Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Village Pump discussion on notability of NRHP-listed properties

There is a discussion here on the notability of properties listed on the NRHP. Ntsimp (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

www.nr.nps.gov is being discussed at WP:RSN

I have queried the reliability of the above webpage at WP:RSN#www.nr.nps.gov. As this may have a huge impact on the articles that come under this project... you need to know about this and take part in the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's going beyond that, wouldn't you say? Perhaps the whole project should be dissolved, and every NRHP article deleted, that would solve the problem. Overreacting? Me? Maybe. This whole discussion is almost making me regret starting this project in the first place. I'm hoping all this will be worked out, but I'm beginning to think this could use outside impartial people to mediate. Or something... --Ebyabe (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. maybe it's not the project as a whole, but a handful of editors that love to make short stubs and defend thousands of redlinks with little to no sourcing? Maybe it's these same editors that have been harped upon hundreds of times for producing low quality work that adds nothing to this encyclopedia? Maybe if they had listened to the concerns of other editors, not completely obsessed with a list in a government register somewhere, then they wouldn't have been called out by these people? Maybe? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

New templates

I've just created 3 new templates:

• {{NRHP nomination}} – links to online pdf of nomination for any available on NPS Focus (also handles NHLs by setting "nhl=yes")
  • Example: {{NRHP nomination|87001511|name=Oliver Ellsworth Homestead}} produces "National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Oliver Ellsworth Homestead (#87001511)" (PDF).

• • Example: {{NRHP nomination|87000863|nhl=yes|name=Highland Park Dentzel Carousel and Shelter Building}} produces "National Historic Landmark Nomination: Highland Park Dentzel Carousel and Shelter Building (#87000863)" (PDF).

• {{NRHP pictures}} – pictures if they're online
  • Example: {{NRHP pictures|87001511|name=Oliver Ellsworth Homestead}} produces "National Register of Historic Places Photos: Oliver Ellsworth Homestead (#87001511)" (PDF).
  • Example: {{NRHP pictures|87000863|nhl=yes|name=Highland Park Dentzel Carousel and Shelter Building}} produces "National Historic Landmark Photos: Highland Park Dentzel Carousel and Shelter Building (#87000863)" (PDF).
• {{NRHP Focus}} – links directly to the search result on Focus for the specified refnum (if the property is an NHL, there will be two listings – one for the NRHP and one for the NHL designation)
  • Example: {{NRHP Focus|87001511|name=Oliver Ellsworth Homestead}} produces Staff. "NPS Focus: Oliver Ellsworth Homestead (#87001511)". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service.
  • Example: {{NRHP Focus|87000863|name=Highland Park Dentzel Carousel and Shelter Building}} produces Staff. "NPS Focus: Highland Park Dentzel Carousel and Shelter Building (#87000863)". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service.

The "name" parameter is optional in all three templates. These can be used in sourcing articles.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nifty, I could see using {{NRHP Focus}} as better way to cite the database; not sure how I'd use the other two... ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 16:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you wish to make it easier for editors to form proper inline references to NRHP nomination documents when those are available at NPS Focus? If so, I'd suggest you'd want to take those further to include author attribution, date of preparation, and to combine both text and photos into one reference. The photos are often directly referenced by number from the text document, and accompany it, and should be regarded as an integral part of an NRHP nomination submission.

Here's an example of the version "nrhpinv2" type reference which I built out many times, which currently appears in the Highland Park Dentzel Carousel article:

I don't know why i didn't include a photo link with that one.

Here's how i would currently form a new NPS Focus-based reference for the same site, as with many i've denoted version "nrhpinv3":

I'd welcome suggestions for improvement upon this type of reference, using a template or just manually. --doncram (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

When I do citations for nom forms, I tend to place the "National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form" in the |work= paremter. I wonder if there is way to make template for nom forms like there are for {{Cite web}} or {{Cite book}}? (Cite NRHP?) ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 16:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you may be able soon to make a template to cite the NR database from Focus: I emailed their inquiry email address about a database and received the following note:

I am in the process of putting a downloadable version into Focus but it may be a while longer. There will be some changes such as eliminating the need to decode all the values. In the meantime you can download it from the old site but it is a year out of date.

Hopefully this will enable us to get rid of the NRIS links as well. Nyttend (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I could certainly turn this into a Cite NRHP type deal if that's desirable. When I made these, I was simply thinking about creating the links, but I can create the whole source template if that's desirable. I'll look into it.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Shotgun house for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination forms

Can someone please read this and tell me if I'm wrong. I thought NRHP forms prepared by private citizens (including state employees) were not public domain. APK whisper in my ear 11:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. Even though the documents are being published by a federal body (the National Park Service), private authors generally write them and/or photograph them. Though copyright generally comes into play more when using photographs than when incorporating text, they are both technically not public domain unless the writer/photographer has explicitly given up the copyright and/or a federal worker was the original author/photographer.

Regardless, it is common practice to treat the text in these documents – even if it is public domain – as non-PD material so as to avoid confusion. As such, any long quote from the document should be enclosed in quotations and explicitly cited to the document itself, whether it be online or an offline hard copy. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In a somewhat related case (thus under the same heading), I opened up a thread at the help desk concerning something I've been wondering about for a while now. I obtained nomination forms from the NPS for all National Register of Historic Places listings in Lauderdale County, Mississippi a while ago, and I've been creating articles based off of them. I also recently signed up for a Dropbox account, which allows me to post files online to share between all of my devices (laptop, desktop, and iPhone). It also allows me to share these files with other people by generating a link to a specific file in my Dropbox. My question was if I could upload the PDFs of the nomination forms to the Dropbox and link to them as sources.

I got a reply saying that I probably didn't have publishing rights to these documents, so I couldn't, but when I responded saying that there is a potential that some of them may be public domain, I was told to go to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and ask there. Before I do, I would like some input from this project. Though I said above that these documents are generally not in the public domain, I see no problem with posting them to my dropbox until the NPS gets around to putting them on Focus, even if I don't have the copyright. Basically, I think copying text word for word from these documents is a violation of copyright, but simply uploading them so that others may see what I'm seeing should be no problem. What do you guys think? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that it would be fine, legally and practically, if you shared them privately to others of us by email, or to a private system requiring a password for others to get into. I believe it would be technically a copyright violation if you uploaded them to a website that was wide open for access by anyone, as that would constitute publishing them. Maybe no one would complain, but i think it would be a technical violation of copyright law. My background that sorta informs me about this stems from my once posting a useful reference table based on a commercial database, which helped other uses of that database. About a year later i was contacted by a lawyer, demanding that i take it down. I think it was resolved by my changing access for the webpage in a way that limited access to persons who had legal subscriber access to the commercial database. Does this help? --doncram (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That was kind of my thinking.. except the NRIS is a public government-sponsored database, correct? Anyone has access to it. Therefore, I wouldn't have to require a password to access the documents? I'll bring it up at Media copyright questions..--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were asking about PDFs of the NRHP application forms and accompanying photos, which have repeatedly been held to be copyrighted by their original authors/photographers, unless those persons were Federal employees. The NRIS database is itself public domain (because it is a noncreative compilation and/or because it is prepared by Federal employees) and can be posted freely. --doncram (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about the PDFs, but they can be obtained via the NRIS database correct? I don't know. I asked at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#NRHP documents. I'll see what they have to say and report back. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, that wasn't an invitation for you to comment there... but thanks for the wall of text anyway.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, i commented there. But briefly, no, the PDFs are gradually being made available through the NPS Focus system, which is not NRIS (which is merely a simple database, like a big spreadsheet, which contains data and short text fields only, and which is mostly created by data entry from the NRHP application documents). The NPS's copyright statements and numerous communications from NPS staff (obtained by Acroterion, me, and others) are clear that the NPS's display of photos and texts in the NPS Focus system does not change the privately held copyright status of the documents and photos. The NPS has permission to display them; no one else does unless permission is specifically obtained from the copyright holder. I gave links to previous discussions at the Copyrights discussion there. I'm sorry this stuff is not more clear in the material at wp:NRHP and what is now wp:NRHPhelp. It used to be more clear, because there have been so many previous misunderstandings that I added prominent coverage at wp:NRHP. However this coverage was lost in reorganization by you, yourself, who chose to delete it! I do agree it may have been too prominent previously, and better belongs in what is now wp:NRHPhelp. I'll try to reconstruct a decent treatment in wp:NRHPhelp.

I may be misreading the tone of your last comment, but if you are intending that as a derogatory statement then then I think you are behaving unprofessionally and uncivilly. I took the time to respond to you there, to give you information that you appear to need. If you truly meant "thank you", then I apologize for my other interpretation, and, "you're welcome". --doncram (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Delisted properties

I was just reading through an MRA of Meridian, Mississippi's NRHP listings (found here), and I noticed that it mentioned one property of which I had never heard before. The MRA was originally listed in 1979, but a later addendum (also in the same pdf) was added in the 1980s. This addendum claimed the property I'd never heard of had been demolished. Upon searching Elkman's tool for this property ("Dixie Gas Station"), I found it (showing, of course "NR", which means removed from the register). The tool gives the delisted date in place of the added date, so I looked through the weekly list of actions taken on the Register, and I found this property's delisting... as well as a second property ("Meyer-Loeb Building") that was delisted on the same date.

This got me thinking: I wonder how many properties have been delisted in Lauderdale County (link to county list.. the new finds are in the "Delistings" section). Well, I tried Elkman's query by county but that only shows still-listed properties. The addendum to the MRA says there were originally 26 nominations in it, and checking through the list on Wikipedia, I find 24 still on the Register that were listed on that day. These two other properties, then, complete the MRA.

The problem is, I can find nowhere a list of nominations put forth by the MRA.. the document online doesn't give a list, and even searching through the pdf for additions to the register in 1979 (linked above) shows no results for the Meridian MRA or any of its constituents. Does anyone know where I can find a full listing for properties included in the MRA? Is it possible to make Elkman's tool show delisted properties in the county generated lists? Right now I have the listing dates for these two newly found buildings marked with {{fact}} tags until I can sort it out. Any help? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I found this link, which allowed me to add three more delisted properties to the table. Coincidentally, all three of them were listed in 1979 (though no exact date is given) and claim to be part of the MRA. This, however, would seem to contradict the MRA itself because it would put the total number of constituents over 26. I looked up the weekly listings for all of the properties, and sure enough, they show as being delisted and as part of the MRA. There is still, however, no original listing date for any of these properties. I'm completely confused haha.. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Finding the listing date is a two-step process. (1) Look at the reference number: its first two digits are the year in which the property was listed; any property listed in 1979 will have a reference number beginning with "79". (2) Go through the recent listings for the relevant year until you find the property. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe that isn't what you wanted. The complete NR database includes a multiple property column in the PROPMAIN folder (and a similar column in the MAIN folder if you download the simpler Microsoft Access database), which tells you the name of the NPS for every property that was part of one. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had already looked at the reference number and looked through the actions taken for that year. I didn't, however, download the database (I don't know how big it is, and I don't want to clog up my personal computer).

Through correspondence with the Mississippi Department of Archives and History (MDAH) and the NPS themselves, however, I've acquired a hard copy of the MRA which includes more than the online copy. On the hard copy is a list of 18 properties included in the MRA. This doesn't add up to the 26 claimed in the 1987 addendum, but I think we've figured out why. Basically through a lot of looking through reference numbers and deduction from looking through the text of both the 1979 MRA and the 1987 addendum, I think I've found out that there is a missing page from the MRA, and neither the NPS nor the MDAH has it. I sent a detailed explanation of the situation back to the NPS, and I'm waiting on their response now. I'll let you guys know if I find out anything further. Thanks for your help though. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've downloaded both databases on my computer; just ask me on my talk, and I can run a search to provide you a list of all the properties in an MPS. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I forgot to mention that I knew the names of all the properties in the MRA now.. I just need the missing page.. You don't happen to have that, do you? :P--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

All I have are the downloadable documents from WP:MPS. I download lots of things out of force of habit; I'm about to begin grad school for an MLS, so I like having lots of information available. It's probably as natural for me as creating templates is for you :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to follow up, I found the missing page. The NPS had it but not the MS SHPO or the NRHP's regular document center. I'm still talking with them, however, about the properties contained within the MRA.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of project subpages

Upon looking at the list of the project's subpages, I've found some that I believe should be deleted. Most of the pages listed below are small single paragraph explanations on how to do different things related to this project. Much of the information is already covered either on the front page or the project's style guide. I figured I should raise my concern here before actually proposing them for deletion. Any thoughts? The list is below:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Pre-existing
• Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Historic districts/Pre-existing
• Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Stubbing
• Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/boundary inc-dec
• Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/incoming
• Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/location verification
• Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Historic districts/incoming
• Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Historic districts/Disambiguation
• Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Historic districts/Infobox example (covered on Infobox test cases)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Historic districts/Talk pages (covered in Style guide)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Talk pages (Style guide)

If you have any other suggestions (I only listed those that I thought would cause little or no controversy), please add them to the list. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No objections from me. Should the talk page of the "Historic districts/Infobox example" go as well. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 03:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Some other subpages were recently proposed for deletion by Dudemanfellabra and the result of the decision, at wp:MFD if i recall correctly, was that while they could be redirected, no, they should not be deleted. D, could you please link to that discussion? What is different with these? I believe, without a lot of checking, that these ones are mostly parts of early efforts to support the WikiProject. Offhand, where something is now replaced by the NRHPMOS style guide, it could just be redirected to the NRHPMOS style guide now, saving the edit history. There is no real benefit to deleting the edit history of these. --doncram (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Niagara, I didn't think about the talk pages. Yes, if any talk pages exist, I think they should be deleted too.

Doncram, I don't keep records off all the stuff I do on here. If you'd like to find the MFD report (which I believe "consensus" consisted of you opposing and me giving up... which seems to be the norm), by all means search for it. I don't even remember which pages they were.

As for these pages, nearly all of them have an edit history of "creating section" and possibly a few more edits. User:Ebyabe created most of them. I doubt very seriously that these edit histories should be kept. *ahem* There is no real benefit to keeping the edit history of these... And what's the purpose of keeping edit histories anyway? The pages no longer serve a purpose; therefore, they should be deleted. A benefit of deleting them would be allowing one to better navigate the list above without having to sort through a useless plethora of redirects.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who asked for feedback here. I suggest checking the relevant feedback you got on the last batch. What you recall is not what I recall. I recall, i think, User:Cirt and/or other uninvolved editors commenting and his/their views carrying. --doncram (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Where was this other MFD? The only I can find was this one that involved Nyttend (I do vaguely remember other obsolete pages being proposed here, but know when). Most of the pages proposed have only one edit and, it seems, were used as a supplemental to an older version of the "to do" list, which was been replaced. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 15:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That MFD came out of this section on my talk page.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If edit histories are a concern, merge them all. bd2412 T 20:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the MFD i recalled. I see it was "C" editors Carcharoth and Collect (not Cirt), and SmokeyJoe, whose views prevailed. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So my tally of the above is one for, one against, and one merge. Anyone else care to comment? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also be in favor of merging - it removes the clutter while preserving the original authorship information as the GFDL stipulates. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok well since no one else is responding, I guess the consensus is to merge the project pages. I'm not an administrator, so can one of you guys do the honors? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

When others were saying "merge", i was/am wondering what was meant. If it just means redirecting from those pages to some central location, which does technically preserve the edit history, then you could do that yourself. The other MFD ended with a decision to leave the items, just tag with "archive" tags. I see how to apply archive tags to former work pages, but don't otherwise see how to create a useful "merged" combo set of previous workpages wrapped into one article. These aren't really even workpages of lists of tasks to do, though, so redirecting makes sense to me and I don't know what merging means, otherwise. When people said "merge", did you really just mean mark as "archive" or apply redirects, or what? --doncram (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Read this.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

NRIS database now "officially" offline

While corresponding with the NPS about some stuff in Meridian, Mississippi, (mentioned above) I asked them about nr.nps.gov because of the ongoing conversation at WP:RSN#www.nr.nps.gov about it. I got this reply: "That database doesn't meet our current computer security requirements, and we have just taken it down." Looks like all our fears have been manifest. We now have to figure out another way to format citations. The above thread with the huge table is a step in the right direction, though it is not entirely satisfactory. Apparently no one can agree on how to format any citation whatsoever, but now with the removal of this database, we need to stop arguing and just come up with a solution. There are thousands of articles out there now that point to a dead link, and they are all under the scope of this project. We need a massive editing campaign (hopefully aided by a bot?) to fix this problem, but first we have to know how we want the links to appear in the first place.

I've asked the NPS if they are going to move the database download to FOCUS, and I'll post their answer when I receive it, but until then we must function as if there will be no more database download. How shall we format references?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the first indications that the NRIS website was going to eventually be taken down, I started citing NPS Focus, wherever the NRIS citation would have been, using a similar style:

• "NPS Focus". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. Retrieved July 21, 2010.

Ideally, there'd also be a way to make a more direct link (somehow using your {{NRHP Focus}} possibly?). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 21:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the NRHP Focus template can get users one click away from the Focus listing, which includes the listing date, reference number, links to text/photo pdfs if they're available, and various other information, but I've seen some opposition to the template because it doesn't contain as much information as the NRIS database, and certain editors have dug into their trenches and won't give up. Now that the database has been taken offline – presumably permanently – it appears as if Focus will be the best we can do, unless we are willing to start citing Elkman's tool, which relies on an old copy of the database. I don't know if that's reliable though. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, NPS Focus is not a good substitute, since the bare-bones information provided there doesn't include a lot of the information that people have obtained from NRIS. If you're trying to verify a list entry that includes an architect's name or the acreage of a historic district (to name two examples), you won't be able to verify that on NPS Focus.

Here's a suggestion for a replacement, based on discussion (largely between Doncram and me) at WP:RSN and Talk:List of Masonic buildings:

Code: ''National Register Information System'' database, version of March 13, 2009. National Register of Historic Places, U.S. National Park Service. Retrieved from [http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrdown1.htm National Register Information System Download Center] (no longer online) March 15, 2009. Archived at [http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/ elkman.net]

Generated text: National Register Information System database, version of March 13, 2009. National Register of Historic Places, U.S. National Park Service. Retrieved from National Register Information System Download Center (no longer online) March 15, 2009. Archived at elkman.net.

NB: I don't know what date to insert as the "retrieved" date, as I don't know when Elkman (or anyone else) retrieved the data.

I also have no idea whether Elkman is ready for the additional load on his server. Another alternative (or additional item to include in the citation) would be to provide a link to some part of http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/ , such as http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/about.htm -- where there is a link for asking questions about using the NRIS database. --Orlady (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As Orlady knows, I only use the database to cite the listing date and refnum. Anything else could start introducing inaccuracy and errors if you rely on only the database (see all the errors we've found so far), not to mention it does start to appear to be laziness on the part of the editor. I really think there ought to be a moratorium (which, I'm sorry to say, might have to extend to infobox generator) on the creation of 1–2 sentence stubs without any sources other than the database . I also think that some form of a drive (or a competition) should be developed to expand some of those stubs and provide better sources (I've done this for a bunch in Pennsylvania, and you'd be surprised by the interesting facts about the sites that would not have been found unless you looked).

Currently, the best option I see is to get a bot to replace all the dead NRIS citations, with NPS Focus ones (something is better than nothing) and then encouraging people to expand those stubs already in existance. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 22:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(after ec, perhaps not fully responding to what's been said) But, where NRIS was in fact the source, and especially where it remains the only available source for certain information, we have to update the widely used NRIS reference, don't we? The usual reference supported by Elkman's system has been this:

"National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2009-03-13.

Orlady refers above to continuing discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings#Solution time about the widely-used NRIS reference and the NPS Focus-based alternative suggested by Dudemanfellabra. My last suggestion was this substitute reference to NRIS:

National Register Information System, database edition of 2009-03-13. National Register of Historic Places. U.S. National Park Service. Database retrieved from National Register Information System Download Center on, 2009-03-15.

Note that replaced the usual link to www.nr.nps.gov by a link to www.nr.nps.gov/nrdown1.htm, which was where the National Register was providing the downloadable copy of the NRIS database. Both those URLs seem to be unreachable now, so this proposed NRIS reference would obviously have to be changed. I assume and want to believe that the National Register will again make available, somewhere, at least the downloadable copy of NRIS, and that a URL to that new address could be used to update this. (As Orlady suggests, the 3-15-2009 access-date included in that is my guess when Elkman downloaded the 3-13-2009 edition of NRIS database, and should be corrected if wrong; adding the accessdate was Orlady's suggestion with which I agreed.)

In discussion there, Orlady agreed with my reasoning for using that reference, and with my reasoning there why the NPS Focus-based references would be inadequate for use as substitutes. Please see there for more explanation, but let me assert that the current version of NPS Focus cannnot be used in place of an NRIS reference, in many places where NRIS was the source and you simply cannot get the same info from NPS Focus. I suggested the version above could be used immediately in the List of Masonic buildings list-article, and if NRHP editors concurred, applied in other articles. Or some variation agreed upon by NRHP editors could be rolled out and replace it. I assume now we have to come up with a new footnote to NRIS and then have abot run to replace the old NRIS reference in articles. Hopefully we will all agree, that the NRIS database is the actual source, and especially where it is the only source available for certain information, that it is only honest to show NRIS as being the source in a properly formed reference, right? So, a revised reference to the apparently-now-completely-offline NRIS database is needed. Will this version, or a modification of that, serve? --doncram (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Orlady's version above (displaying: National Register Information System database, version of March 13, 2009. National Register of Historic Places, U.S. National Park Service. Retrieved from National Register Information System Download Center (no longer online) March 15, 2009. Archived at elkman.net) would basically also be fine by me. I see the advantage of pointing to an archived copy of the exact version. I just don't know about adding >20,000 pointers to Elkman's website, especially as Elkman has previously indicated that he did not want his service to be credited or explicitly mentioned in the standard footnote. The exact form of the standard footnote is his creation I believe, reflecting his wish for how it should appear. If Elkman chose to comment and was agreeable to having a link to his website, then it would okay. But it occurs to me, why not stash a full copy of the NRIS database in one of the free, permanent archives that are available on the internet. The NRIS database is public domain, so I believe we can archiving it in a zip file to be placed in one or more permanent internet archive places. Wikipedia / Wikimedia commons is NOT the place to archive a file like that, but I believe there are other trusted permanent archive places for a purpose like this. Then the archive pointer could link there. How does that sound? I have not actually archived anything permanently before deliberately, though i think some stuff of mine must have gotten archived in the waybackmachine and/or elsewhere. Can anyone advise on specific permanent archiving options? --doncram (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea, Doncram. I hope somebody can suggest an archive to use. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Followup: From another email:

"The database manager is [...] working on making sure that all of the information that was in the older database gets put into Focus. Hopefully we will update Focus in the near future with this information. We tried to get it in before the old one was taken down, but we couldn't make the deadline."

It appears as if Focus will soon get an upgrade? Maybe this will address the issues Doncram and Orlady have with this database? I can't really tell with the vagueness of the statement, but I guess all we can do is wait and see. I think in the mean time we should, as Doncram stated above, possibly get in contact with Elkman and see if his website can take the extra load. I personally think the Focus link should be used when possible so as to avoid future work. It appears as if they are slowly moving to this database, and I believe we should as well. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox generator and my inactivity

I haven't been active on Wikipedia very much lately, and I doubt I'll be back to my previous level of activity. Do a Google search for "CONvergence predator costume" and you'll find one reason why. That particular interest seems to be more of an accomplishment than anything I've done on Wikipedia lately, and nobody at Wikipedia Review has been harshly critical of the costume -- at least not yet.

If you need me to work on something with the infobox generator or with the database, it's best to leave a message on my user talk page. I'm really only checking this sporadically. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

When the House is still in the same place but not At the address

I direct your attention to two stubs I expanded with the limited source material available into at least non-stubs, now that I had photos: House at 116 Main Street and House at 37 Center Street.

Neither house has been moved, but due to an almost countywide renumbering for 9-1-1 service about a decade ago, they have different numbers: 365 Main Street and 20 Center Street respectively, which the articles and the county list now reflect (you can see for yourself by looking closely at the pictures).

Has anyone else encountered a situation like this? It plays a little hell with our naming conventions. In this case, the renumbering created a new "House at 37 Center Street" that clearly isn't the historic one. When I suggested a while back that we deviate from the NPS a little and include the community in each of these article titles, not in parentheses but comma-separated, since I don't consider this sort of name to be a proper noun and thus I don't capitalize "house" in the lede, (a proposal that didn't meet with project approval), I had these two listings partly in mind.

Should we rename the articles in the name of accuracy? Or just recognize the NPS names and leave them with the distinguishing information I put in them already? Thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be renamed to their current addresses. Wikipedia:Naming conventions says to use the name recognized by the most people. Anyone that walks through the streets of Highland Falls will notice 365 Main Street and not 116 Main Street. It would be ideal if there were some other name that locals called the house (e.g. "Owner's last name" House), but since there appears not to be one, the current address would be more desirable than the old one... unless we're still living in the 1980s, that is. Which would be awesome btw. Big hair and parachute pants. Woohoo.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the names are simply based on the addresses, I'd agree with Dudeman on this, although surely you should (1) note the address at the time of listing, and (2) leave the NPS name in the infobox, outdated though it is. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Dudeman and Nyttend. But "Has anyone else encountered a situation like this?" reminded me of File:220th and 45th.JPG an intersection in Amana, Iowa. A local woman said that it was because of "9-11" (not 9-1-1) but did mention emergency services in her answer. Re-numbering could be all over the place! Now if anybody could answer why a town of 10 streets by 5 streets needs a 220th Trail or a 45th Avenue, I'd be interested. Smallbones (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumably it's based on a countywide or multi-county-wide numbering system. Other parts of Iowa also have their rural roads called "Street" or "Avenue"; my denomination has a congregation in the countryside near Clarinda (Page County) that's located along 250th Street. Farther east, Hamilton County, Indiana numbers many of its east-west rural roads after the same "street" system as is used in Indianapolis; you can count on 150th Street in Hamilton County, for example, to be 15 miles north of Monument Circle. I remember bicycling through there several years ago, thinking it odd (1) to have "streets" in rural areas, and (2) to number your roads after something in a different county. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at an explanation for you. Most minor roads in Iowa are assigned a number in a pattern in some way based on their geography in each county. For instance, all the west-east roads in any county are numbered in increasing order from north to south in steps of 10 (100th ave, 110th ave, 120th ave, etc...), while all the north south roads are numbered in increasing order from west to east, again in steps of 10, and use a differentiating suffix (100th st, 110th st, 120th st, etc...). Some counties, instead of using numbers, use letters in either of the directions (A ave, B ave, ..., JJ ave, ...). Now the Amana colonies region seems to be a touch different, and follow a separate numbering from the rest of the county they are in (Iowa County), but follows the same system. All the north-south roads in the colonies are numbered in order from west to east (6th and 7th ave in West Amana, 38th to 48th ave in Amana, ...). Most of the west-east roads in the colonies are lettered from north to south (F St. to I St. in Amana). Now 220th Trail is an exception for a reason. First, it's a non-grid road, meaning it's not a north-south or west-east road, so it gets a different distinguishing suffix (Trail). The numbering comes fro the fact that most of that "trail" is also State Highway 220. Since all the highways are mostly in a grid pattern, when someone calls 911, the responders are able to ascertain roughly where in the county the call is coming from without having to look it up. Hope this isn't completely confusing. 25or6to4 (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

These look like excellent answers to my question. This project is great for this. Thanks. Smallbones (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In the 1970s Martin County, Florida, where I live, adopted a county-wide house numbering and street naming system at the request of the post office which had problems with duplicate street names and randomly assigned house numbers. Cypress Lodge, a recent addition to the NRHP, for example, has the address of 18681 SW Conners Highway in Port Mayaca, Florida. The Port Mayaca post office was closed in 1958 and mail actually comes from Canal Point in Palm Beach County. clariosophic (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also let the National Register folks know of the address (and hence presumed name) change. Although this is a somewhat different situation, I have let them and the USGS GNIS know of apparent errors before, and they have always been very helpful and have usually made the change promptly (or explained why it was not an error in their view). If the Register changes the name to the current address, that would solve some issues here too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? They would do that? I had long thought of writing them to remove a bunch of demolished listings in the area still on the Register; I didn't think that would go very well. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Bridge between East Manchester and Newberry Townships used to not be listed in the NRHP database, but was listed in the MPS (Thematic Resources) submission "Highway Bridges Owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation", and the form was listed in the Pennsylvania ARCH system here. I wrote an email at the start of this year and asked the NRHP why there was the discrepancy, and was the bridge listed or not? The archivist wrote back and said that it was on the register, but had not been entered in the database as a listed property. He added that it appeared to be an oversight and that it would be added to the database. I just checked and could not find it in the Focus system (7 months later). The bridge and a photo of it are in the article List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania (very large). GNIS is much faster at replying and making changes, often within a day or two. I always say that I have found what appears to be a possible error or omission, which seems to work well. I figure it can't hurt to let them know. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)