently created (this is being discussed at wt:USROADS). I think i noticed the Winters Island changes on P's contribution history, because I was checking it in order to try to keep up with his Puerto Rico changes. As far as I can tell, P has no actual reliable sources in that arena as well, and the merger attempts are unjustified. So, yes, I am having a hard time accepting new mergers and new redirects that P initiates.

Is there some way that the expansion of redirects and merger/splits without sources could be curtailed? I am afraid it is too easy for one editor to make a lot of rapid changes, opening issues all over the place, wherever there is some possibility that a merger could possibly be appropriate, eventually. This outstrips the ability of other editors to come up with reliable, citeable sources to make informed decisions. doncram (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Where in the article history for Winter Island and the article history for the HD is there any indication that Polaron's editing was in any way related to the Mashantucket Pequot articles? It looks to me like he merged the stub for the HD with the article about the island, then Doncram (who had no previous history with either article) came by 11 hours later and reverted him with the edit summary that Jameslwoodward (who had made one of the 5 previous edits to the HD article) noted above. --Orlady (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not indicated in the edit history of either of those articles alone. My suspicion was based on P's past and current editing, including P's pattern of opening new issues at unrelated articles in order to enforce a "status quo" on the number of disputed cases. For example, as you are aware, there is a tenuous truce in place on a hundred or so CT, VT, NH NRHP HD articles, while a mediator-assisted process focussing on a few articles at a time is given a chance to work. But whenever P perceives a "violation" of the truce, as when i created alternative versions of articles under discussion, he makes a change at a different article. This is explicit in discussion probably still showing at Talk:Polaron. Here, I perceive P to be feeling shut down by the unrelated editor closing the Mashantucket archeological district item. P's feeling miffed is apparent in repeated edits made on related redirects. So it would be consistent with P's behavior to open a different archeological district issue elsewhere. Should I not have said that I suspected it was related? doncram (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In case none of you had seen my comments at Talk:Winter Island — after finding that the merger had happened, I decided to support it. From all I can see, the district and the island are essentially the same, and merging here is the best decision. It's like in Juab County, Utah — the city of Eureka and the Eureka Historic District are essentially the same (the district boundary description is "Roughly bounded by the city limits"), so it's only reasonable to have a single article on city and district. As far as I can see, the situation is the same here: island and district are essentially the same, so best to have a single article. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a merger discussion there. I just commented there, along the lines of how it is not clearly like the Eureka case. I do agree that the NRIS location description can be regarded as a source which can be used to guide many similar merger proposal discussions. What i object to most is being jerked around by P implementing mergers and redirects with no supporting reliable sources and no discussion, and with P adding unsourced assertions which may or may not be true. Then, the process typically unfolds with Orlady and Nyttend helpfully trying to dig up sources, which usually aren't clear on the necessary point, and then various parties making predictable arguments, all in the absence of clear information. doncram (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I thot to check P's contributions again, and see that he is extending battleground to NC, TN, HI, everywhere right now. For example [this edit. This is ridiculously unhelpful. doncram (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For example, P's new redirect of Na Pali Coast Archeological District, is to a state park article which does not mention the NRHP HD (which in fact is Address Restricted per the NRIS information at the List of RHPs in HI. The state park is very large; i imagine that the archeological district is not the same at all. It's just wrong to put redirects to articles that are not edited to receive them; this is contrary to wikipedia policy for redirects. doncram (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Salem's GIS data confirms that the entire "island" is the historic district. I do check for available information before deciding to merge, you know. As I've said, I only did ones which are quite obvious. I am quite sure that if someone else did the merge, it would not raise any issues at all. --Polaron | Talk 21:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. If someone else had done the merge as an isolated thing, it would not have been noticed. It is your systematic redirecting and unwillingness to actually work through the issues that is keeping everything you do on the radar. Lvklock (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)