Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 54

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Nyttend in topic Lincoln Highway, Douglas County, Nebraska
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56→Archive 60

Articles focused on NRHP Multiple Property Submissions

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion underway at Talk:Opa-locka, Florida#Merger proposal that involves broader issues that may be of interest to some here. The issues include (i) whether articles on historic districts should be merged into articles on the city in which the district is located, (2) whether articles concerning thematically-related [National Register of Historic Places#Multiple Property Submission]]s are appropriate, and (3) how articles on such Multiple Property Submissions should be named. The discussion could benefit from some broader input so that a consensus can be developed one way or another. Cbl62 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is Photo in History section relevant

Latest comment: 12 years ago17 comments10 people in discussion

Is it appropriate to use images with false colors, "artistic" filters, and the like, for photographs on Wikipedia? At what point do the photos cease to accurately represent reality? I don't think this concern applied to legitimate artistic or historic images, just contemporary amateur images.

From the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, under WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." (emphasis in original) --GrapedApe (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Here are some examples of which I speak:
Images in articles should be as realistic as possible. An image that has been altered away from reality has no business being used. When exemplifying the Mona Lisa, a picture of the painting is used, not Dalí's self-portrait as her. When exemplifying a site, the lines should be straight where a building is straight, the colors should be the colors seen at the site, and as much of the subject as possible should be shown, not a forced perspective, false colors, and/or a minute detail. Taking or altering images in such fashion is artistic, and therefore POV: art is communication, and such images express what the image creator wishes rather than getting as close to neutral reality as possible. We are here to preserve art, not practice it (apologies, Mr. Hackman); or preserve history, not make it; or, in this case, preserve history, not practice art.
Having said that, every image needs to be judged on its own merits. It is "all about the result".[1] Fake sepia should be banned – it was a limit of the technology, not what people actually saw or will see at a site. The same for B&W, although any historic photo that is better than a modern photo should be used, or if nothing better has come along. Otherwise the proof is in the pudding picture.  Thundersnow  01:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As I've noted father up the page, I'm opposed to extensive interpretive (or in the case of the three images above, automated) alteration of an image used to illustrate a subject on Wikipedia. However, it should be noted that no image is a true depiction of the subject: photographs are themselves interpretations, and photographers routinely alter color balance, contrast, perspective, saturation and dynamic range to create an attractive and descriptive image. If you're using a point-and-shoot camera, there's software that's doing a lot of it for you without your knowledge or participation. The HABS approach is in my opinion a good practice: describe the subject, then concentrate on important details or aspects of the subject that enhance the viewer's understanding of the subject. The featured image debates on Commons provide a good balance between attention-getting image composition and encyclopedic usefulness, and they do not demand that photographers position themselves at 90 degrees to the principal elevation and shoot whatever presents, then stop. HABS photographers indulge in interpretation, starting by using view cameras to straighten vertical perspective, and hardly ever shoot anything straight on. I am against "banning" a given practice: inappropriately altered images can simply not be used, or can be used elsewhere outside of this project. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I personally think this one isn't too tough to figure out. Acoterion makes some valid points, however, even to a novice observer of photography there is a large and noticeable difference between the images featured above and images which "there's software that's doing a lot of it for you without your knowledge or participation" or ones that "photographers routinely alter color balance, contrast, perspective, saturation and dynamic range to create an attractive and descriptive image". The images linked in this section are so completely altered as to be utterly useless in an encyclopedic setting. Certainly, the images can be used to illustrate something encyclopedically but it isn't the subject of the images that could be illustrated in this way. These images have a right to be on Commons, or whatever, but they are really poor choices to enhance a reader's understanding of the subject. The fact remains that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project and not an artistic collective's website. I say kill them with fire - at least from the standpoint of an article on the images' subjects. IvoShandor (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I was interrupted by RL before I could add that the images cited aren't suitable for use as anything but an illustration of the software's effects. To go back to the original question, I'm opposed to intrusive artistic effects or filters, and this has been a long-standing position on Commons in general. In some cases they may be deleted as "out of project scope." I do not, however, object to a considerable amount of license in composition, framing and general image improvement provided it doesn't distort the outcome to such an extent that the resulting image is divorced from its subject. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
"Is it appropriate" to use pictures like these? Well, if there are alternate photos available which you prefer to use, which are less color-altered or otherwise bothersome, use those instead. If these are the only ones available, and they do provide some valid visual information (these do), then do use them. It happens you can verify that these 3 photos do provide valid information by comparing them to black&white, non-usable photos in the corresponding NRHP nomination documents that are linked from their articles. The first is a 5 bay structure; the church has a tower; the house has trees in front of it and is shaped as appears in its image here.
Also, about these 3 images in particular, I think they should be accepted and used (as they are now used in their articles), because there was no policy/guideline anything against them, when submitted. I would hate to make up a rule against using them, after the fact, and then apply that: these ones should be grandfathered in, under any outcome of this RFC regarding future photos. --doncram 03:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't you think if a reader has to go to an extraordinary effort to verify visual information, that it's really not all that useful? The visual information obtained from these photos is little beyond what a few words could describe, 5-bay, tower, and house (what does shaped how it appears in the image even mean?) At thumbnail level, that third image doesn't look like anything, imho. I personally think pictures like the one's above hurt the overall credibility of the project. Appropriate image use is an editorial decision, and should be made on a case by case basis, I think. I personally wouldn't use these images, even over no images - they're just not good, aside from providing only the bare minimum of visual information they do so in an inaccurate way. They are also garish, aesthetically unpleasing and amateurish, if you needed further reasoning for my opinion. I'll drop back and let others chime in. Hope this helps.IvoShandor (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The reader doesn't have to verify -- only you do, if you extremely doubt the info that is evident in the pictures. The 3rd picture conveys that the house is Victorian-like, "old-style", that it has details such as a porch with trim and a bay window on the first floor, that it has two forward-facing gables, there there is trim under eaves, etc. I agree the 3rd pic needs to be magnified, as in its article, to see that information clearly. You could choose to crop it, perhaps and magnify the focus on the house itself rather than the trees. --doncram 04:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In almost every practical sense, I agree with Acroterion. I might add that using a "HABS style" (with color preferably) might be good for many people, but is a bit limiting. Also, limiting anything because it is "artistic" is not in any rules that I've seen. I'm thinking of the top pic at this non NRHP site, but I consider the old post card several pictures below it to be just as artistic. Any rule that would outlaw those (other than for copyright reasons) I'd be strongly against. It all comes down to editorial judgement in the particular situation. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, this discussion has gotten off course, into philosophic realm of "Isn't every photo a false representation of reality." So, here's the basic question: Is the deliberate addition of false colors without a good reason inappropriate for images of Wikipedia.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I wonder if a useful product of this RFC could be some guidance about photographs to be included in the NRHP Style Guideline (which itself should be reviewed and then elevated / put forward to be a Wikipedia guideline ). Perhaps you could draft some guidance expressing a preference for more realistic rather than artistic images, and commenting on disclosure? I do think that there should be specific guidance on disclosure of color-enhancement or other alterations in photos, i.e. about what should be disclosed in Commons photo notes and what should be included in captions of photos used in wikipedia NRHP articles. I do share some concern here about many color-changed photos that are prominently used within NRHP articles without informing readers that the picture is enhanced. I am not particularly concerned about disclosure to readers for these 3 examples where colorizing is pretty obviously present. --doncram 12:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I concur with IvoShandor and Acroterion. Images that are altered to this extent have no place in encyclopedic articles about historic sites. I don't think I can add anything that's not already been said in support of this argument. I disagree with doncram that including images like these in NRHP-related articles and lists is better than having no image at all. --sanfranman59 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images says images like this should not be used. So remove them with an edit summary that links to that section of the MOS. Abductive (reasoning) 04:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
IMHO --- this is an online encyclopedia, not a school art project.--Pubdog (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 
Dranesville Tavern, Virginia

Here's a pic that looks fake-colored to me. It's one of many pics in WLM that are among the 500 nominated / finalists for awards. See also Abbie Greenleaf Library one for another possible color-faking example, and scroll down [Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States/List] for more. I dunno, should this tavern pic be summarily deleted from use in Wikipedia, or do we wait for it to get an award, first, and then delete it? --doncram 23:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

One might call images like these enhanced rather than fake, depending on the location & fuzziness of one’s boundary between the two. (I suspect they’re both examples of HDR, demonstrating its scope pretty well; the library photo linked above is quite natural-looking at small scales, while the colours in the tavern photo here are over-saturated enough to appear quite false.) I agree the more extreme cases shouldn’t be used to illustrate their subjects, except perhaps where nothing more realistic is available (and the article would suffer badly without illustration). However, some such might well be perfectly suitable for articles about e.g. photography, digital image-processing, or colour perception, so I don’t think they should necessarily be deleted out of hand—particularly from Commons, which AFAICT has no “encyclopedic” requirements.
More generally, an unrealistic artistic depiction (photographic or painted) that’s notable in its own right wouldn’t necessarily be out of place in an article about the subject, as long as it’s preceded by a natural, contemporary image. And of course there are a great many historical portraits whose accuracy or content of “artistic licence” are quite unknown, but are widely accepted as likenesses of their subjects.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Meeker Hotel

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is anyone willing to help improve the article for the Meeker Hotel. I've improved it a little, but there's a lot more that it needs. I added the infobox but am unable to make it say "U.S. National Register ... " at the top. I am mostly a picture guy. Thanks, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

It was missing the reference number (refnum) and date. The Elkman infobox generator supplied the missing information. KudzuVine (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Rodeph Shalom

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There are two articles that appear to be about the same thing: Congregation Rodeph Shalom (Philadelphia) and Rodeph Shalom Synagogue. The synagogue is pretty much a stub. Can these be merged?  Thundersnow  22:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur.--Pubdog (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I merged and redirected. I hope I did it correctly, although all the information from the stub was contained in its infobox. Thundersnow 19:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

500 photos sent to WLM-US jury

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

The 500 photos sent to the WLM-US jury can be found at Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States/List. Congrats to everybody who has made it this far (out of the 22,000 photos submitted). The jury will decide on the 10 winners by October 28, 2012.

At this point, we should do a thorough check that each of the photos is actually in the NRHP site that it claims to be in. A quick review (or 2) has already been done. For most of the photos this will be quite simple, either by checking other photos we have and the article, or perhaps by checking Google street-view or the photos that go with the nomination. But, as you may know, for a few historic districts determining which buildings are in the district can be rather difficult. There are a few California Historic Places mixed in with the NRHP sites, which is ok.

It would really be nice, when the winners are announced, if we had an article for each of them. I'd guess roughly 200 of the 500 right now do not have articles. Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any automated method, but on almost every photo's page the article is linked. For some reason all the links on Commons are blue, even if there is no article on Wikipedia. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I started a list of red links at User:Smallbones/list articles For the 1st section of the 500 (Numbers-A) there are 12 (out of 40) red links. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible problems

Looking at Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States/List I see three possible problems, one easy.

  1. File:Weinbrunner's Shoe Factory, Marshfield, Wisconsin, America..jpg is missing a label in the list
  2. File:West Paden Covered Bridge 4.jpg - the original bridge was swept away in a flood in 2006 and the current structure was (re)built in 2008. I assume this means the replacement bridge is no longer eligible for the NRHP? (This is my photo, by the way)
  3. File:Chicago_symphony_at_grand_park_ouda.JPG - Grant Park (Chicago) was listed on the NRHP in 1993, but this is a picture of Jay Pritzker Pavilion in Millennium Park, which opened in 2004. Until 1997 the land that became Millennium Park was Illinois Central rail yards and parking lots. So the pavilion shown was not built in 1993 when the park was listed on the NRHP, and the land it sits on is almost certainly not part of the NRHP listed part of the park.

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to check this out.
  1. Added the label - I think this is the last one, but anybody should feel free to add a label if another is missing
  2. I'll leave that up to the photographer - if he or she wants to remove it from the list, that's fine with me. Otherwise I'll assume that a site is on the NRHP until it is removed from the NRHP. I do understand the objection however, and if folks want to tell me I'm wrong - you might as well do it here.
  3. Related to the above. I used to live in Chicago and the RR tracks are fairly narrow (6 tracks?), going thru the Art Institute and just west of the Pritzker Pavilion where the photo was taken. See map. So I believe the land is definitely in the NRHP site. Still, the pavilion wasn't built until after the site was named to the NRHP. I hadn't anticipated a problem like this - though I should have. There is a similar question for the Chestnut Hill Historic District (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), with its most famous building, the Vanna Venturi House, being built a couple of decades before the nomination, but not mentioned in it. So should the VVH be considered part of the HD? I don't see a compelling reason to disallow it - but do let me know if I'm wrong.

Please keep the potential problems coming in - a review of the eligibility of the pix is definitely needed. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

More:

  1. for Arena Cove Historic District, California, the nominated pic File:Arena Cove Historic District-19.jpg is a "nature" picture of cliffs and starry sky, not a picture of any contributing historic resource within the district. I think it should not be eligible as it is not a picture of the "monument", though I haven't checked the rules. -- You may be right on this, I'll check what the photographer says. I read the nomination as mentioning "nature" in about 4 lines out of 7 pages. More important - the hill is probably viewed from the HD, but not in it, to the extent I can read the map. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. for Forts Baker, Barry, and Cronkhite, the nominated pic File:Fort-Baker-Sausalito-Florin-WLM-33.jpg picture is of a historic-looking church that I guess probably is located within the large area of the historic district, but it is not specifically identified as a contributing building within the nomination, from 1973. I think this is not a problem. For recent HD nominations, every single contributing building, structure, object is listed. For older ones, the specific buildings are often not listed. I say call this one eligible. --doncram 19:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC) -- agree, sb

Let's continue this conversation at User talk:Smallbones/list articles. The photos are at Commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States/List. Any help reviewing these would certainly be appreciated. Everybody would look bad (especially me) if a photo of a place not on the NRHP or California List won the contest! Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:Chicago - Unless the criteria for the NRHP has changed those properties at Millennium Park aren't even considered eligible for listing on the NRHP, they're too new. They couldn't be stand alone listings or contributing properties to historic districts as far as I know.IvoShandor (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I've seen the NRHP documentation for Grant Park, and those properties are definitely non-contributing. It's a nice picture, but can't be eligible. Teemu08 (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

time for a clean-up

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The drive for photographs last month has added a lot of great images to articles. However the talk pages have not all been updates to reflect they now have images. Is anyone willing to assist in removing {{Image requested}} templates from these pages? There are still plenty of pages needing images but it gets difficult to identify them if the categories are clogged with pages that do have photographs.(Just done 29 in Ohio) --Traveler100 (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A bot may be able to help: it could generate a list of pages that have both the image requested tag on the talk page and an image in infobox nrhp, and possibly remove the image requested tag if the image requested "of" parameter is not set (the latter may result in improper edits if that parameter wasn't used to describe the request in detail). Magic♪piano 00:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

NYT article on threats to historic buildings in Phoenix

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I commend to everyone's attention this article in yesterday's New York Times about the difficulties preservationists face in Phoenix. It starts with the demolition of an old hotel, not listed, but mentions the neighboring Hotel St. James, which is (but which we have not yet started an article on) and which is already slated for demolition as well since the Suns want to expand their parking lot. While a compromise was struck whereby the facade and lobby will be kept, there are other historic buildings in the city, including a Frank Lloyd Wright-designed house, that might face the wrecking ball as well since the focus citywide is generally on new construction.

It doesn't seem like anyone's doing a lot of work on the Phoenix list. But this would be something to keep abreast of. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

NRHP fails AFC: help at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Granville Fuller House ?

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Greetings, I'm sure this building is Notable somehow, but with my non-expert skills I'm not finding the right materials. I'm an AFC reviewer, so just chanced upon this draft, but if someone can help the originator I'm sure they'd appreciate it greatly. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I found a reliable source at YourHub at the Denver Post. In fact, the source is so reliable that the AFC submission is an exact copy of this article. Unless the AFC submitter is the same as the YourHub writer, it's a copyvio, and we can't use an exact copy of the text. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree with that. I tried commenting mildly along those lines at the AFC. The place was NRHP listed in May 2012 or so, and its NRHP nomination document is not yet available via the NPS Focus document search site, unfortunately. The YourHub article would be enough to start with, actually, though. --doncram 21:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Bare-bones infobox with reference to weekly list added. 14:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
After several more edits by others and myself, the article was promoted. Then the copyvio was removed. I just rewrote two copyvio paragraphs into two sentences to keep some information on architecture. More could be done. KudzuVine (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Glitched category

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Alexandria Historic District shows a red category. It is not listed on the page, so I am assuming it is linked to to the locmapin parameter of the info box. I do not know how to fix it, however, as Athenaeum (Alexandria, Virginia) uses the same map but does not have the red category. Thundersnow 18:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  • This seems to be the combination of the type and the map. I replaced the parameter with Virgina, this fixed the category problem. I think if we want to have the Alexandria map, we would need to remove the type parameter.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar NRHP humor

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Gibraltar pic by Smallbones

Hey, at Nyttend's Talk page a note commending his "getting the joke" calls my attention to his new article Gibraltar District School No. 2 and corresponding DYK nomination. I think it is a fun poke at the Gibraltarpedia brouhaha...for which a ban on Gibraltar DYKs on the main page is under discussion in an RFC.

Further, I note Gibraltar (Wilmington, Delaware) (currently a red-link) is a NRHP-listed Colonial Revival house, with NRHP docs available and pic by Smallbones available. I'd defer to anyone already started or planning to develop an article for it, but think it would be fun to develop an article jointly and put it up for DYK. It could possibly be embargoed until December 31, or it could go through. Help in developing an article at User:Doncram/Gibraltar (Wilmington, Delaware), and discussing hooks at its Talk page would be welcomed! cheers, --doncram 13:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what's the joke, unless it's my photo - but you should have seen all the good ones I got of the 6 ft stone wall. It looks to me like the article is ready to go, but I wouldn't go for a DYK just for cheap kicks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

WLM-US Best Picture Winners

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

The winners of the Best Picture contests have been announced at Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States/Best Pictures

They are:

 
1st Place


1st Place File:The_Cabin_Creek_"Inn".JPG, The Cabin Creek Inn, photographer: Kellejr
The bold red color pops out from the white snow. It is a photographically well shot image with nice composition. And trains are iconic for America.

 
2nd Place


2nd Place File:Wukoki_Ruin.tif, Wukoki Ruin, photographer: Stephen M Alden
A beautifully lit and well composed shot of the interface of nature and Native American culture.

 
3rd place


3rd Place File:Al Mac's Diner-Restaurant Fall River MA 2012.jpg, Al Mac's Diner-Restaurant, photographer: Kenneth C. Zirkel
A quintessential American image. It captures a slice of Americana.


Other top 10 finishers

Congratulations to all the winners, thanks to everybody who uploaded their work, and special thanks to all folks who helped out making the contest work.

Each of these photos is displayed in an article on the site, but, like any of our articles, they can be improved.

We should have a discussion of how to improve the contest for next year. I'll start that tomorrow. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a few statistics: 22,066 photos uploaded by just over 2,000 users (~90% newbies) into Commons:Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States, with 30 editors uploading over 100 photos each. 5,783 of these files are now used in articles or lists (26.2% of all files in the category), on 2,969 total pages (likely because of use on the county list pages) with 7,678 total uses (from http://toolserver.org/~magnus/ts2/glamorous/ a very useful tool). In all our lists 44673 out of 87770 sites (50.9%) have photos as of Oct 31, up from 38896 (44.63%) photos on Aug. 31, an increase of 5,777 (not all from WLM) (from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Monuments_database/Statistics ). The "usage" would be higher if we consider the commonscat template on article pages - there was a pretty large number of photos of historic districts where commonscat is quite useful. Numbers, of course, can't tell the whole story, but I'll submit that this was a pretty successful experiment, though it obviously could have been done better in several areas. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
For the database folks out there, there are many useful tools associated with WLM. I just found out about http://toolserver.org/~platonides/wlm/monuments.php?country=us It gives a list of the number of photos (or number of photographers) by site, with the site being listed by reference number. Some ref number are red (but not red links), which indicates there is no article on the site, but WLM photos are available (and how many). Search for the ref number on Wikipedia or go to the photo, to find the site and you are ready to start a new article with photos. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Along a similar line at User:Smallbones/list_articles we had a drive to get new articles related to the 500 pix sent to the jury. 54 were created, so that all the top-10 pix now have articles. At least 37 red links are still there for the 500 pix. So you can still start an article where you know there is at least one good photo. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Same name, same site, different registration number?

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

I hadn't seen this before on our lists. This one is in National Register of Historic Places listings in DeKalb County, Georgia

  • 37 Scottish Rite Hospital for Crippled Children September 4, 2004 321 W. Hill St. 33°45′36″N 84°18′09″W Decatur
  • 38 Scottish Rite Hospital for Crippled Children June 17, 1982 321 W. Hill St. 33°45′36″N 84°18′09″W Decatur

Any suggestions?

Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Area expansion in 2004? Acroterion (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
1982 has 5 buildings and 4.8 acres; 2004 has 1 building and 4.8 acres. This may suggest that a building was added in 2004, but without the nominations, I am not sure if we will come to a conclusion. KudzuVine (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Ran into this yesterday, left it alone per KudzuVine: without the noms we cannot determine what/where/why. No real hits on Goggle, either. Thundersnow 19:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I've come across an instance or two where a site was listed, then removed, then re-listed. Perhaps this site was removed between 1982 and 2004? It might be worth a call to the Georgia HPO. --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Nope, I've looked through my notes trying to find removal notation, but there was none. It's two separate listings. 25or6to4 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
See 75001438 and 86001640, "Twin Oaks" and "Reily, Robert, House"; they're the same place, Twin Oaks (Wyoming, Ohio). It's not the first time that this has happened. It definitely needs to be treated as a single listing. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, in any known cases of this both dates and both refnums should be shown in the article and/or its infobox. At the Twin Oaks (Wyoming, Ohio) article, i thot at first that only one showed, but then see there was a 2nd NRHP infobox embedded in the main NRHP infobox. But it didn't show properly (it weirdly showed two dates added within the 2nd infobox, for example). I just changed it to simply use just one infobox but with two dates in the date added field, and 2 refnums in the refnum field. I think that is better, yes? --doncram 15:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

26 new NHLs announced

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

While we were all distracted by WLM, the Interior Department went ahead a couple of weeks ago and announced the 26 newest NHLs. It's basically almost everything from the last two meetings, which I had posted about previously here and here. I have gone ahead and appropriately amended the New York lists and the Stepping Stones article; others might want to do the same for their states (I see Greendale Historic District has also already been updated).

I also reviewed the noms for this fall's meeting again. I note that Yaddo, the artistic retreat up in Saratoga, has been added to the list of possible NHLs. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I'd been wondering how long they'd take for the Republic and hadn't paid that much attention to the others. I'll try to get a Western Branch Home photo next time I'm in Dayton. Has anyone seen them on recent listings? Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Never mind that; they were in this week's listings. Funny; you'd never know that Columbus, Indiana was located in Ashland County, Ohio! Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Misspelt

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I got a fairly interesting note on my talkpage User_talk:Smallbones#Linton_Stevens_Covered_Bridge_Misspelled from somebody I'd never heard of before concerning spelling. No problem at all, but I'm wondering if anybody's seen something like this before. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I got an email a while ago with a somewhat similiar situation. Chandlery Corner was misspelled as "Qlandlery Corner" (still is in the NRHP). I only noted the change in WP:NRIS info issues PA and fixed it in the list. However, the NPS was never involved. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is just a general FYI for anyone who might include a photo of an historical plaque on any article. I just ran across Commons:Deletion requests, which would indicate there is a copyright issue in play. These are not my images, and I have no idea who took most of them. However, there are a couple of west Texas ones I vaguely remember seeing, and thinking they were obviously somebody just playing tourist and snapping the photo. However, it's something to think about if an editor has any kind of marker photos for NRHP articles posted on Wikipedia somewhere. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate entries

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just noticed that there are duplicate entries for NRHP Reference #77000919 at Oxford Furnace, New Jersey and Oxford Furnace. I think that these articles should be combined. --Marcbela (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Herndon Depot Museum

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I recently added some NRHP details to the Herndon Depot Museum article. Does anybody know what kinds of improvements are needed there? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi DanTD. Does the tip posted at wp:NRHPhelpVA provide enough information for you, about how to add the NRHP nomination document conveniently? I would welcome feedback/addition to that advice section about Virginia documents within the NRHP help page. About the Herndon Depot Museum, it looks to me like NRHP document, photos, and map are all available, under the Fairfax County section, in the Virginia website linked from the tips sheet (NRHP help webpage). Does this help? --doncram 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thematic group and elements

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Do all of the items on a thematic group list get put into their county lists? Example: "Highway Bridges Owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation TR" has 150+ bridges on it, each with a different number. T-49 of the TR is NRIS# 88000817, Bridge in Washington Township, already on the York county list. I just labeled a picture of T-48 (NRIS# 88000795), File:Bridge between East Manchester and Newberry Townships 1.jpg, also in York but not on the list. Should all 150+ bridges be listed? Thundersnow 02:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe they all are NRHP listed the same as any other NRHP site is listed - certainly it's been the practice for our tables. On this one User:Ruhrfisch should be contacted as the expert on these bridges (which I'll do).
I'm wondering if we should expand the discussion. Thundersnow is engaged in a great project here of putting NRIS#s on all NRHP photos. I don't think anybody wants to say "don't do this!" But I'm also not sure that this is a priority of the project, or that we should all let Thundersnow take on this near infinite project all by himself, without helping. In short, I'm not criticizing anybody but just confused while being amazed at Thundersnow's energy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
It was a procedural, "yes/no" question, the bridge expert is not needed unless y'all want to redefine procedure.
I like doing the tagging. I like visiting historic buildings but I am not all that knowledgeable about history or geography; what and what not to do here confuse me; the Commons NRHP category structure makes my head hurt. I can track down eight digits, though. I do not have energy, I am just stubborn. It does not have to be a priority for the project - it just has to be a priority for me. Yours in gnomish edits.... Thundersnow 02:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, here's some possible help. A) we ask people to include the NRIS number on their photo uploads. That way it's not a race between you and dozens of other editors to see if they (we) can upload faster than you can add the numbers. But that would suggest B) that we express the NRIS numbers in the tables so that uploaders can find them. They are already in the tables, just not printed out. I'd put them right underneath the listing date (a somewhat related variable) rather than create a new column. Since everybody loves our table format, that's likely to be controversial, but I'd go for it. The NRIS numbers might be useful for something else as well. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The NRIS# tag on images is for ErfgoedBot; it does not do anything for editors (yet, at any rate. If only the US had a database like Canada...). Correct categories are what the humans need, and is the most confusing (imo) part of uploading NRHP images. Apparently the button was useful for both but I was one who hated how it looked. Form vs function: I bet Britannica never had this problem. Thundersnow 05:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Back to the bridge: I just finished going through the TR list. I found only 2 other listings that were not on already on WP, but I cannot find NRIS#s for them. I will add "Bridge between East Manchester and Newberry Townships" to the York County list, since it does have the number and is already on List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania. Thundersnow 05:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow in responding. Thanks for all your hard work Thundersnow! The NRHP has had at least two ways of listing multiple similar sites in one go. TR (Thematic Resources) were first and they were replaced by MPS (Multiple Property Submissions). Each property in a TR or MPS is listed on the National Register on its own and has its own NRHP number and should be listed separately in the county lists. I am in favor of including the NRIS # in photos and the the county tables.
At one point I was working on an article on the Pennsylvania highway bridges TR in a sandbox, but then I stopped working on it after a helpful discussion here - see here. My guess is that the "2 other listings that were not on already on WP" were ones I had problems with too - looking at my sandbox there were four bridges in the TR that were problematic (T-35, T-48, MA-5 and SU-2: see the bottom of my sandbox). It has been a while, but I recall writing to the National Park Service about a NRHP site that slipped through the cracks (was listed in a TR, but not in the Register - not sure if it was one of these). Looking at Pennsylvania covered bridge county TR/MPS lisitings I found a covered bridge that seems to be in the same position (eligible for the rgister but not listed for some reason) - I will post on that separately below. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I find Elkman's NRHP tools to be very useful for tracking down refnums. It will generate a list which includes the refnums of all listings that are part of a given TR/MRA/MPS (MRA = Multiple Resource Area ... another term that the NPS has used over the years for the same concept ... I think). The way I know to do this is to run a "Query by county" from the main Elkman page. In this case, you could use York, PA since you know that at least one of the listings that's part of the TR of interest is in that county. This generates a table with all listings in the county. In the 'multname' column of the table, if you click on "query properties", it will generate a list for you. If you click on "generate list", it will generate Wiki markup output. But be aware that the database on which Elkman's tools are built is only as recent as the most recent version that was available for download on the NPS website. And even that version isn't available now. Their database download page has said "Download entire database will be available again soon." for at least several months now.
(the rest of this essay is about Commons categories, which Thundersnow mentioned as a perfectly understandable source of confusion and vexation ... if this generates any discussion, perhaps it should be moved under a different section heading?)
As for the NRHP-related categories over on Commons, I agree that they can be pretty difficult to decipher. One of my WP pastimes is to categorize NRHP photos over there, so I'm reasonably familiar with the lay of the land. But there are plenty of organizational challenges. In general, I try to include any NRHP geography-specific and building-type-specific categories that apply. (You can find all the building-type-specific categories here.) In some cases, there are categories that cross both of these dimensions (e.g. 'Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in San Francisco, California' or 'Buildings of religious function on the National Register of Historic Places in California'). Other categories I routinely add to images include specific geographic location (assuming that's not captured by one of the NRHP categories I've added), the year the structure was built and sometimes also the architectural style if I have a source that give me that information (e.g. an NRHP nom form). If the subject of the photo is a house, building of religious function or a bridge, I generally add 3 year-built-related categories (e.g., 'Built in California in 1913', '1910s houses in California' and 'Houses built in the United States in 1913'). When a structure was originally constructed over several years, I use the year completed for the category.
One mistake people frequently make with the categories is that they put photos in both parent and child categories. This results in over-categorization. I know I did this when I first started working with categories over there until someone straightened me out on the concept. For example, you shouldn't categorize a photo in 'San Jose, California', in 'Santa Clara County, California' and in 'California'. It should only be categorized in the most specific category (in this case, 'San Jose, California'). Similarly, a photo should not be placed in both 'National Register of Historic Places in Santa Clara County, California' and in 'Santa Clara County, California', since the former is a child category of the latter. But it is appropriate for a photo to be placed in both 'National Register of Historic Places in Santa Clara County, California' and 'Morgan Hill, California' since neither is the parent category of the other.
Another area of confusion is historic districts and contributing properties thereof. At this point, there are 'Historic districts in [state]' categories for every state and 'Historic district contributing properties in [state]' for almost every state. But the NRHP categories aren't currently included in that structure, although there is a 'Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places' category that's a child of 'Historic districts in the United States'. It seems to me that each 'Historic districts in [state]' category should have a 'National Register of Historic Places historic districts in [state]' child category. But that's not the case now. My habit has been to place photos of NRHP historic district contributing properties in the appropriate 'Historic district contributing properties in [geographic area]' category, but not in 'National Register of Historic Places in [geographic area]'. If there are multiple photos of contributing properties from the same historic district, I create a category with that historic district's name. I make that category a child of 'Historic districts in [state]', 'National Register of Historic Places in [geographic area]' and other categories, as appropriate. (See Category:Alviso Historic District and it's contents for an example of this.) Unfortunately (imho), there are many, many photos of contributing properties that are categorized in 'National Register of Historic Places in [geographic area]' but that are not individually listed on the NRHP. This seems like misinformation to me. --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Two listings, one entry

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I recently split the article Virginia and Truckee RR. Engines No. 18, The Dayton; and No. 22, The Inyo into two article Virginia and Truckee 18 Dayton and Virginia and Truckee 22 Inyo. It didn't seem logical to keep them together (notable on their own and one was moved to Virginia City). How would one go about linking to both articles with "NRHP row" in National Register of Historic Places listings in Carson City, Nevada? Also, should another entry be added to National Register of Historic Places listings in Nevada#Storey County to reflect the presence of one of them? Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)\

Same thing with Hiram M. Chittenden Locks and Lake Washington Ship Canal in National Register of Historic Places listings in Seattle, Washington. Nominated and listed as one entity but two separate articles. Einbierbitte (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Spokane parking garage on pending list

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

On yesterday's list of pending nominations announced by the NPS is a City Ramp Garage in what appears to be downtown Spokane. I wondered if this was a parking garage, and indeed it is.

So, if it makes it, would it be the first parking garage listed? It looks like its Art Deco architecture is the reason for the listing, rather than any place in the history of auto transport in this country (which I'd argue is significant, after reading Joel Garreau's Edge City ... if anything, parking lots and garages tell us more about how the automobile changed life and reordered public space than any roads). Since we're seeing some types of properties like pet cemeteries getting listed, and we already have McDonald's signs listed, it would be interesting to know. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A search using Elkman's property name search tool returns 4 listings with 'parking' in the name:
  • Gimbels Parking Pavilion (Milwaukee, WI)
  • Massachusetts Avenue Parking Shops (Washington, DC)
  • Orr Roadside Parking Area (Orr, MN)
  • Pickwick Hotel, Office Building, Parking Garage and Bus Terminal (Kansas City, MO)
--sanfranman59 (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The Building at 816 South Grand Avenue in Los Angeles was listed in 2004. It is notable as being one of the first parking structures built in the US Einbierbitte (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The Ben Lomond Hotel Garage, built in 1929 in Ogden, Utah, was just listed this August. Ntsimp (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping these sites won't get torn down and replaced by parking lots! There are at least a couple "Automobile Rows" from the 30s and 40s which are HDs of auto showrooms and repair-garages, e.g. in Chicago and Aurora, Illinois. Not exactly the same things of course. Similarly I love some of the little gas stations, e.g. in Davenport, IA and West Nowhere, Nebraska. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Need a dedicated article/navbox/category for works of Frederick Law Olmsted?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm asking the above at "Talk:Frederick Law Olmsted#Dedicated article/navbox/category for Olmsted's works?". Anyone with opinions on this, please go there - thanks.--A bit iffy (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

MPS info in tables or not?

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Recently, when I've worked on the state/county/city lists, I've added information about Multiple Property Submissions to the Summary column. There's quite a bit of work involved in this, but I thought it was worth it since (a) this information is included in the weekly new listing announcements published by the NPS and (b) the MPS documents might provide additional historical context for listings that might not be included in each site's nomination form. However, shortly after I added this information to the northern Cincinnati list, Nyttend reverted my edits with the edit summary "Those comments make the column too wide; restoring standard hidden comments". I had some back and forth with Nyttend this past week via our talk pages, but we were unable to reach a compromise. So I'm bringing it to the community here to get some other views. I don't want to continue doing all this work if it's subject to being reverted or if the community thinks this information doesn't belong in the tables.

For posterity's sake and to save you the trouble of clicking over to our talk pages, here's most of our talk page conversation:

Sanfranman59 I recently put in a good deal of work adding information about Multiple Property Submissions in the Summary column of the northern Cincinnati list. The only explanation you gave for reverting my work was the edit summary "Those comments make the column too wide; restoring standard hidden comments". I don't get it. First off, I think table column widths are mostly dictated by the width and resolution of one's monitor. The column widths looked fine to me. Second, are there guidelines somewhere of which I'm not aware that limit the width of a column in a table?
It seems to me that including the MPS information in the tables is valuable because it can help in article development. I've made adding this information one of the things I routinely do when I add new listings. If you feel strongly that this information doesn't belong in the tables, perhaps we can kick it around a little at WT:NRHP and get some other views?
As for the hidden comments, they really serve no purpose other than adding unnecessary bytes to each page. It's pretty clear from the row header ("|Description=") that one is supposed to enter a description there. It seems odd to me that you apparently find those hidden comments more useful than the MPS information.
Nyttend For one thing, the point of the column is that we summarise the site, either with a citation to somewhere, or with the most important cited information from the article; the MPS bits that you added aren't cited here and aren't part of the most important information from the article. Perhaps more importantly, the MPS bits mean nothing to pretty much every reader; even when we do cite this information, it's at best trivial and at worst confusing to the reader who doesn't understand why we mention it.
Sanfranman59 I disagree that the MPS information is trivial. I don't think the information is any more trivial than noting when the building was constructed, the architect or the architectural style. It's among the information that the NPS includes in the weekly new listing announcements, so they clearly don't consider it to be trivial. MPS documents provide historical context for the sites that are part of the multiple submission. This information should be of interest to editors who wish to create articles about a given listing. When adding this information to a list, I provide a link to the WP article that describes what a Multiple Property Submission, Multiple Resource Area and Thematic Resource is. I don't understand why you think a reader would find this confusing. Can you elaborate?
As for citing sources, as you know, the source for most of the information we present in the tables is the NPS NRIS database. I believe that every list includes at least one reference to the NRIS database. MPS information is included in the NRIS database. In any case, I see that doncram has restored the information I added and has added a source for each MPS note. Does this allay your concerns?
Nyttend Since NRIS provides nothing that automatically goes into the comment field, information in that column needs to be cited except when it's clarifying something (e.g. boundary increases) that simply wouldn't fit in other fields. This is important partially because comments in that field are often sorts of things that can't be derived from NRIS, such as the comments in National Register of Historic Places listings in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Regarding the inclusion of MPS information in the first place — aside from data from NPS and SHPOs, when have you ever seen anything about the concept of an MPS? The fact of a property being included in one is not important to the property; NPS includes it in NRIS because it's important for their internal purposes, but it's just about completely irrelevant to the history of the property itself. It belongs as a minor note in the article itself, but only because it's relevant to the process of historic designation, which (being relevant but not a huge part of a property's history) should get only a small portion of the article. Moreover, your comment about creating articles is a good reason not to include it: unlike project pages, these lists are places for readers, so resources specifically for editors don't belong. If you really want to include this kind of thing for editors, why don't you just hide it with <!-- and -->? That way, editors can find it without it getting in the way of readers who aren't interested in editing.

Thoughts? --sanfranman59 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the MPS information is only sometimes of use to readers, and of more use to editors. There are plenty of jurisdictions that have an MPS for the entire territory, done (seems to me) as a convenience to the historians compiling the list; these are useful for editors, but beyond the focus on the specific geography, end up being not much more than a laundry list. Themed MPSes (especially if articles exist on them) are, to me, clearly of use to the reader, since they establish a coherent context for a collection of sites. (Now, when am I going to write First Period Houses of Eastern Massachusetts?) Magic♪piano 21:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I am not sure in general; discretion should go to an editor actually developing descriptions. Where there is nothing going on in the description column of a county list-article, as the case in northern Cincinnati, it gives something at least, so i think what you added was fine. But editorially it should eventually yield to other description. About the Northern Cincinnatti list and the Hannaford & Sons TR, I note there exists a category, Category:Samuel Hannaford and Sons Thematic Resources with 57 articles, by the way. --doncram 22:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
How about using a less prominent indication, e.g. a footnote, e.g. in Landmark title column, show: Dinnie Apartments† corresponding to Key stated above the table:
† Covered in the Downtown Grand Forks MRA
as was shown for the Dinnie Apartments item but not yet all others, within this version of the Grand Forks County, ND, list-article a year ago?
I was meaning to indicate all 27(!) items within the 69 item Grand Forks county list that way. However I see that editor Multichill removed the usage in that list-article, before running his conversion to use of nrhprow and nrhpheader, in this diff. Maybe some change in the nrhprow template would be needed to accomodate restoration of that again? --doncram 22:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Multichill also removed fully developed treatment of two MPS's, and completely removed the Key that was set up below the list-table, as appeared in this version of Syracuse NRHP list. I thot that was a good level of common indication of the Ward Wellington Ward architect MPS items. --doncram 22:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Update: Multichill kindly advised me of "name-extra=" feature within the NRHP row template, which allowed me just now to restore footnote links about the architect Ward MPS and about a park landscaping MPS into the List of RHPs in Syracuse list. The footnote links are clickable to bring the reader to a Key identifying what they mean. This is meant as a less-is-more approach to identifying MPS items within a county list.
Sanfranman59 and Nyttend, could you comment on this option? Other comments welcome. --doncram 21:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
One editor's opinion: I prefer some kind of footnote for notes re. MPS's, boundary expansions, etc., to putting that information in the description cell of the table. I'm inclined to agree with Nyttend's point that such information is of more interest to editors than to the general readership.
Per Doncram's suggestion, I checked out the Syracuse page; but on my browser (Chrome), at least, the key symbols weren't clickable. Could I suggest that we use lettered footnotes instead? Unlike symbols, there's a natural order to the alphabet, which will make it easier for people to follow notes should there be more than half a dozen or so. Ammodramus (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Links within List of RHPs in Syracuse made clickable for more browsers now. Does it work now in Chrome? It had worked in MSIE, but not in Firefox, with links to "#key" but where the anchor was actually named "Key". Changing anchor to be named "key" makes it work in Firefox now too. --doncram 03:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Since others object to including the MPS info in the Summary column, I will cease and desist on that front. As for using the "name-extra" feature to footnote the MPS info, that works for me (Nyttend, what do you think of this?). I developed a semi-automated method of adding MPS info to the Summary column that made it relatively easy (and less error-prone) to add that information. I'm not sure whether or not I'll be able to come up with a similar method for adding the information to the "name-extra" field. If not, I'll probably just refrain from adding it. Thanks for the feedback everyone. --sanfranman59 (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Re. Doncram's latest changes to RHPs in Syracuse: The symbols are now clickable in Chrome. However, I still think lettered footnotes would be preferable to asterisks, daggers, double-daggers, etc. For one thing, I assume that after clicking down to a lettered footnote, one could then click to go back to one's place in the text. For another, there's the natural-order thing that I mentioned in my earlier comment. For a county with many sites, there are likely to be many MPSs, boundary expansions, and the like; it'd be better to start with the 26 letters of the alphabet than with a collection of unordered symbols. Ammodramus (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Sanfranman asked me to comment here several days ago, and I forgot; sorry. I like the idea of the footnotes as they're done on the Syracuse list; they don't get in the way for most readers, who couldn't care less, and they help the occasional reader who really does care. I'd just suggest one change: cut them out of the name column and put them in the numbered column. This is what we've done to mark HDs on the featured NHL lists for Alabama, Indiana, and Michigan. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Nyttend's further point doesn't work. It only makes sense to indicate the MPS on the specific title of the article. Indicating an MPS in the color/number column doesn't work; the keys he refers to in the NHL lists are indications explaining the color, not specific to the item. See the Syracuse list which has examples of both types (explanation of color, and indication of MPS). --doncram 17:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with Ammodramus about using letters rather than symbols for the clickable symbols. As for boundary increases, I've been in the habit of adding that information to the Location column and offset by a bullet. It seems to me that's where it belongs. For an example, see the Palos Verdes Public Library and Art Gallery and the Puvunga Indian Village Sites entries in National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles County, California. --sanfranman59 (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Boundary increases now being discussed in a different section, below.
On MPS mentions in tables, editor Nyttend has been proceeding occasionally to entirely delete MPS mentions that are in place, despite being aware of this discussion and his note above, supporting a lesser option. When I notice, I revert him, as just now in this diff for Allen County, Indiana. I experience Nyttend's edits as expressing contempt for the consensus in place, that some mention of MPS is highly relevant and appropriate in list-tables. It seems arrogant and offensive for the work of many editors, and especially the hard work of Sanfranman59, to be summarily deleted. Nyttend's M.O. is to implement his deletion edits in conjunction with adding other useful information or before proceeding with other additions, increasing the costs to others who may feel conflicted about losing his other work. My reversion just now loses those additions. This can attract other editors who think think Nyttend's additions must be saved, and who may enter into contention. After many years of this kind of action, I tend to think it is best to simply delete Nyttend's additions, and to allow Nyttend to readd or allow the additions to simply be lost, and not to allow the tactic by one editor to succeed in overriding consensus. This is unpleasant, but I don't know how the NRHP editing community should deal with this otherwise. Comments? --doncram 17:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

John Patton Log Cabin

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Whereas I don't have a clue where this building might stand I am really sure it isn't located on the place for which coordinates are are given in the article. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Boundary adjustments

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Does anyone here have an objection to the way I've chosen to add boundary adjustment information to our NRHP lists? This past week I had a rather frustrating back-and-forth with User:Nyttend about this. He does object to what I'm doing. See his comments on my talk page for his reasoning and my comments on his talk page for mine. The first row in the table below is what I've been doing; the second row is his preference. I won't continue what I'm doing if others in the community find it objectionable.

As far as I know, we don't have a documented standard for adding this information. Perhaps we should?

[1] Name on the Register Image Date listed[2] Location City or town Description
7 Central Bethlehem Historic District
 
Central Bethlehem Historic District
 May 5, 1972
(#72001131) 		Bounded by Main, Nevada, and East Broad Streets, and the Lehigh River
• Boundary increase (listed November 7, 1988, refnum 88000452): Roughly bounded by Walnut St., Linden St., Lehigh River, and New St.
40°37′06″N 75°22′56″W / 40.618333°N 75.382222°W / 40.618333; -75.382222 (Central Bethlehem Historic District) 		Bethlehem Extends into Lehigh County
60 Euclid Avenue Historic District
 
Euclid Avenue Historic District
 June 28, 2002
(#02000702) 		Roughly bounded by Public Square, Euclid Ave. to E. 17th St., and E. 21st St.; also 205 St. Clair Ave., 1370 Ontario St., and 1796-1808 E. 13th St.
41°30′02″N 81°41′12″W / 41.500556°N 81.686667°W / 41.500556; -81.686667 (Euclid Avenue Historic District) 		Cleveland Second set of addresses represents a boundary increase of May 29, 2007

--sanfranman59 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Creating a proper standard for this common situation is way past due, is very much needed. There are cases of multiple boundary increases and cases having both increases and decreases, too. Thanks for raising this and giving these examples to comment upon. I don't think either example is perfect; it seems to me:
  1. that the two dates of listing (original and increase) should both appear in the date column,
  2. that both reference numbers should be included, but both be hidden in the English wikipedia version. The NRHP row template would need to be modified to accomodate a 2nd, 3rd, 4th reference number. German and other wikipedias could choose to show both; the English version in the future could possibly choose to show both. Our lists should be clear, at least in their innards, that this is the row that covers whatever reference number.
  3. that both original and boundary increase/decrease location info should appear in the location column, with clarity about which is which
--doncram 22:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
My tuppence: the average reader of a list of entries probably doesn't care about boundary changes, so only show the current bounds (i.e. the second option, but omitting the comment). If multiple refnums are involved, include them all (they're hidden anyway), and maybe add an html comment explaining what they represent. An article can go into whatever detail the editor deems suitable to describe current and historical boundaries. Magic♪piano 00:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think entering multiple numbers in the refnum= parameter mess with some of the functionality that User:Multichill sold us on when we went to the {{NRHP row}} system a year or so ago. --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll invite Multichill to comment; the NRHP row template could be revised to accomodate an "otherrefnums=" field perhaps if the refnum field must be kept cleanly as one number. --doncram 16:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Magicpiano on this: I suspect that most readers coming to such a list are interested in the current addresses/boundaries. I'd suggest putting boundary changes and the like into the footnotes, where the information would be available to an editor working on an article, but where it wouldn't add noise to the address- and description cells in the table.
I consult these articles when I'm looking for places to photograph, and it's easier for me if there's nothing in the address cell but the address; otherwise, especially in urban areas, it's harder to scan a page to see which sites might be close together. Ammodramus (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Boundary adjustments represent current addresses/boundaries. In my opinion, it's misleading not to include boundary adjustments in the location column. If you're going to take photos to represent an historic district, it really ought to be of contributing properties. In most cases, this can't be determined simply by looking at the brief boundary descriptions in the new listings announcements. You need to go to the nomination forms or other sources. If you want to see which listings are close together, do what I do and generate a map from the coordinates in the table. I save the map in Google Maps, bring it up on my smart phone and use the navigation feature to direct me to each site. --sanfranman59 (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Certainly, the addresses/boundaries given in the location column should reflect boundary increases. However, there's no reason why it needs to give the history of the boundaries: what they were initially, how and when they were increased. That's not information that tells the reader where the place is; and for someone scanning the column quickly checking addresses, it makes it harder to spot the address amidst the other information.
Is there a reason not to put the boundary-history information in a footnote? In particular, would it significantly complicate the task of entering new sites and revising old ones? Sanfranman does a tremendous amount of work keeping the lists up to date, and I don't want to make extra work for him.
The smart-phone idea sounds clever, but I tend to operate closer to the clay-tablets end of the technology spectrum. Also, one of the things I'm looking for when I'm scanning the address list is the parity of the street number: that generally tells me whether a place is on the sunlit side of the street. I'm not just looking for "places close to 8th and Euclid"; my search criteria are more like "close to 8th and Euclid, odd addresses on numbered avenues, even addresses on named streets". Ammodramus (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
NRHP list-article delisted section using multiple types of dates usefully:
[1] Name on the Register Image Date listed/removed Location City or town Description
1 Hotel Roberts
 
Hotel Roberts
 July 26, 1979 listed, April 28, 2005 removed
(#79002516) 		192 S. University Ave.
Provo Historic Mission-style hotel built in 1882 that served as a landmark and center of Provo social activity for much of the early 20th century. Demolished in 2004.
6 Spanish Fork Fire Station Upload image October 22, 1996 (delisted)
April 1, 1985 (listed)[3]
(#85000818) 		365 N. Main St.
Spanish Fork
Non-NRHP list-article section using built and NRHP-listed and NRHP-C-listed types of dates usefully:
Building Image Dates Location City, State Description
4 Masonic Temple (Berkeley, California)   1905 built
1982 NRHP-listed 		2105 Bancroft Way and 2295 Shattuck Ave.
37°52′5″N 122°15′58″W / 37.86806°N 122.26611°W / 37.86806; -122.26611 (Masonic Temple (Berkeley, California)) 		Berkeley, California Classical Revival style, built in 1905.[4] The ground floor of the building is currently occupied by a FedEx Kinko's store while the remaining floors are used by University of California, Berkeley.
5 Masonic Temple (Ferndale, California)   1891 built
NRHP-C-listed 1994 		212 Francis
40°34′30.77″N 124°15′55.53″W / 40.5752139°N 124.2654250°W / 40.5752139; -124.2654250 (Masonic Temple (Ferndale, California)) 		Ferndale, California Eastlake-Stick architecture built in 1891. It is used as a Masonic Hall.[5] Contributing building in NRHP-listed Ferndale Main Street Historic District
I am moved by suggestions that the location information does not need to describe too carefully which portion was original vs. increased, at the list-article table entry. The more detailed information can be developed more fully in the NRHP infobox of the linked individual article, I agree.
The multiple dates easily fit and are important to include in the date column, however, IMHO. Consider example of our secondary tables of formerly listed places, which I think routinely include both listed and delisted dates where available, as in 2 List of RHPs in Utah County items inserted above. Consider also extract from List of Masonic buildings in the United States which, like many other similar list-articles, mentions built date and NRHP listing date, if any. There's too much wasted space in the date column and unnecessary burden on description column, if the date columnn is not used fully. --doncram 16:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
And, another prescription related to this, which I see, is that we really need to start the articles for all NRHP-listed historic districts. For the many with boundary changes, the changes can/should be described properly in the individual articles, and that would take some pressure off reflecting this info at the NRHP-list articles. For all historic districts, there is need for many pictures, not just the one that serves at the list-article. Set up the articles now to receive whole tables of the contributing properties with pics, or open galleries of pics, then the pics will come. IMO it was a problem in the WLM photo drive that there weren't HD articles set up ready to receive multiple pictures in many cases, and we weren't ready to further set up linked HD-specific commons categories where needed to hold even more pictures, when lots of pics were made available. Receiving photos is more a problem for HDs than for non-HDs. Let's just start all the HD articles now (and especially those with boundary increases to handle)! :) --doncram 18:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
So I'm clearly pretty far off base with what I've been doing for months now. It looks like I've got a lot of self-reverting and cleaning up to do. However, I'm not clear at this point what's being proposed. Can someone propose something concrete and provide an example? Also, it would be nice to get some other opinions. Is anyone else out there willing to chime in?
In the meantime, I'll refrain from adding any new boundary adjustment information to the tables. --sanfranman59 (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I guess we've reached a dead-end in this discussion. Since there doesn't seem to be much interest in this topic and I'm not clear about how to implement what is being proposed by others, I'll just stop entering boundary adjustment information in the tables. On the one hand, it seems to me that if we're going to have complete information in our tables, the boundary adjustment information should be there. On the other, I don't want to continue entering information as I have been since it's apparently not acceptable to the community (at least to the few who have chimed in here and elsewhere). Should we just go with what Nyttend's been doing? I don't care for that approach, but will certainly comply if that's the consensus. If not, can someone flesh out another approach (preferably including an example)? --sanfranman59 (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Having multiple id's in the "refnum" field messes up the system so it would be nice to have a second field for additional refnums. I don't think this is really a problem with any of the other fields. I think I can produce a list of listings that have multiple refnums for cleanup. Multichill (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Winners of the international Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 
Chicago Theater by Raymonst, 10th Place
 
St. Alexander Nevsky Chapel by Etaohc, 29th Place

Please see the nicely produced jury report. The winners among the US photos represented were the Chicago Theater by Raymonst and the St. Alexander Nevsky Chapel by Etaohc.

Congratulations to all the winners. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've put a discussion page about next year's WLM-US Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/WLM-US 2013 discussion, and would appreciate it if people took a look and answered a few questions. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

NRHP categories for Virginia's independent cities?

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I just ran across the redlink category Category:National Register of Historic Places in Richmond, Virginia. I didn't determine why the category hasn't been created. Virginia cities like Richmond are independent cities; they aren't included in counties. I can't find anywhere in the Virginia NRHP category structure for this category. Can anyone advise on the history of categorization for Virginia independent cities? --Orlady (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I started working on it as well, may be we manage to clean the category up.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I completed Richmond, now doing other cities and counties.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Most photographed sites

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

Hi everyone, I've been playing around with indexing all images. That seems to work, I now have about 800.000 indexed images including almost 70.000 from the NRHP. I'm also testing with making this data api accessible and I figured you guys would like a list like this. Anything you didn't expect? Multichill (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I gotta say that I was just gobsmacked by much of this, and I probably know more about this phenomenon that most folks at WP:NRHP. Most of this I tend to view neither negatively or positively, but it has very little to do with the project. Some of this is great, some a minor bother.
To start almost half of these entries are from User:Jmabel, who for whatever reason wants to take photos of almost everything inside a steam plant museum. It doesn't rock my boat, but if he thinks folks are interested, why not? I'll say that I've taken several dozens of photos inside the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania (which is more related to this project) and I think that "doing a museum" has its place at least occasionally.
Something that shouldn't be surprising is the group of Alcatraz, Washington Monument, Statue of Liberty, and Williamsburg. For the most part, after a couple dozen photos of these tourist destinations, I don't think another photo will add much to the collection, but there is no way that we'd be successful telling folks not to upload any more, so why bother.
There are likely quite a few sites that aren't on this list because adding the NRHP template with ref number hasn't been viewed as a requirement. For my part, I know that Cape May Historic District (150 photos) and probably Colonial Germantown Historic District could be added to this list.
Some of what I say below is negative - but I want to except Forts Baker, Barry, and Cronkhite from anything like that. Sometimes what might seem crazy to me just works.
Some of the photos in this group were a result of WLM-US. I was quite surprised at the beginning of the contest that a few people essentially took one photo, then moved 5 feet, took another photo, etc. for up to 100 photos. I didn't like this at all - I think folks should be selective in what they upload and not expect other editors to do the selection for them. Other sites represented above are the result of group events, where for example they might get 20 photographers and they all go together to 20 sites and each gets 10 or 20 photos of each site. I understand how an event like this can encourage newbies to start taking photos, but the event itself doesn't do much for the project. We should clarify what events are supposed to do before the next WLM.
So there is a very mixed bag represented above. Nothing I can say (or even WP:NRHP as a whole) would make any of this against the rules of Commons or Wikipedia, but some of it I would discourage and other parts (e.g. historic districts) I'd encourage. I'll end just noting that there used to be something of a feeling here that maybe you should only upload the best one or two photos you have of each site. That seems kind of silly now, doesn't it? Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Rereading this, it seems much too negative, but I'll point out the not having the NRHP template on every photo distorts the results, e.g. the Category for Washington Monument has over 320 photos. My point is, or should have been, that number of photos for a site is most likely irrelevant for the goals of the project, and certainly doesn't align with my goals, except for large and important historic districts - for these we need a lot of pix. For some other sites, I'll recommend quality over quantity. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The data source is certainly suspect. Boston Navy Yard has over 200 photos, and Boston Public Garden has over 400 (and that's just in the top-level category, not its subcategories). I'd suggest that any assertion of "most photographed in Commons" be treated gingerly until the data source (properly tagged images and properly organized/tagged categories) is more reliable. This could be roughly cross-checked by counting imaged entries in the listing articles and/or entry articles.
I'm also not sure what the value of that measure is. I'd rather see a summary count, perhaps by state, of listings that have (a) no image, or (b) no recent image (within say 5-10 years). This might spur some to haul out their cameras or trawl through suitable photo archives. Magic♪piano 18:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 
Water table on Charles Mix County Courthouse
I agree with Smallbones regarding the plethora of photos at some sites—how many Washington Monument photos do we need?—but there are non-HD situations where lots of photos should be taken, and often the non-scenic ones are some of the most important.
For one thing, the photographer may not know what details of a site are significant. I know next to nothing about architecture, so if a building's of architectural significance, I might have to take scores of photos in order to capture a particular detail that's of interest. For example, of the 94 shots that I took of the Charles Mix County Courthouse, the one that really excited an editor who's interested in architect William L. Steele was the one that happened to catch the water table (architecture). A photo like that is never going to win a WLM contest, but it illustrates a significant architectural aspect of the building that probably wouldn't show up on a more scenic view.
The same holds with bridges: I don't know from bridge engineering at all, so I might have to shoot dozens of photos to get one that happens to show the weird rivets that make the bridge noteworthy. A wide shot of the bridge with sunny skies and blue water and colorful fall foliage is the sort of thing we want for an infobox, but it doesn't help the editor who wants to write a section on the hand-forged handrail or the left-handed turnbuckles or the American chestnut deck planking.
I'd say: better too many photos than too few. We're hoping that every single article will one day reach GA status, and we should try to make sure that the editors who try to bring them up to that level have all the photos they need to illustrate the salient features of the sites. Ammodramus (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have to agree that too many is better than too few. And I won't discourage anybody who knows what he is doing and why, as Ammodramus clearly does, from uploading all the pix they want. Ammo, whether he knows it or not, was quite important in getting me out of my "1 photo per site" mode and I've enjoyed taking pix much more since then. Sometimes, though, I do wonder "why did someone want to take another photo of that?" and, unlike most Multichill tools, I wonder what the above tool really does for us. Sorry if I was too negative above. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
While I can find fault with some photographers' documentation methodology, I'm not inclined to discourage image contributions on the basis of "too many." I could go on for paragraph after paragraph about Commons' disinterest in curation and evaluation, and its seemingly endless tolerance for any damned thing that can be uploaded so long as it's been rightly or wrongly tagged CC-by-SA at some point in its life. However, as Commons participants will quickly explain, it's hard to predict what will be wanted in the future, and at some point even the most seemingly mundane image may be valuable to a researcher. I think some form of rating or triage system may have to be introduced, but it's unlikely to happen soon. Acroterion (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to help with the triage process a little, by deleting some of my own photos when I've taken a better one. If I've taken a photo of a building in bad light, or with the facade largely obscured by foliage, or with a yellow truck conspicuously parked in front and intruding on the picture, I'll often try to go back and get a better photo; and when I do, I'd like to delete the poor original. I'm not sure, however, if that's a legitimate reason to speedy-delete a photo; and going through the regular deletion process seems like a slow and cumbersome process, needlessly calling for the time of other editors. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a process analogous to WP:PROD for Commons; if there is, I haven't been able to find it through the help pages. Ammodramus (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
No, there's no analogous system at Commons. You may nominate to delete something if it is beyond the scope of the project. See Commons:Scope. Basically, if there's no copyright issue, images are kept if they theoretically could be of some "educational" value. In practice, this is a very low threshold. Any specific ones you have in mind that ought to be deleted? For example, there are thousands of superflorous images of caucasian human dongs that don't get deleted because somewhere, somehow, someone might find them useful.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
You can simply upload a new photograph (without the ugly truck, or whatever) as a new version of an old one. (I just did this with this image, where the original was the completely wrong subject.) Magic♪piano 03:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
As Magicpiano said, uploading the new version is the best option. If for whatever reason you do not like this, you can always upload a new file and mark the old one for speedy deletion indicating that you are the author and there is a better version available.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Just make sure that it's your image that you're overwriting, that you note that you're overwriting it in the comment, and that you make any necessary changes to the description.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Guys, before you start overwriting images and nominating images for deletion: This is not accepted behavior at all at Commons.
Commons is not an encyclopedia. We don't delete our "bad" photos or replace them with "better" ones. We have plenty of disk space so we'll just keep all files and leave it up to the (re-)user to decide what images you want to use.
And for the first part. This was just a random list, you take things to damn seriously. Lighten up. Multichill (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A How-to question

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

How do you determine the geocoordinates that almost every article has? Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are three ways that come to my mind:
  • The nomination forms give coordinates (not always correct, however).
  • Using some sort of GPS receiver, get the coordinates at the site on a visit.
  • Use ACME Mapper or another online mapping service to get coordinates.

Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Google Maps (the web version) has a handy "What's here" item on a popup menu that will give coordinates for whatever is under the mouse pointer. Be certain, however, that you have the correct location -- street numbers are not always correctly mapped in Google Maps. Magic♪piano 16:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

How should changes after listing be indicated on county NRHP lists?

Latest comment: 11 years ago16 comments11 people in discussion

I think we need to indicate in county and other lists those NRHP sites whose status has changed since they were listed. This would indicate that a site has been destroyed (or dismantled) and no longer exists, or that it exists but has been rebuilt (and is no longer the original historic structure), or that it has been moved from its original location.

As an example, for the Wiki Loves Monuments contest I decided to photograph all the covered bridges in Columbia County, Pennsylvania, which would have led to the National Register of Historic Places listings in Columbia County, Pennsylvania list being completely illustrated. There are 31 listings in the county, 26 of which are covered bridges (there is also one former listing, Welle Hess Covered Bridge No. S1, which collapsed in 1981). These covered bridges are also on the List of covered bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania.

Three of the covered bridges on the county list are no longer standing (though one is in storage and could possibly be rebuilt):

Riegel Covered Bridge No. 6 (arson on May 30, 1979), and
Rohrbach Covered Bridge No. 24 (dismantled in October 1986 and in storage at Knoebels).
Y Covered Bridge No. 156 (suspicious fire on August 15, 1983).

Two bridges have been moved from their original locations:

Wagner Covered Bridge No. 19 (dismantled in March 1981, stored at Knoebels until it was rebuilt at a housing development in 1994)
Fowlersville Covered Bridge (moved 1986 to Briar Creek Park in the same township)

Two bridges have been partially or completely reconstructed:

Twin Bridges-West Paden Covered Bridge No. 121 was destroyed in a flood on June 28, 2006. An identical new bridge was built in summer of 2008.
Kramer Covered Bridge No. 113 - this was "totally rebuilt in 2007" and the World Guide to Covered Bridges now lists it as WGCB 38-19-23#2 (a designation given if over 50% of the truss beams have been replaced - not clear if this is completely new, or just rebuilt)

In addition, someone has added to the Bridge in Fishing Creek Township article that it "was demolished" (this concrete bridge already had a PennDOT picture), so I did not try to find it.

So 6 of the 31 NRHP sites in Columbia County are no longer eligible for NRHP status (19%), and 2 others have been moved from the location given. So over a quarter of the listings in the Columbia Co. NRHP list aricle are problematic (no longer in existence, replaced or moved). There are at least 7 bridges on the state covered bridges list that no longer exist - see here. I think we need to indicate that in some way on the list article (colors / symbols). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A similar issue to this is when, due to annexation or de-annexation, an extant property is no longer in the political subdivision that it was in when it was nominated. An example can be found at National Register of Historic Places listings in Lake County, Indiana, Entry # 60, John Wood Mill. When it was designated, it was in a rural township with a mailing address of Merrillville, In. Due to annexation, it is now in Hobart, Indiana. I boldly changed the city on the list, but am wondering if I should go back and reference it with the official state highway map? Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought the last column in the list is exactly for the issues both of you mention?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Why not putting them down in a new table, similar to some of the NHL lists (there something like "Former NHLsL) when appropriate? --Matthiasb (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I run into demolished sites with fair regularity, and I've been noting the fact in the "Summary" section in the last column. That seems like a pretty fair solution; after all, the fact that the building no longer exists is a pretty pertinent fact and should likely be included in even the briefest of summaries. The only tricksy thing is confirming demolition. For example, in the National Register of Historic Places listings in Wayne County, Michigan, I was able to confirm demolition of the Paul Harvey Deming House and the Mellus Newspapers Building with reliable sources, but was unable to confirm demolition of the David and Elizabeth Bell Boldman House and the Phillip and Maria Hasselbach Dingledey House (although I'm 99.9% certain they're actually demolished, they could have been moved), and so for the last two simply note that they're not at their listed location.
Reliable confirmation is the key, though, because I've more than once set out to photograph a site and found that it didn't exist at its listed location. However, further research showed that the NRHP listing was simply in error, and the building existed, safe and sound and unmoved, a few blocks away.
I would not support breaking these sites out into a new table until they're actually formally de-listed, because (a) it's not our place to differentiate between sites that should and should not be removed from the list, and (b) there's a small but fuzzy line of sites that have been moved or rebuilt or otherwise had their historic context altered. These facts should also be noted in the summary, but it's a complex judgment call to decide whether the context has been altered enough to warrant de-listing. (See, for example, the Forrest J. Stimpson House on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Cheboygan County, Michigan. After hours of research trying to figure out what the Hell happened to it, I emailed the Mackinaw Area Historical Society, who in reply told me that "this house was removed from site and left in the woods at Trails End Road and changed dramatically." Assuming that's true [and I have no reason to doubt it, although I assume an informal email wouldn't pass as a reliable source], the house probably ought to be de-listed, although (a) that's arguable, and (b) some properties have been completely gone for over 20 years and still haven't been removed from the Register, so I wouldn't hold my breath on de-listing a more recent and arguable case.) Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of the list articles is principally to present what is listed on the NRHP. These listings are, unfortunately, known to contain stale and inaccurate information (where "stale" includes "the structure doesn't seem to exist anymore"). The proper thing to do is to get those entries delisted; talk to your state's SHPO (preservation office, keeper of the state's NRHP list). I always correct address changes (noting the difference, and also provide locations for "address restricted" listings where the location is well-described or available in other sources) and note evidence of non-existence (using "probably demolished" if I can't gain confirmation). I will probably eventually take a list to the Mass. SHPO based on notes accumulated in various listing articles. Magic♪piano 13:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Good points about trying to get the SHPO and NPS to correct the NRHP listing. Regarding the encyclopedia, the fact that a structure is no longer at the listed address could be published in a table entry if it can be supported by any reliable source. Many times there are local news stories about the destruction of historic properties. It occurs to me that satellite and air photo images published by Google Earth, Bing, etc., ought to qualify as published reliable sources -- if they clearly demonstrate the absence of a structure at its supposed address. When a Wikipedian fails to find a structure at its supposed address but cannot find any reliable-source confirmation of its absence, it seems to me that a hidden note in the "Summary" section would (at a minimum) be appropriate to record the information for the benefit of others. --Orlady (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - I agree that we should contact the SHPO and NPS about destroyed / missing sites, though it is not clear to me what they would do about a moved listing or a rebuilt one where some of the original listing is still present. I also agree that we should not make separate lists of missing / moved / rebuilt sites, unless the NRHP somehow changes the listing's status. While I really like the information Andrew Jameson has added to the Michigan lists, I also found it difficult to see at a glance what has been changed since listing.

In the short term (while we wait for the NRHP to update its listings), I think it would make sense to do some sort of different background color for the row and add a symbol (after the name) to indicate that the lisitng has somehow been changed since it was originally included on the NRHP. I also would include the specific information in the comments - using both a color and a symbol meets WP:ACCESSIBILITY. From the examples cited here, it seems like we would need five colors / symbols (I suggest symbols and colors below, but they are just what I came up with):

  1. Destroyed (* and Red?) - for listings that we have reliable sources showing that they no longer exist
  2. Missing (# and Yellow?) - for listings that are no longer at the address or coordinates given, but where we cannot determine what happened (probably detroyed, may be moved)
  3. Moved (^ and Blue?) - for listings that are known to have been moved from their original NRHP address
  4. Address change (@ and Purple?) - for listings in their original location, but whose address has changed (annexation, road renamed or renumbered, etc.).
  5. Rebuilt / replaced ($ and Green?) - for listings that have been rebuilt or replaced since originally being listed

What do you all think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I know Ruhrfisch is aware, but I wonder if some of the commenters above are not aware of thewp:NRIS info issues system, which is this WikiProject's out-of-mainspace documentation of known errors and questions about the National Register's published data. I think it should be re-affirmed that central noting of discrepancies appears useful. One purpose is to facilitate editors actually working with the National and/or state staff to see to the correction of published data. Another is to explain to future editors why our list-articles and individual articles often show something different than what is publicly stated by the National Register to be fact. Having this system has facilitated dealing with many new editors coming in with local, on-the-spot knowledge that something is wrong with a given wikipedia article, and allowed us and them to use their knowledge to correct the wikipedia information in mainspace and document the reasoning in the info issues system.
About an address change, I think the process has been that we just update the address in a list-article, and in the individual article too. The address change, i.e. the fact that it is different than what NRIS shows, can be noted in the individual article, perhaps only in a footnote. And it should be noted in wp:NRIS info issues. No need for a color or any other highlighting in a list-article, about this.
About demolished ones, where it has been documented, I sorta like this suggestion, to use another color to highlight the fact that a building is completely gone, yet nonetheless NRHP-listed. It could come across as a bit pointy, though. The point would be that we know a building is completely gone, and it is obviously no longer NRHP-eligible, and the readers of Wikipedia now know it. But the National Register has it wrong. And so does "nrhp.com" and the other mirrors of NRIS. And arguably the National register staff hasn't done its job and/or the state staff hasn't done their job. A less pointy approach, less than using colors to highlight this into mainspace, is to note the demolition with source in the list-article description/notes column, and in the individual article, and to note it in wp:NRIS info issues, and to inform the state and National staff of the error in the NRIS data. --doncram 17:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
My comment above referred to places which have been delisted only. I agree with the points made by Ruhrfisch and Doncram concerning those registry errors. I don't think a color system is needed, a appropriate statement like "moved", "destroyed" in the remarks column will be adequate for pointing out the issue(s). --Matthiasb (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I think a good example is National Register of Historic Places listings in Cleveland, Ohio. The list there has at least 11 confirmed listings that are demolished yet still listed. As long as they are properly labeled in remarks and referenced, I think that is more than sufficient for displaying the necessary information that it's still listed but no longer exists. More color coding is just going to be distracting, time-consuming to manually check, and troublesome to keep updated. Ohio's historic preservation office notes 157 locations that have been demolished. They are labeled "delisted", but nearly half of those are, in fact, still listed. If a site does get delisted it goes in a separate section on the bottom of that county's list, as in the Cleveland page, which has 7 delistings at the bottom. Making a separate page for *ALL* the listings on one page (or even single-state pages) I would advise against since there's over 1500 delistings, half of which have been added to county listings by me recently. 25or6to4 (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks all, I have added comments to the Columbia County NRHP list for each listing where I had a reliable source for the change (and I already updated the individual articles). The List of covered bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania is formatted a bit differently and does not hhave a clear place for such comments - I think I may change the "type" column to something like "Comments" to include the information. I will add the destroyed and moved bridges to the PA WP:NRIS info issues page and contact the authorities. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Great, it would be great if you did follow up about those and possibly other wp:NRIS info issues PA items with them. I myself made some progress, but not a lot, with the National Register staff a couple years ago. And just a thought: if you combined the "Built" and "Listed" column into one "Dates" column, it would save space in the table. This is done now in most of the "Delisted" section tables I think, where listing and delisting dates are both given in one. In one cell you would have "1977 built<br/>1979 NRHP-listed" and it would be sortable by the first date the built date. It's probably not important to be able to sort by NRHP listing date, right? That's my 2 cents. --doncram 00:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
A few years back, I contacted the NPS about demolished properties. Their response to me was that the SHPO (or FPO or THPO) has to originate the de-listing of any property and then send it to the Keeper for action. Einbierbitte (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I think where i had success with the National staff back in 2009 was about items that could be shown to be typos of the national data entry people, i.e. where I had access to a NRHP nomination document that they worked from shows it one way, and they typed it differently. Also in some cases they looked up info in their files, where i just suspected an error, and they could establish it within their own office. When I started to submit bigger lists of corrections that also would have required them to get verification from state staff, I think that's when the process bogged down and i never heard back. I might have just been working at the wrong level. One or a few staffpersons can give away a little bit of time, but if it starts to take a lot of time, then it needs to be requested at a higher level. I am inclined to go to the Secretary of the Interior, or the Director of the National Park Service or the Keeper of the National Register, seriously. We have done a lot of great work to coordinate the gathering of a lot of good information. It is truly extraordinary, the crowd-sourcing of corrective information now reflected in wp:NRIS info issues.
I was interested in coming to the Washington, D.C. wikimania and to invite high-level people to come to an NRHP session, to bring this up and also to address the copyright status of new submissions to the National Register (i.e. the submitted photos oughta be required to be release to public domain or CC license). It is one of the costs to me and to this WikiProject, that I was dragged down and blocked for 6 months then. Whether or not you agree that there is undue bullying and evil going on, or whether somehow I am making the patterns up and bringing controversy onto myself by slogging away at thankless work and sometimes standing up to what seems to me to be bullying and evil, I am surely dragged down by the repeated ANIs and AFDs and blocks. And the WikiProject NRHP is dragged down, by all of this; persons opening the ANIs and AFDs and so on tend to scoff at any idea of community here and are quite happy to drag NRHP down, too. Anyhow, at all times I am operating in a mode of may-be-blocked-at-any-time, which complicates my constructive involvement in other events and projects too. Just recently i was wondering if I needed to cancel my appearance at a planned event. --doncram 01:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should at the very least note the demolition in the remarks section of the list (as Don, and other participants, well know, New York has quite a few of these and yet OPRHP has never bothered to delist them. I have been half-tempted to do so on my own). Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

American Bank Note Company Building

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Input from this WikiProject on whether or not American Bank Note Company Building should be merged into American Bank Note Company would be appreciated at Talk:American_Bank_Note_Company_Building#Merge_proposal. Thanks in advance. Fladrif (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

NRHP images without reference numbers

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Has anybody made any efforts to remove images from the Images without reference numbers list? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi DanTD. It looks like a list _with_ reference numbers. Each item is like this one: "File:Frantz_Round_Barn.jpg {{NRHP|86001432}}" which has a reference number included. Can you explain what is that list, what needs to be done, and why? --doncram 05:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I had absolutely nothing to do with the making of this list, let alone how it's set up. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Question re Fort Yellowstone article

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please advise on this question at: Talk:Fort Yellowstone#How much history to include? Thanks -- Mike Cline (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Two new proposed listings from NY

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

New York's SHPO is back, this year, to having quarterly meetings to discuss proposed NR listings, and as usual has posted those under consideration for Thursday's meeting. Two caught my eye as meriting some comment:

  • Far Rockaway Beach Bungalow Historic District, Queens County. Oh boy. This has to be the worst-timed NRHP nom ever. I feel sorry for the nominators. They did all this work researching and writing this ... only to have Superstorm Sandy come through less than a month after they finished and, I'd bet, more or less destroy the whole district.

    Based on where it is and the pictures, I doubt they survived. In fact, this piece suggests as much: "Pre-Sandy, the Beachside Bungalows Preservation Area was a pretty stretch of historic single-story wooden homes seconds back from the beach. During the storm, they were almost entirely submerged by the Atlantic; many families have lost almost everything." I'm sure whether this nomination goes forward or not will be discussed at the meeting.

  • Space Shuttle Enterprise, New York County. 'Bout time, and way to go SHPO, getting on top of this before the shuttle even got on top of the Intrepid, itself an NHL. I'm sure all the other space shuttles will get listed, but it's nice to see a nomination this good (it even mentions the Trekker letter-writing campaign that got the shuttle named). It never actually went into space and wasn't designed to, but it was an important design step, and I believe it will be the first manned space vehicle to get listed.

    The Register also has a bunch of space-program related things like Neutral Buoyancy Space Simulator. Perhaps we should have a category for "Space-related National Register of Historic Places listings" if we don't already? Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope they're reading this, because if they can't add the "Rockaway Beach Bungalow Historic District," they can always consider the Old Hewlett South Side Railroad of Long Island Depot. I'm having too much trouble with the forms you people gave me the link to, so thankfully I can use the address at the state's link. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

More storm-damaged NRHPs

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Well, Mobile was hit by another tornado today, the 25th, (second one in a week, Merry Christmas everyone!) and this time it looks to have gotten at least two of the city's more significant NRHP-listed buildings: Trinity Episcopal Church (Mobile, Alabama) (Historic Trinity Episcopal 'likely a total loss,' after tonight's tornado) and Murphy High School (Alabama) (Historic high school damaged by tornado). Trinity lost the entire front gable-end wall and part of the roof of the main sanctuary, as well as the entire (later correction: front gable-end wall of the) parish hall. Murphy mostly lost lots of terracotta roof tiles, although it is a huge campus with acres of roofing. Although the news story only mentions the roof, I understand that the the auditorium may be a total loss, and it was one of the more historic buildings within the campus. Altairisfar (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A friend that lives closer to Murphy than I do has told me that the Carlen House has also lost its roof, some walls, and the porch columns as well. I bet its a goner, with how little was already allotted to its preservation. Altairisfar (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC) She had the wrong house, although Carlen House may well have been damaged.
I'm out of town for another day, but I'll go by and try to get some photos of the damage later this week. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 15:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, at least on the bright side, you shouldn't have to contend with the numerous tree limbs blocking your vistas that I did when I took my NRHP pics of the sites a few years ago! :) Although it isn't on the NRHP, I'm glad I got see and photograph the Carmelite Monastery (the Carmelite nuns are a silent and cloistered order) when it was opened to the public for just one day for the first time in 60 years nearly a couple of years back, since it got hit also. Altairisfar (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
So, I took a trip to the area today, but it was too dark to take any decent pictures. Still a lot of streets closed off and trees not cleared yet, so I wasn't able to get to the Carlen House or Trinity. Maybe it will have calmed down enough by Saturday to be able to see something without getting in the way. I went down Florence Place (where there are at least 7 NRHP houses), and all seemed fine there, but there was one Spanish Colonial house on Springhill nearer the Infirmary that looked like a total loss. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I talked to another friend that lives nearby on Macy Place and he said most of the area was still closed to thru-traffic. Was the Spanish Colonial Revival house the one next door to the Springhill Avenue Temple, (if you know where that is)? If it was on that side (southern) of Springhill it was a contributing structure, along with most of the other houses destroyed or damaged, to the Midtown Historic District. Altairisfar (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I walked through the area today, and there's still quite a lot to be cleaned up. I didn't see too many houses that were completely destroyed, but there are tons that have at least a little damage. Amazingly, the Carlen House came through unscathed, not even a broken window. Most of the damage at Murphy HS looked limited to trees and portable classrooms, but they had the campus closed off, so I couldn't see all of it. Carlen Street just north of the school is a mess, lots of trees down, debris along the road, and roofs off of houses. Trinity Episcopal had damage to the sanctuary roof and fellowship hall. The Spanish Colonial Revival house on Springhill was the one next to the temple, and it's pretty well destroyed. Looks like the individually listed places fared ok, but there was pretty widespread damage in the neighborhood/historic district. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Awesome job on the images. Yours tell me more than the ones I've seen online. I was wondering about the neoclassical house on Dauphin, the one with the Ionic porticoes, after seeing roof damage to it in an aerial shot. The state of the Carlen House is amazing, given what the area all around it looks like. All in all still very sad to see though, I lived right off of Dauphin on South Reed Avenue for many years. I hope to make it down for a weekend visit sometime soon to see for myself. Altairisfar (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Second Generation Veterans Hospitals

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There is a multiple property submission known as the "United States Second Generation Veterans Hospital MPS" that is referenced on about 850 articles of interest to your wikiproject. Perhaps that is evidence that either a template or an article should be dedicated to the topic. If such a template or article existed, it could be linked to in those 850 articles. 67.100.127.28 (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I just took a quick look around. It's clear there is such an MPS, mostly (?) with 2012 listing dates. I got one nomination form in Dayton but couldn't find the mps form itself. Nothing I could find on hocus focus. I'll try again in the morning. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Please note that stubs have been created for Batavia Veterans Administration Hospital and Canandaigua Veterans Hospital Historic District.--Pubdog (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Pro football hall of fame?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I reverted [2] a clumsy addition of the Pro Football HoF to the Ohio list of NHLs. Thought I better check though. Anybody know if I'm wrong? Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not listed here. My guess is the IP meant well, but did not understand what a NHL is and so tried to add something they thought of as NATIONALly know, HISTORIC, and a local LANDMARK to the list. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
In the interest of editor retention, I dropped him a nice little note on his talk page explaining things along the line of what Ruhrfisch said above. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Good images. Too good?

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

At Commons, User:KLOTZ has uploaded 100+ absolutely awesome pictures of NRHPs. Not to sound ungrateful, but I am a little concerned that they might be copyvios. The collection is professional, from the 1970s, and contains many out-of-the-way sites, which is unlike a typical Commons user. I wonder if these images from an NPS database or collected from submissions. Here is the gallery. Am I being paranoid?--GrapedApe (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We should be grateful for the donations. Yes, the pics are awesome. I think Smallbones knows more. --doncram 05:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not think these are copyvios. I have mostly looked at the covered bridge pictures and am aware of some other Pennsylvania covered bridge photos on Flickr and lostbridges.org. These do not appear to me to be copyvios of those, and they often include people that make it look these are photos taken on family outings (the same or a very similar woman often satnds so she is visible in the window of the covered bridges). There are people whose hobby is taking photos and who also like to photograph historic sites. I think we got lucky with these. I think Smallbones may have been in contact with the uploader and can perhaps shed more light on these. For now, I would WP:AGF. Tomorrow I will also do a few image searches online to double check some pics. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The metadata shows that the images were processed with a professional model slide to digital scanner, but the uploader states he is a doctor, so he could probably afford that type equipment if he wanted it. The framing indicates that they were probably scanned from large format slides. FWIW. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The photos are, indeed, excellent. I have at times questioned the "self-made" claims on photos submitted to Commons, but I see no reason to question the validity of the claim for these photos. The user seems to be a retired medical doctor who has been engaged in photography avocationally -- and possibly semi-professionally -- for all of his adult life. Many of the photos appear (based on the frame shapes) to be scans of slides, which is what one would expect based on the stated age of the images. The notes on the images are what I might expect to find on the photo collection of a well-organized hobbyist. [Note: In addition to looking at the content on Commons, I found the user's professional profile on a social media website.] --Orlady (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I picked two Columbia County, PA covered bridges which no longer stand (Y and Rohrbach) and checked the Commons photo for each against what is available online (including the photo submitted to the NPS with the NRHP nom form via PA's CRGIS online database). These photos are not copyvios of anything I could find online. There are several similar amateur photographers's collections of historic sites online (Fred Yenerall's collection is closest, but there are two Flickr users who are similarly focused on covered bridges in PA including historic images they took themselves, plus the several collections used at Lost Bridges). We are very fortunate to have these photos, and it appears that the WLM contest this year is when they started uploading them. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I love these pictures too and enjoy seeing so many of them added! However, I question those dated to the 1970s. For instance, if you look at the cars in the picture associated with the Easton Historic District (Easton, Pennsylvania), they look to be from the early 2000s. As someone who like to use the caption field in the infobox, I am not doing so with these photos because I would question the dates.--Pubdog (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that all the scanned slide images seem to be dated to April or May of 1970, even when snow is visible (like File:ROHRBACH COVERED BRIDGE.jpg). My guess is that this is a software issue (I once had a device that reset its internal date to 1970 whenever it was turned off). The first few images I added to articles, I also added a caption that they were taken in 1970, but I stopped doing that as I was not sure. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
That's definitely a 2nd gen. Ford Explorer in the Easton picture, so it was taken no earlier than 1995. Mangoe (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I too have been amazed by User:Klotz's contributions - it's up to about 400 pix now - every one a previously unillustrated site. He started contributing in mid-September for WLM with 22 pix in Sept. and he has increased his rate of contribution since. The most amazing thing is that he goes to places where we really need pix, e.g. Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pacific Islands (!). He hasn't responded to any queries on his talk page at Commons, so I really don't know anything about him, but did find the social media site mentioned above and maybe one or two very iffy online references. I can say that he is an expert in finding places near where I live, finding sites that I thought were impossible to find or get to. I've never seen any of those pix online - and for those impossible sites, I've been looking for a long time.

I hadn't thought of him as a professional or semi-professional photographer. In Sept. he might have just gotten or gone back to the slide digitizer and there were a few quality glitches, but he seems to have them ironed out now. I also noticed a pattern in the years, lots of 1970s, 1985s, 2007s, and 2012s - probably something to do with the digitizer. There is a particular woman in several of the pix. Mostly his descriptions have been short but have gotten longer, giving the same info as in our articles, but recently giving a bit more. The pix line up with the descriptions in our articles and come together in geographical groups, with similar dates.

All in all - the world is an amazing place, and some of the most amazing folks come to Wikipedia! I'd assume good faith unless somebody finds a copyrighted photo in the pix (I'd be very surprised). He is likely what he appears to be - somebody who spent 40 or so vacations tracking down historical sites all over the US. I hope he just keeps on going, but wouldn't be too surprised if he runs out of material soon, or maybe in another year or so.

Happy New Years to all.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's wonderful that he discovered Wikimedia Commons as a venue for making his photos available to posterity. I'll echo Smallbones: Happy New Year to all! --Orlady (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
... and a Happy New Year to all! Cheers ... --Pubdog (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year to all as well! I am pretty sure that User:Klotz is actually working from Wikipedia lists to pick pictures to upload. There are two (or three) Martin's Mill Covered bridges in Pennsylvania, and the list of PA covered bridges on the NRHP had red links for each until recently. User:Klotz uploaded a nice picture for each, but it turns out that we already had three pictures and a (perhaps poorly-named) article for Martin's Mill Covered Bridge (Antrim Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania), so that is one case of a Klotz image that was for a NRHP site that already had photos. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Pennsylvania stubbed out!

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi --- very pleased to report that stubs have been created for most, if not all, of the NRHP sites in Pennsylvania. I know there are some, such as Washington County, still need some work, but most are also linked to the Nomination Forms at the CRGIS. Happy New Year!--Pubdog (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful news! Thanks so much, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
ditto :-) Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent modification to generator results

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

At my request, Elkman has modified the generator slightly: instead of

| built = 1948

the generator will now produce

| built = {{Start date|1948}}

This will have no effect on the appearance of the article or the behavior of its code, as you can see with Samuel N. Patterson House before and after this diff; it's purely to improve our microformatting. As well, I've filed a bot request asking that the template be added en masse to articles whose Infobox NRHP has a single year in the built= parameter. When I first saw this template, I thought it was something meaning "construction started in this year" and accordingly almost removed it as incorrect; my main reason for coming here is to prevent misunderstandings like I had. Nyttend (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend for giving notice about this. I raised three questions, possibly objections, to this bot request being implemented right away, at the bot request page. Please see wp:botrequest#Mark a lot of pages for microformatting. Not sure if they should be discussed here or there.
Here is a copy of what i wrote there, anyhow, for the record here:
(begin quote)
I don't fully understand the value of using the startdate template. I have twothree questions or possibly objections to starting with a bot run very quickly:
  1. The startdate template could probably be applied within the NRHP infobox template. It does not need to be changed in any of the NRHP articles at all, does it? Assuming that the arguments which appear in NRHP infobox date fields, usually either of format YYYY or of format Month DD, YYYY, are acceptable to the startdate template, the startdate template can be applied by just one central modification of the NRHP infobox code.
  2. If it is to be applied by a bot to all the NRHP articles using the NRHP infobox (about 40,000), for some reason, why apply it to just the "built =" field? The built= field is actually not present in every NRHP infobox. The "added=" field is present in nearly 100% of the infoboxes, and is the date of NRHP listing. In most cases it will be filled in with a date like "January 1, 2000", but sometimes it may have just a year, for example in articles that editor Daniel Case created (he happens to think the month and day information is excessive). And also there "designated_nrhp_type = January 1, 2000", "designated_nrhp_type2 = ", "designated_nrhp_type3= ", and "designated_nrhp_type4=" fields that are date fields and that are sometimes present. If a bot is run, it should probably cover them all at once.
  3. I also note that the "startdate" is confusing as a term, especially for use in the built= field for the NRHP infobox. In some cases the year-date given there is a start-and-end year-date for construction. In other cases it is a start date while there exists a later completion date, not provided in the infobox. In other cases it is the completion date, and not a start date at all. In other cases it is the date of some significant other event, and is not a built date at all. I wonder, before this is applied by a bot to many thousands of articles, could the term be changed to show something else? Could/should it be called "cssdate" instead? or "mfdate", rather than "startdate"? This has not been used in NRHP articles previously, and I for one do not appreciate its merit yet. Even if it does have merit, then perhaps it could be done better with a different name or changed in some other way to avoid a lot of future confusion.
(End of quote). --doncram 19:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I've answered these questions at BOTREQ; I suggest we centralise discussion there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Greene County, Arkansas

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have just added the picture to the top of this list (according to the usual bot-assisted procedure), and discovered that there is another one in the list, clearly of the same building, but referring to a different listing. Could someone have a look please? I actually suspect that BOTH are wrong, and the building is not on NRHP, but I am not sure how this could be sorted out. I am talking about the second and the third entries in the list. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The building in the picture is the bathhouse, based on the picture of the bathhouse at this NPS site (plate P-6). The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program has a picture of it in its listing too; it's pretty small, but it looks like the same building, and it's definitely NRHP-listed. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I will clean this up.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Layout of photos for districts

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Happy New Year! I've got a layout question, and I would appreciate any feedback. I live in Hampton Park Terrace in Charleston, South Carolina. The neighborhood itself is a National Register district with about 200 contributing structures. It was added about 15 years ago based on its solid collection of intact historic houses from the 1910-1925 era. There is already an entry devoted to the district itself, and the layout of that page is pretty standard. The problem is this: The district is notable only because of its broad collection of individual, historic houses, but the Wikipedia entry for the district shows only three or four pictures in a generic gallery. As a National Register DISTRICT, there is no reason to think that every individual contributing house itself justifies a separate Wikipedia entry. But, I'd like to somehow collect together the photos of all of the contributing houses. And, I'd like to make it a nice, professional looking layout. Just lumping a gallery of 200 images into what is otherwise a relatively short entry on Hampton Park Terrace would totally overwhelm the actual article and look terrible.

So, I first was rooting around and found out about drop down galleries. The problem is that when using a drop-down gallery on Wikipedia, the layout looks sort of cheap. Each drop-box text-box displays a "[Show]" or "[Hide]" insert over the text box, and you have to click on THAT instead of just clicking on the box itself. When using a drop down gallery on Wikibooks (about which I know nothing), the layout is much nicer; there is a small trangular icon indicating the drop-down function, and you can click anywhere on the box to execute that function.

Another option that has been suggested on the Wikipedia Teahouse page is a table. I'm not crazy about that, because of the huge amounts of white space that would be produced. Unlike most of the "List of National Register Properties in ____" pages, the table would have just two columns: one with an address and one with a photo. To keep things balanced vertically between the two columns, the photos would have to be too tiny to read or there would have to be a huge amount of text in the first column beyond just the address.

Another option that has been floated is just linking to a category on WikiMedia Commons and making sure that all of the images are tied to the same category. I suppose that would work, but again (and I hate to seem obsessive about this), I really put a value on a nice, clean, self-contained layout. One of the things that drives me crazy about Wikipedia is the endless use of cryptic meta cross-references and projects and almost hieroglyphic shortcuts. I'm averse to this workaround just because it seems like an ugly fix. I really would like to have a nice, clean organization from the actual Wikipedia entry itself. Sending people off WikiMedia Commons is, in my way of thinking, like having a nicely formatted book with a footnote that is rendered in binary source code telling you where to search in your local library for the answer. (I know. I know. That is an exageration, but I would really like to avoid any solution that is not seemless in execution and appearance from the district's home page.)

I like the idea of a drop down gallery with one such gallery for each street. The drop-down galleries could then be collected together themselves on the entry for the district. When you opened the gallery, it would show the nicely balanced grid of photos four across and five or six down with neatly placed text under each one with the address. But, again, the front-end of that (that is, the appearance of those drop-down galleries from the district's own page) is what I really do not like.

Any thoughts? Is this a terrible idea in the first place to try to include a comprehensive gallery of the contributing structures? Can anyone recommend a nice page which has already tackled this problem? Any better thoughts on how to handle to layout?ProfReader (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a great idea and similar things have been done by others, though there is no standard or recommended format. I think User:Nyttend has probably gone furthest on photographing (almost) every building in several historic districts, so you should definitely seek his advice. Another basic is to try to get the inventory that accompanies some NRHP nominations, which will usually divide the buildings into "Contributing" and "intrusions" and sometimes other categories, and give some brief commentary.
My two similar attempts use tables. See Cape May Historic District, and Colonial Germantown Historic District, as well as a non-NRHP district Wildwoods Shore Resort Historic District. For the Wildwoods district I used a combo of techniques - individual photos, and a gallery, but mostly depended on a link to the Commons Cat. For the Germantown HD, besides the table, I relied on the fact that the HD is 98% on 1 street. I just used the street address as the file name (with modifiers at the end). Thus the link to the Commons Cat gives a south-to-north ordered presentation of all my photos with a few other photos mostly at the end.
For the Cape May HD, I was very lucky to have a very complete reference and so could make a pretty good table, but the Commons Cat also helps.
One thing I've been considering is the use of a Gallery on Commons, which allows your own formatting with a bit of text. Sooner or later I'll try this for a HD, but my only satisfactory use of this technique has been for Commons:The Flower Book by Edward Burne-Jones. Give it a try and we'll be able to learn from your efforts.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for those thoughts and pointers. I'll try to get some input from Nyttend for sure. I really like your Cape May and Germantown pages, but I don't think that layout would work for me. Hampton Park Terrace has about 200 or so contributing structures, but none of them is really individually notable. Because the district was based on their collective styles, the actual dates of construction on the nomination form is really a ballpark (5-10 year window). I know SOME of the information myself, but without turning the page into a page devoted to collecting my own research instread of aggregating existing sources, I can't really see filling in much additional information about each house. The table on Germantown has a nice "look" to it because it is fairly consistent visually. But, Hampton Park Terrace's buildings wouldn't have a name, date, or notes column - just an address and image. There are a few houses that have maybe 20 word descriptions in the Register nomination form, but 90% of the houses would just have a blank column in a table. So, the result would be either enormously oversized photos (scaled to fit about 80% of the width of the screen) or huge swaths of white space. Some version of that as a collapsable table is the forerunner to me so far. My least favorite approach is the Wikimedia Commons catalog approach. I like the resulting layout of the images, but I hate leaving the original page to get there, and I really don't care for the results presented in a way that shows all the JPG extensions and stuff.

Request for feedback: Okay, so based on these comments and following some more review of other peoples' work, I have roughed out a few options on my sandbox page, User:ProfReader/sandbox. I would really appreciate some more experienced editors' thoughts on these choices along with a few words of why you like or dislike one or more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfReader (talk • contribs)

  • I like Options 2 and 3 -- no preference between them. Options 1 and 4 take too much space for too little content. You did a nice job creating examples. Thinking about the general issue of HD articles, I want to point out that some historic districts include a few individual buildings that merit separate articles. That's not likely to be the case for a residential neighborhood, though. --Orlady (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There are some good historic district article examples listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 38#Good historic district article examples. (This list of examples is mentioned within wp:NRHPMOS, somewhat oddly there rather than in wp:NRHPhelp. Some better division of material between those two resource pages seems possible.) Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut) is one of the linked historic district articles that I worked on. It has a gallery for each of a couple streets. I happen to like your example with a gallery for each street, as more compact. However, I would not hide anything in a show/hide field. Just show it all. The reader can see the list of streets in a TOC, and scroll down, should not have to work at opening each street to see the contents. Really there is no need to hide anything. For a quite different approach, see one of wikiproject NRHP's very best historic district articles, Detroit Financial District, developed mostly by User:Andrew Jameson. --doncram 03:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are some good examples. Although the Detroit Financial District is a good article, I'm going to exclude that layout from consideration. I'm not crazy about having the individual properties as just part of the article itself (almost like subheadings). It works for that one, but in my case, there is not enough information to write more than one sentence about each one, and they would all have a sing-songy sound to the prose. I'm leaning toward galleries instead of tables. I just don't think the tables offer that much improved function, and certainly not enough to justify the flood of white space. As to the collapsible vs. non-collapsible idea, let me ask this: Does the fact that the galleries might default as collapsed make any different in load time for a page? A few people above (and in another forum I've asked this) have suggested any sort of gallery or table with 200+ entries might drag some users' computers too much. I'm just not sure I even buy that concern at all, given how long some of the "list articles" can be. But, to the extent it MIGHT be a problem, I don't mind setting the default as collapsed, if that would prevent the problem. I'm just not sure about the mechanics of loading information to a computer to know.ProfReader (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't understand your interest in using collapse-boxes ("dropdown boxes"). I am not sure, but I don't think it saves any loading time. And, I don't think there is any example of any NRHP historic district article that uses collapse boxes. Nor any featured list-article in wikipedia of any other kind. I am not aware of any collapse boxes in mainspace at all, in fact. Collapse-boxes seem to be useful in Talk pages sometime, as a way of dismissing/minimizing discussions that someone deems to be unimportant. About size of list-articles, there used to be a rule of thumb that a page over 100,000 bytes as visible in a page's history should possibly be considered large, worth splitting, but computers have gotten faster. And that rule ignored the loading time of photos. In Wikiproject NRHP there are a few large list-articles having more than 200 rows of individual NRHPs with pictures and text. Your case, with about 200 entries but more compact in the form of galleries, is probably not too large. I suggest just developing it without concern for loading-time, and I bet it will be all right. If not, if load-time seems bad, it could be split perhaps geographically or you could come back here for more suggestions, but I really bet it will be all right. --doncram 05:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Doncram's correct. Everything has to load (otherwise you couldn't view the collapsed text), and collapsed text in articles is discouraged because it can cause problems when printing, using Ctrl+F, and other automated processes. As far as the list — you could do like TwoScars did with the courthouse square article for Blackford County, Indiana. The main article is at Hartford City Courthouse Square Historic District; it gives a history of the district as a whole and remarks on some of the pivotal structures, but the list of all contributing properties is given at List of properties in Hartford City Courthouse Square Historic District. This approach would be even more suitable for Hampton Park Terrace, due to the number of CPs. Note that the Detroit Financial District has just 36 CPs; I'd say that giving a subsection to every building is useful for a district with many important buildings and much better than doing likewise for a district consisting largely of little houses. As Smallbones notes, I've done some work of this sort, but it's all in Bloomington, Indiana. I've written only two HD articles with illustrations for every CP, Steele Dunning Historic District and Vinegar Hill Historic District. Both make heavy use of a local historic preservation publication with its own designations; when you're putting together the list of CPs, you should distinguish between local and federal designation if applicable. Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) Peer review

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, everyone! I'm new to the project, but have been hanging out at MilHist and WikiProject North Carolina for a while. I wrote the above article about a NRHP-listed historic site back in December, and around New Year, someone had suggested I try and take it to GAN, which it just passed today. I would like to continue down the path with this article, and thus have opened up a Peer review, specifically with an eye towards FA criteria. I am also interested in expanding the archaeology portion, and so have some points there to discuss as well. I look forward to working with all of you! Cdtew (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment: Thundersnow removing images

Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments11 people in discussion

As doncram has mentioned Nytend in particular and "another couple editors" in general; bringing it here in the form of an RFC; and failed to watch my talk page as they said they would, I am bringing a discussion from my talk page to here. The original is on my talk page at Bullock'27s Pasadena pictures and other pic deletions. Also of interest is User talk:Thundersnow#Blue Hills Headquarters, etc. and, I suppose, somewhere on Nyttend's talk page. Thundersnow 16:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Bullock's Pasadena pictures and other pic deletions

doncram Hi, i don't understand your removal of pictures from Bullock's Pasadena article. I reversed your edit by this edit restoring the pics. Multiple pictures certainly help in an article. In this case, you removed a picture that showed curved eaves and other elements of the place's Streamline Moderne architecture that I think is why it is NRHP-listed. Streamline moderne is a style evocative of ocean liners' design; see Normandie Hotel, about a hotel modelled after the original SS Normandie ocean liner, as one extreme example. The pic you left in the infobox doesn't convey anything about that architecture. I'll watch here and would see any reply.
Thanks for all your work adding newly available pics to many articles. cheers, --doncram 16:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Thundersnow I disagree that multiple images help articles, especially when the images do nothing to explicate the text. The whole building is an example of that architectural style. Adding images of details without excyclopedic context about those details is using an article as a gallery, and that is not good. Thundersnow 05:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
doncram To follow up, that is horrible. The one pic you had kept shows hardly anything of the architecture, and does not convey streamline moderne at all. --doncram 23:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed and reverted your removal of images at excellent article Casa Paoli. I hadn't seen your reply above about the Pasadena article. If that is your position, that you believe multiple images don't help articles (?!), and if you are proceeding to remove images in more cases, then that is quite alarming. Your removal of pics in the pasadena article reflected ignorance about the architecture involved. It would be one thing for you to use some tag to call for more captioning, or call for explanation, but it is destructive to simply remove images in articles in a general way.
Have you done this in many articles? I am concerned that I or others are going to have to go through a lot of work to review your other contributions. --doncram 16:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
doncram Okay, i am officially horrified at what you have done to numerous articles, going back to November 1, in terms of your removing hard-won photos added through a lot of work by editors such as myself. All seemed to be NRHP articles. I came across several articles where you removed photos of mine, actually, but I am perhaps most horrified at your removing Historic American Buildings Survey photos by Jet Lowe and others, that other editors had carefully added to articles, which provide great perspective about the changes or similarities in NRHP properties over many years. And you seem to routinely delete galleries. Obviously multiple pics help convey more about a property. I tried to be careful for a while in reviewing your work to ensure that other small changes you made were re-added in my reversions, but eventually i just switch to reverting all.
I believe you are well-meaning but misguided. I think you might have a different view, coming from your work placing newly uploaded photos, that you think photos are cheap and easy to obtain. That is opposite my view and that of many editors, that we have gone through hell to get places and take photos, or to research and find photos, and that we are seeking to illustrate articles. You cannot blithely disregard this effort and just drop useful stuff.
So, for now, could you agree to stop removing any photos whatsover from any article, please. I would like to ask for you to consult with others, e.g. at wt:NRHP, if you think any removal is possibly justified. You may well not want to take my advice; you have a right to disagree with my view; however, if you do disagree, would you agree to have some review, I suppose in the form of a discussion at wt:NRHP possibly to be identified as a RFC. But I will say, it is not just my concern. I saw, somewhere, perhaps at User talk:Nyttend, another couple editors expressing concern at your deletion of photos. I was not aware of the scope of what you have been doing, and perhaps the failure of others to give you feedback, until now. I'll watch here for your reply.
For the record, I have gone back through your contributions to November 1, and reversed your deletions at articles including:
23:29, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+77)‎ . .Moratock Park ‎ (Undid revision 523513599 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:28, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+198)‎ . .Old Alton Bridge ‎ (Undid revision 523693124 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:27, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+443)‎ . .Mappa Hall ‎ (Undid revision 523494611 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:26, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+680)‎ . .Fort Snelling ‎ (Undid revision 523455446 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:23, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+1,108)‎ . .Camp Springs House ‎ (Undid revision 524170047 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:22, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+80)‎ . .Union Church of Pocantico Hills ‎ (Undid revision 524629291 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top)  
23:21, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+160)‎ . .Hibernian Hall (Boston, Massachusetts) ‎ (Undid revision 520838051 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:15, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+156)‎ . .Wang Theatre ‎ (Undid revision 520840823 by Thundersnow (talk) it was not marked sourced. indicate source needed or something, don't randomly delete.) (top) 
23:14, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+112)‎ . .Citi Performing Arts Center ‎ (Undid revision 520840975 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:13, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+140)‎ . .Paris Cemetery ‎ (Undid revision 520848118 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:12, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+89)‎ . .Bowsher Ford Covered Bridge ‎ (Undid revision 520849050 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:12, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+100)‎ . .Taylors Falls Public Library ‎ (Undid revision 520851206 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:10, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+482)‎ . .F. M. Howell and Company ‎ (Undid revision 520854740 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:09, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+281)‎ . .John C. Breckinridge Memorial ‎ (Undid revision 520855192 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:03, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+110)‎ . .Brooklandwood ‎ (Undid revision 521114599 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:03, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+80)‎ . .Fisher Hill Reservoir ‎ (Undid revision 521115271 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:02, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+270)‎ . .Brooklyn Borough Hall ‎ (Undid revision 521121001 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:00, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+106)‎ . .Burden Ironworks Office Building ‎ (Undid revision 522086121 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
22:59, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+284)‎ . .Burden Iron Works ‎ (Undid revision 522086162 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
22:58, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+65)‎ . .Burnt Cabins Gristmill Property ‎ (note it is a HABS photo by Jet Lowe that was previously deleted) (top) 
22:57, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+70)‎ . .Burnt Cabins Gristmill Property ‎ (Undid revision 522089731 by Thundersnow (talk) undo, but re-add some info added)
22:18, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+535)‎ . .Bodie Island Light ‎ (Undid revision 520591207 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
22:13, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+126)‎ . .Warwick Furnace Farms ‎ (Undid revision 520969884 by Thundersnow (talk) wrong. i think it is part of the site.) (top) 
21:26, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+175)‎ . .Old Lock Pump House, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal ‎ (restore multiple images) (top) 
21:21, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+91)‎ . .C.G. Meaker Food Company Warehouse ‎ (restore helpful pic) (top) 
21:00, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-81)‎ . .Crow Canyon Archaeological District ‎ (re-remove one that was added to the infobox) (top) 
20:59, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+197)‎ . .Crow Canyon Archaeological District ‎ (restore images bizarrely removed)
20:57, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+274)‎ . .Camillus Union Free School ‎ (Undid revision 523453624 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
20:56, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+164)‎ . .F. A. Kennedy Steam Bakery ‎ (Undid revision 523451816 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
20:55, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+261)‎ . .Dallas Arboretum and Botanical Garden ‎ (Undid revision 523480466 by Thundersnow (talk) restore images, other) (top) 
20:53, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+85)‎ . .Mont-Joli railway station ‎ (Undid revision 523976401 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
20:51, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+111)‎ . .Camp Sherman Community Hall ‎ (Undid revision 524169547 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
16:17, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+22)‎ . .Captain Robert Bennet Forbes House ‎ (caption) (top) 
16:17, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+87)‎ . .Captain Robert Bennet Forbes House ‎ (Undid revision 524633507 by Thundersnow (talk))
and previously Bullock's Pasadena and Casa Paoli. Sincerely, --doncram 23:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thundersnow review

Doncram stated that I removed several of their images, and used "alarming", "concerned" and "officially horrified" to convey disagreement, which leads me to believe they are too involved to review my edits. The only other person to state disagreement to me also said they "can't argue with your point of view."[3] I cannot find any other discussion I was involved in that conveyed disagreement with my deletions. The "failure of others to give you feedback" is ridiculous: it is not a failure to not provide feedback; that "others" have not given me feedback does not mean they should have given me feedback; and the assumption others have disagreed with me if they had. As such, I found doncram's "requests" that I either stop deleting images, get pre-sanctioning of my deletions at this board, get discussed on this board, and/or get an RfC both unwarranted escalation and an attempt to threaten me into doing things their way. None of my edits break Wikipedia guidelines or are destructive (doncram's word). As such I will not stop deleting images nor will I get pre-sanctioning for my deletions, until someone can explain to me what I am doing wrong in general (content disputes belong on article talk pages).

I find mention of "hard-won photos" to be specious. It does not matter how or who or why the images got to Wikimedia, the question in general is if those images should be used in articles, and specifically if I can decide if they do.

"multiple pics help convey more about a property": That is true of any item that can be seen and several that cannot (atomic structures come to mind). However Wikipedia is not a gallery. The existence of an image does not mean it must be included in an article. Images should be used to show what the text is explaining, and the text should be both notable and sourced. If the text is not there to support the inclusion of an image, the image should not be used.

Examples:

  • Casa Paoli: the two images still in the article after my edit were supported by the text; the images of a ceiling and an interior door were not and those were the ones I removed. I had also added a link to the Commons category I had created, as well as formatted the page to place the images near the text they were explaining.
  • Bullock's Pasadena: the article is about the building, not explaining the style of the building. The extra images conveyed little to nothing not shown in one image. A different image could be substituted, but three do nothing.
  • Moratock Park: the article now has four images of the outside of the building, none of which show anything different from the others except for some trees. I should have left the postcard, but there is no purpose to the repeats.
  • Captain Robert Bennet Forbes House: the article has two images of the front of the house with no changes to the building.

I could go on but this is not the place for it. If someone has a question about a specific edit I will answer. Thundersnow 16:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  • At the risk of offending everybody, I'll chime in here :-b Are we having fun yet? There have been enough quarrels on this page in the last couple of years to last for decades (I'll plead guilty myself on a couple of them). Nothing I've seen of those quarrels amounts to anything like a moral choice, or something that threatens the project. But not having fun does threaten the project. Editors will be driven away, and we won't be able to accomplish our goals. I'll even single out Doncram here, even though a quick review of Bullock's Pasadena indicates that I agree with him on that article. DC - you better start having some fun, seriously! Getting into multiple arguments hurts the project! And this applies especially when you are right.
As far as the substance of the argument (though it doesn't matter that much), I'll say that I like pictures in articles. Two photos, even in a three line stub, should not be too much. A four picture gallery should be ok, even in a basic three paragraph article. WP:NOTGALLERY is taken much to seriously by some folks these days, and generally editing practice is moving well away from it. Of course we can set up galleries in Commons - see The Flower Book by Edward Burne-Jones as an example where it was useful. Also on that page you can see a slide show app (on Commons only as far as I can make out). I'm wondering whether we can set up something similar for tables or even articles on Wikipedia? All the best and start having some fun (that's an order!) Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you Thundersnow for bravely opening discussion here, including wholesale bringing in the user talk discussion where my language was perhaps too strong. I appreciate that you are completely complying with my request to get some more feedback. I could have, probably should have, been milder in my choice of words at your Talk page and it is fair for you to call me on that here. And I appreciate also Smallbones' request that we/I have fun, and not drag down into driving people away from the WikiProject and from wikipedia in general.
  • About technical discussions like this, I am not the only one who thinks we NRHPers need to have occasional discussions about formats of list-articles and sourcing and suitability of photos here, to address emerging or running disagreements elsewhere. No one, me included, should be too very bent out of shape about any such matter. These are all kinda technical. But from time to time it is helpful to have a discussion. One relatively recent one was discussion about some computer-modified photos, where I received the feedback of a pretty clear consensus against use of such photos. Ongoing ones are about handling MPS/TR info in list-articles, and about handling boundary increases/decreases. These are basically boring topics, but it does seem helpful to have discussion when it turns out one or a few editors are systematically working in one direction, where one or a few other editors are going in a different one. It shouldn't matter too much what a standard is, but in many cases a standard, a consensus seems needed to keep the project fun for everyone.
  • About the other discussion that I was vague about, it was at current User Talk:Nyttend#How many images in a a stub? (permalink) where I saw JamesLWoodward(sp?) raising the same kind of concern. Do let's discuss some specific cases among these, okay? I wonder if these could be categorized usefully:
    • articles where a historic HABS or other photo is removed upon arrival of a new color recent pic (Captain Robert Bennet Forbes House is one where 1965 facade is shown and then 2009 facade seems quite similar -- i think that is great, in contrast to many cases where I have seen that facades change significantly; Burnt Cabins Gristmill Property where Jet Lowe HABS pic was removed, i think it provided great perspective to keep with the new pic)
    • short articles having 2 pics where Thundersnow dropped one (perhaps C.G. Meaker Food Company Warehouse? 2010 listing and article which i just revisited, where i add NRHP nom doc now available online)
    • other types of articles?
  • I do wish to talk about the articles, and what the standards are, and hope we can. --doncram 19:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • P.S. Would a good compromise be to identify (or create) some tags which indicate that photos are present with no captions or not mentioned adequately in the text? I agree that Thundersnow has a good point with that observation that the usefulness of some photos is not properly supported. --19:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Thundersnow, what types of concerns do you observe (what tags could possibly be used)? We can create custom template {{NRHP photo concerns}}, and allow for tags like:
  • "Multiple pics somewhat overlapping in topic without explanation"
  • "Gallery too large, please create/use a linked Commons gallery instead"
  • others?
And each tag would have a corresponding maintenance category, like Category:NRHP photo concern - unexplained photos Category:NRHP photo concern - Commons cat needed, and be linked from the NRHP To Do list shown at top of this page (Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/to do). I personally would very much value your identifying concerns by tagging that could then be addressed by editors. --doncram 20:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the Casa Paoli article is a special case, where I and wikipedia editor Mercy11 found success in cultivating a National Register photographer/employee, Juan Llanes Santos, who kindly went through hoops to make the 5 photos available at Commons under acceptable licensing, after it was one of the NPS's featured properties and we contacted him. This contributed towards the Puerto Rico OPRP office making a good number of further photos available into the public domain which are now used in articles. This is the only successful case I know about, of any one of us obtaining National Register office cooperation like that. I don't want to drop any of the photos of this unique case (and I think they do add, they do convey what a cool casa in a hot area can be like). --doncram 22:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
After looking at the various articles discussed here, I perceive that Thundersnow's contentions are related to (1) images that don't add information value to the articles in the way they have been presented and (2) articles that have very little text to balance a long infobox, much less a long infobox plus multiple images. I suggest several ways to use and display images that I think could satisfy "both sides". The choice between these approaches would depend on the specifics of the article and the images:
  • Put the "extra" images into image galleries, with descriptive captions.
  • Either in an image gallery or in the article text, provide image captions that provide encyclopedic information about what the image illustrates. Captions like "Front facade in 1965" or "View of building from the west" don't do that for me. However, if the caption said something like "Reticulated Elbonian furbelows on front facade in 1965, prior to restoration" and that was supported by text discussion of the unusual use of Elbonian furbelows in the building and the effects of the 1969 restoration, the image would add clear value to the article. This approach could work with articles like Captain Robert Bennet Forbes House, Casa Paoli, and Bullock's Pasadena, but the Forbes House article doesn't have nearly enough text content yet to support more than one full-sized image -- much less to support informative captions for all of the images.
  • Create a Commons category for all of the images for the building, and provide a {{commonscat}} link to that category.
Looking at some of the specific articles in question, I didn't identify any that seem long enough to accommodate all of the available images. My personal druthers would be to handle them as follows:
  • Casa Paoli - Create an image gallery with descriptive captions on the images. The images appear to have information value, with appropriate captions, but with two infoboxes that include a photo and a map, the article isn't long enough to support the additional images. (OK, maybe it could support just one additional image in the article, but not 4 of them.)
  • Bullock's Pasadena - Same approach as Casa Paoli. The "extra" images aren't particularly good quality, so an image gallery is probably a large enough display size.
  • Moratock Park - Keep one image in the infobox and put the others into a linked commons category. The article is real short and the different images (other than the postcard) don't convey different information.
  • Captain Robert Bennet Forbes House - Same approach as Casa Paoli. My choice for the infobox image would be the black-and-white image of the front facade, as it illustrates the building better than the more recent color photo.
  • C.G. Meaker Food Company Warehouse - Same approach as Moratock Park. The two images both seem to be good quality, but the architectural features they show are the same.
  • Burnt Cabins Gristmill Property - First choice would be to expand the article so that both photos could reasonably be used. If the article remains at its current stubby length, keep one image in the article and provide a link to a commons category.
  • Camillus Union Free School - Create and use a linked commons category. The images don't illustrate different features of the building.
  • Bodie Island Light - Use one image in the infobox, use one or two others in the article with informative captions, add the rest of the images to the infobox, AND create a Bodie Island Light category at Commons to link to include a link to the Commons category "Bodie Island Lighthouse" (I added it). The images are interesting and illustrative, but there are way too many images for just one article. --Orlady (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I utterly resent an editor who has long tangled with me butting in here to complicate matters, commenting directly after me. I removed a comment above; i won't battle if someone else restores it, but I see it providing no help, and I would ask other editors not to condone it. The editor has done more than anyone to fan flames of contention among NRHP editors IMO over many years of contention. The editor has resumed a pattern of stalking my edits, recently opening an AFD which was/is totally unjustified, seems rather to be an assertion of dominance, of right to bedevil me. The post i removed could be considered supportive perhaps of my position, but I perceive the wp:POINTY point to be an assertion of that editor's "right" to follow my edits and complicate. I don't want to hear it. I have repeatedly asked this editor to stop, but the editor continues, including posting at my Talk page against my wishes. I resent the butting in and don't need the "help" if that is what it is meant to seem to be. Again I won't war to re-remove the comment if someone else restores it, but I would prefer if no one did. I am sorry to have baggage, myself, in terms of this long history with this editor. --doncram 22:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Doncram. Don't remove people's comments from talk pages. Period. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
@Doncram: You've been told directly and repeatedly that you may not remove Orlady's comments on any talkpage other than your own:do not do that again, ever. Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I was quoted out of context above. I deplore almost all of Thunderstorm's image removals. While I agree that WP:EN is not a gallery, equally it does not require that we have only one image of a NRHP building. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 01:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! I thought as a newbie to this project that I would offer some fresh viewpoints. First, I really don't think that the issue is worth the amount of ink that is being spilled, pro or con. Some of the entries that I was checking out seem to have repetitive images to me. I like photos, and I would err on the side of having too many. But, I have to agree that a few of the hyperlinked pages in this discussion seem overboard. One of the articles seemed to have three pictures that were taken from within about one foot of each other. That seems like too much. I mean, if I really, really, really wanted to see every possible view, I could just go to Wikimedia myself and do some targeted searching. But, as long as the subject matter is tied to the article, I'm in favor of including photos. I don't think that every possible image needs to have a specific reference in the accompanying text. Bottom line: I would delete some of the repeat images but keep unique images even if they are not squarely and directly referenced in the text.ProfReader (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with most of Orlady's general points, above; in particular, that images shouldn't be included without captions that clearly explain their usefulness to the reader. This was my objection, for instance, to the extra photos in Bullock's Pasadena: if they were supposed to illustrate the curved lines typical of Streamline Moderne architecture, then the text should have mentioned this fact, and the caption should have emphasized it. The caption "Bullock's Pasadena, looking east" did nothing of the kind; and the article text didn't mention the curved lines at all—a reader would've had to follow the Streamline Moderne Wikilink to find out about them.
Rather than galleries, I'd prefer to see a link to Commons categories, where such exist. However, I wonder whether the {{Commons category}} template conveys much meaning to the casual Wikipedia reader. We editors who use and are familiar with Commons know that "media related to..." probably means "photos of..." in such a context; but someone less involved in WP might not realize that. Might it be better to replace the standard template with something more explicit? I'm thinking of something in the external-links section, like—
This tells the reader "photos" instead of the generic and not entirely meaningful "media". The second link, to the Commons main page, allows interested readers to learn more about Commons, and might on occasion lead to future contributions.
—Ammodramus (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree almost completely with ProfReader - we definitely should error on the side of keeping images in the article if their subject is even somewhat different. Edit the caption before removing a useful photograph. I see reason to have 1 infobox image and 3 photographs in a gallery for one of those infamous superstubs - except if they're just a repeat image (like the Moratock Park example). When an image gets removed from an article then it is usually lost forever. Who would dig back in the article history to look for it? Not many articles have Commons categories.
I also agree with Ammodramus about Commons. I read some of this thread this morning and I was thinking that I need to point out that only Wikipedians even know what the Commons category link means. Out of sight means that it doesn't exist to the other 99% of readers. Royalbroil 00:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This is an eternal judgment call. Stubs need one photo most of the time, more than that overwhelms the article. Longer articles deserve more photos. I also agree that putting extra photos (with appropriate captions) into a gallery is a reasonable next step, before moving them all to Commons. Removing the photos without putting them into a commons category - that's horrific, since they will be effectively lost forever. dm (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

ThunderSnow has commented at arbcom in this version last edited by ThunderSnow, scroll down to Statement by ThunderSnow, that they feel frustrated over this matter and perceive my involvement difficult. I did offer above that my language to ThunderSnow at their Talk was probably too strongly worded, and I apologize for that again. I will intend not to contribute further to this discussion and this matter, and ask for others to summarize or otherwise bring this to some conclusion. --doncram 15:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

ThunderSnow clarifies at my Talk that they are not frustrated by this RFC here at wt:NRHP, but rather by an ANI discussion, and comments that I did not apologize previously, so my apology was not a case of apologizing "again". I had previously said (above) that "I could have, probably should have, been milder in my choice of words at your Talk page and it is fair for you to call me on that here." I am sorry for seeming to claim that that was a full enough apology. I do again apologize (and this is now the second time). Really I do apologize for coming on quite strong in my original posting at ThunderSnow's talk page about deleting photos. I still disagree about the photo deletions being appropriate, as do some others above, but I did come on stronger about that than I wish I had. ThunderSnow also suggested I point out that they posted here that they are no longer editing Wikipedia, so perhaps this RFC/U should be closed in light of that. --doncram 03:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's the weather, or lack of sunlight...

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

but I've been a bit grouchy lately, kind of negative. If you look above at the HABS section, I just had to put that "but" after "100% support". But Nyttend has given me some help and an idea, so maybe that'll get me out of it.

  • 1st, we should note how far we've come in illustrating our lists. They were about 42% illustrated in July, when I first noticed Multichill's Commons:Monuments database/Statistics. On October 7, while still placing some of the WLM-2012 files, we went over 50% [4]. As of January 1, we have photographed 45947 sites (52.23%), and yesterday were up to 52.43%. Using a WET (wild extrapolatory technique), we might guess that there are only about 5 years before everything is fully illustrated! Actually, a reasonable goal - say at least 90% illustrated for at least 90% of the counties - could come a lot faster. You never know, but we might find a few more User:KLOTZ's or other big collections, WLM might continue to provide 5-6% per year, maybe we'll find another 10% in HABS or a SHPO decides to free up some photos - who knows? I'm feeling better already. I'm not kidding about trying to find big collections - I'll likely just e-mail some local historical societies unless folks have any better ideas.
  • 2nd, Nyttend has said he doesn't want to stand in the way of having an upload button in our tables. I'm not sure I really convinced him of anything (he's just being really cooperative), but I think it was so important to the success of WLM-2012 that we have to continue using it in some way. I guess the first discussion point should be how to minimize the upload button (uploading pix to Commons) so that it doesn't disrupt the tables, and what info should be automatically included from the table into the picture file. All suggestions/dissents/discussions etc. welcomed. The next question would be whether we want it just for WLM (in September) or for the whole year, but let's assume just for Sept for now, and discuss for how long later.

All the best,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Geocoding disabled

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

I'm tired of the bitching by one user about a few images that got wrong coordinates because the coordinates are not correct in the lists here. Images of NRHP listings are no longer being geocoded. Multichill (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to figure out what this is about, but I give up. Was one of your bots putting the coordinates from the lists on photos? I thought you were supposed to geocode the camera location rather than the subject's location; that's what I've always done with my photos. Ntsimp (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
It's my understanding as well that we should geocode the camera location as well. The question is, is it better to have slightly wrong coordinates for the camera, or no coordinates at all? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The bot was indeed taking coordinates from the list to the photos. Since the coordinates in the list show he object location, I see no way to automate the camera location coordinates addition. (I have no idea what really happened, but the coordinates in the lists are indeed often wrong as has been pointed out here many times).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The normal template (for photographer) is {{location}} I use {{Object location}}. I take the coordinates from the monuments database which is based on the lists on Wikipedia. This information is used in about 20 countries to geocode the images which have an identifier template. This way I already geocoded 300.000+ images this way. You might have an occasional error in the coordinates, but the percentage is very low. I'm not going to tag 300.000 images with some template saying that the location might be wrong. That would completely overload that system. Anyway, I was tired of it and stopped it for the US. Multichill (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I know and I have been involved with some of these 20 countries. You work on geotagging is greatly appreciated. However, for the US I agree that for the time being (at least until a major effort for correcting coordinate has been performed) it is reasonable to stop geotagging. For all the US locations I personally uploaded photos I always checked the coordinates independently and corrected them in the lists.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
OIC. Sorry for the confusion, should have looked before I leaped... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
It might be useful to create either (1) an invisible template to put in an article, or (2) a talk page template (or parameter to {{WikiProject NRHP}}) indicating that someone (preferably identified by username and date) had verified the coordinates in the article. (I can't even remember which pages I've checked coordinates for...) That way progress on checking coordinates could actually be assessed, and the bot could be programmed to only use verified data. Magic♪piano 00:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like a basically good idea gone awry due to details. I always tag my camera location and often tag pictures I find in missed searches in Commons. The biggest bot error I found was in File:Bronx River1.JPG which was tagged for a distant place; perhaps I should try to find where the bot got that misinformation. Should the bot be restarted after being made to refrain from tagging pix that already have a location even if it's a camera location? Or where it's in an object Commons category that can accept the tag for all its pictures? I seldom check NRHP or article locations against maps or records until after my attempt to find and photograph a target fail due to bad coords, as yesterday with Firemen's Monument, Hoboken. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If the picture is already tagged, then obviously there is no need to bot-tag it again. Or do I misunderstand smth?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox interaction

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi

It seems that 'Template:Infobox NRHP' is having issues when nested with 'Template:Infobox motorsport venue'

In this article, Lime Rock Park, it seems to be producing an orphan parenthesis between the infobox and start of the first paragraph.

Any ideas?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A nested infobox will show up in the last field of the primary box. Because the last fields of the motorsport infobox are broken up with a parenthesis hard-coded after them, it was kicking the parenthesis out the infobox altogether. I nested the NRHP infobox in the "layout2" field instead; this gives a phantom header line before the NRHP box, but is better than an orphan parenthesis or another blank field. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 05:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

HABS upload

Latest comment: 11 years ago21 comments11 people in discussion

I stumbled upon the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record/Historic American collection several times. This is a huge (350.000+) collection of photographs and drawings of historic buildings in the US. The collection is in the public domain although it contains some exceptions (haven't been able to find one). I have all the files ready to upload, but I'm not going to do that yet.

At the moment I'm uploading the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed collection of about half a million images. Some of these images had an identifier, but most of these images didn't have one. For these images we made a system where we ask users if an image contains a Rijksmonument and what the identifier is. This appears to be quite successful (and addictive): We already have identifiers on 65.000 of the 172.000 images.

I could upload the HABS system and add a similar system so that the NRHP listings can be identified. Creating the whole system and doing the upload is quite a time investment and that's not something I'm going to do unless I know it's appreciated. So the question is quite simple: Do you like this little upload project idea and do you support it? The bar will be at a minimum of 10 positive responses. Multichill (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, please do. Just so you are aware, some HABS/HAER photos and other materials are already uploaded and in use here - not sure if this is something can easily be checked or not (to avoid duplication and make your and the bot's jobs easier). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
PS see for example File:Clemuel Ricketts House drawing 1.png (used in a FA) or File:Academia Bridge, Spanning Tuscarora Creek, bypassed section of Mill, Academia (Juniata County, Pennsylvania).jpg (which is just a lovely image) or File:Waterville Bridge in Swatara State Park HAER 462-14.jpg (for a color image, first two are black and white) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I know some of the files are already at Commons. I'm going to upload the highres archival tiff versions. I bet those are better quality than what we have right now. Might be good to have an extra bot pass to link these different versions in the other_versions field of the information template. Multichill (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure, a high percentage of HABS-documented sites are listed on the NRHP and the ones that aren't are usually notable anyway. As noted above, we have a fair number of HABS images already, but I'd guess that they amount to less than 1% of those available. It depends on one's tolerance for duplication, though I suspect you can deconflict by checking for matching sources in existing HABS image categories and weeding out the duplicates that way, which should be amenable to automation. Note that there are a lot of drawings there too, usually as TIFFs, which would need conversion and downsampling to PNGs. Many are lovely exercises in draftsmanship and deserve to be used. Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Commons is an image archive so multiple instances of the same instance aren't really a problem as long as it is well organized. I'm going for the high res archival tiff versions, we'll probably also make cropped versions of these in a different file format. Multichill (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 
Belle School, East Caln Township, Chester County, PA, unknown date, photographer, location
  • 100% support, but it could use a lot of explanation as far as the planning, what we'd be expected to do (classifying, etc.), how the tiff files are dealt with, about 10% of the data files, and even some of the "further documentation" files are very important, not just the photos and drawings, overlap with photos already downloaded (more than 5000 in Category:Historic American Buildings survey, 700 in Category:Jack Boucher - plus 1,000s of their photos not classified there. An example of a possibly non-PD pic is here - their photogs have taken pix of other pix - this likely goes back to the 1930s when copyrights and distribution was nothing like the issue it is now. These might be 0.1% of the total photos plus or minus! Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Exact duplicates are skipped by the bot (file checksum is the same). As for planning. I'm now at about 200.000 files of the 550.000 RCE files. That's about 18 days left. I might have a bit of overlap, but I don't think I'll go full speed before that's done. Every file will be placed in the county category. This might overflow some county categories so these need to be sorted out. All images will be tagged with a "Possible NRHP" template. You should start sorting these out. I plan to upload everything that's free. The tricky part is to skip the possible unfree files. I already found some keywords (like reproduction) which I can use to skip these files. Multichill (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Impressive collection and I'm had no trouble finding some excellent photographs and schematics of NRHP places like Little White Schoolhouse and many others. Royalbroil 05:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 100% Awesome I try to use HABS/HAER as often as I can; HAER in particular is a great resource for historically important industrial structures that I find really interesting but are seldom photographed. However, finding, file converting, and uploading these images to Commons is, quite frankly, something of a pain. It sounds like your proposal would result in HABS categories by county, which would make locating files much easier and eliminate the other two steps. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, the conversion was a PITA so I got the maximum render limit raised to 25 MP. That should be enough for 99,9% of these files. Yes, categorization by county, they already provide that in the source metadata. Multichill (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Awesomesauce The sauce would be awesome.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Yep, I'm all for this. If I could vote twice, I would. Two questions. What metadata is going into the files descriptions (author, source page, etc.). And the HABS images are updated regularly with new additions and corrections. Any thoughts on updates here? I recently found a picture of a bridge that was labeled as something completely different. When I contacted the LOC, they agreed and pulled the image until they could correctly place it. 25or6to4 (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. There will be drawbacks, such as the occasional image that needs human work or the image that's already uploaded here, but they're far outweighed by the benefits. Have you considered contacting LOC? If I remember rightly, they recently participated in a collaboration project with Commons, so they might be able to save you a good bit of work. Just one warning — some months ago, the HABS/HAER/HALS website was redesigned, and a lot of our links were broken, so if you tell your bot not to upload images whose sources are already linked on Commons, you may want to tell it to look for something other than the basic hyperlink. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    I haven't contacted the LOC. Not aware of them working together, I do know about NARA. I'll ask the Wikimedia DC folks. LOC has excellent persistent identifiers, these didn't change and won't change in the future. I'm doing the duplicate checking based on the checksum of the file. As for your question about the borders ( what do you plan to do about the black borders around most of the images, or do you plan to upload them with borders?). I'm going to upload the high resolution archival versions. These are not to be altered (cropped) in place. If someone wants to crop they're welcome, but they should upload the crop under a new filename.
    Thanks everyone for their positive feedback and good questions. Multichill (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Ah, so you're uploading the tiffs only? I thought perhaps you were doing those and JPGs. Meanwhile, note that they already have identifiers in place (perhaps you found this already; I'm sorry if I missed comments about it above); each image has a unique reproduction number, and each image or group of images has a different digital ID consisting of the state abbreviation and a number. For example, AK,7-HAIN.V,1--6 and AK,7-HAIN.V,1--9 and AK,7-HAIN.V,1--13 are all images within the ak0001 group (currently http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ak0001), which is a building on a highway in southeastern Alaska. You're probably right about me thinking of NARA, and finally, could you please have the bot produce a list of images that it didn't upload because of potential rights issues? We might as well go through those to upload them later after checking them. Nyttend (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    If you take a look at this image you'll see I have the field "loc_id" (hhh.al0406/photos.004869p) for the persistent link and "item_call_number"/"item_reproduction_number" (HABS ALA,49-MOBI,32--18) which I use for the credit. I guess you're talking about al0406 in this case. I could probably extract that into a separate field if that's useful. It could be used to add a temporary category? Not sure. This (json) might be useful. This should all somehow be connected to NRHP 72000168. Suggestions are welcome. Multichill (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A milestone of sorts

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

A county with quite possibly more NRHP listings than any other has been photographed nearly to the extent possible: all of the listings for still-existing structures in National Register of Historic Places listings in Middlesex County, Massachusetts (1,316 entries in 17 lists) have been imaged, a significantly large number with photographs taken by Wikipedians. There are 13 listings where the listed structure no longer exists (where in some cases no suitable free-use photo has been located) and at least two listings were photographed by Wikipedians prior to their destruction. There is also one unphotographed "address restricted" archaeological site. I'll surely omit several editors who deserve mention for this, but I know Faolin42, Daderot and Twp contributed boatloads of images to the effort (in addition to yours truly). Other counties in eastern Massachusetts (especially Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, and Worcester, which total more than 1,700 listings) have small or shrinking numbers of unimaged listings due to the combined efforts of these and other road warriors. Magic♪piano 23:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

wow! Congratulations to all of you on a great job! dm (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely fantastic! Congratulations! It's doubly impressive when you consider that with few exceptions there is an article for each site. Middlesex is indeed the largest county list.
Multichill's multi-use compilation for the US click here, gives 1,309 sites in the county, which is more than double Worcester County, Mass's 628 sites. Only 5 other counties have more than 500 sites. To use this very useful table click on the sort button for "Total number" twice to get the list by number of sites. This table is part of Multichill's multi-national list click here. To use that table for an overview of the US, click on the sort button for "country" twice to get the US near the top row. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations ... knowing how good it feels to get any list to fully-illustrated status, doing this with the largest list we have must have been sublime. Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WLM 2012 submission makes FP on Commons

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
This WLM USA 2012 picture of Point Vicente Light is now a Commons featured picture! Yay!

In the wake of serving on the WLM USA 2012 jury, I have been nominating some of the pictures I liked for quality-image status if I found no close-up technical flaws that might disqualify it, and then for featured picture there if it really seemed good.

Only two, both of lighthouses interestingly enough, have I seen fit so far to take that step with. Cleveland West Pierhead Light didn't get enough support, but ... this one of Point Vicente Light, which I feel is what you'd imagine a lighthouse in Southern California looking like, did.

I see that someone has gone ahead and taken the next step ... nominating it for FP here. So, if you feel qualified to do so, take a look and vote (although remembering that our FPC section is easily, I think, the most brutal photogrpahy critique available anywhere online. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice Commons:Category:Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 and commons:Category:Quality images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2012? I'm quite happy with that :-) Multichill (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Women's History Month is in March

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
 

Hi everyone at WikiProject NHRP!

Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.

This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:

  • Sites and places that are NHRP and related that have to do with women's history

We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia and stop by my talk page with any questions! SarahStierch (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's Julia Morgan, who designed several buildings that are on the NRHP Einbierbitte (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I was also reading about Elizabeth Close, an architect in Minneapolis who, with her husband William Close, designed a number of houses for University of Minnesota faculty members. They also built an interesting-looking cabin along the St. Croix River that got some coverage in the local newspapers of the time. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
If interesting, there's Pewabic Pottery, an NHL founded by Mary Chase Perry Stratton - it's a decent article, but could be substantially expanded. Or the Women's City Club (designed, coincidentally, by Mary Chase Perry Stratton's husband William). Or the League of Catholic Women Building.
There's a List of women's club buildings that we could certainly fill in - photos, red-links, and other places that should be in the list (e.g. New Century Guild, New Century Clubhouse, Saturday Club - probably some sites related to the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and there's a List of YWCA buildings. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And there's an NPS list from last year at National Register of Historic Places Program: Women's History Month 2012 Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest an expansion and rearranging of the Carol M. Highsmith article. 25or6to4 (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

NRHP header question

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Our current {{NRHP header}} uses "Landmark name" as the title of the main column, following the pattern that we used in the pre-template tables for a long time. As you can see at Liste der Einträge in das National Register of Historic Places im Randolph County (Illinois), the German tables use "Name im Register". What if we changed the name of our column title this way? Something like "Name on the Register" would clarify that we're going by the NR's name instead of something we dreamed up (it would be particularly helpful with convoluted names, such as "First Concrete Street in U.S." in Logan County, Ohio), as well as implying that names shouldn't be changed to the name of an article about the place when WP:COMMONNAME is different from what the NR uses. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for an overhaul/simplification of the historic designation colors

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please see Template talk:Designation#A color scheme that scales. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If I'm interpreting it correctly, the current proposal to change the {{Designation}}) template would affect all of our project lists by cutting the use of colors down to four: One color for global lists, one color for all national/regional lists (which would potentially change all of the various NRHP designation colors in the {{Infobox nrhp}} template to one color), one for state/provincial lists, and one for local/city lists. Altairisfar (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories for landmarks

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A new user, User:Ashamedant, has created a bunch of new categories for landmarks in US cities and has added the new categories to hundreds of articles. Examples of the new categories: Category:Albuquerque Landmark, Category:Riverside Landmark, Category:Santa Monica Landmark, and Category:San Diego Landmark. In the case of San Diego there was already an existing category, Category:Landmarks in San Diego, California; Ashamedant has been removing that category from articles and replacing it with Category:San Diego Landmark.

My question: It seems to me that most landmark categories are titled the way the San Diego one was, as "Category:Landmarks in City, State". Existing categories include Category:Landmarks in Chicago, Illinois; Category:Landmarks in San Francisco, California; Category:Landmarks in Seattle, Washington; Category:Landmarks in Omaha, Nebraska; etc. Is the format "Cityname Landmark" equally acceptable, or is the existing format preferred? (For that matter, if the proposed new format "Cityname Landmarks" is to be used, it needs to be plural.)

I have asked Ashamedant not to do any more with these categories until the name can be discussed and community consensus reached. I have posted a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#City landmarks. Please make any comments there. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

How to address geocoding when a facility moves from historic location

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Los Alamos National Laboratory has a National Historic Landmark District located in the town of Los Alamos. The wiki page for LANL has the infobox and geocode for this NHL. The issue is: the lab moved south and west of the town in the 1940s, well before it was created a NHL. So: should the wiki page for the lab use the historic coordinates to match the NHL, or the current coordinates? I had changed it to current coordinates but have no idea whether there's a protocol about this buried somewhere. See Talk:Los Alamos National Laboratory too. --Officiallyover (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've posted on the talk page there and suggest we keep the conversation in one place (there). My basic advice is to split the article in two, one for the current entity and one for the historic site. It strikes me as being analogous to a notable church congregation that moves out of its historical church building, but without the problem of having two resulting stubs. I seem to remember a few of these church problems, with the usual resulting advice being to split. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Covered bridges are moved with some regularity - I am not sure a split into two articles would work since there is one physical structure which has been in two (or more) locations. Just in Columbia County, Pennsylvania three (or four) bridges have been moved - see Wagner Covered Bridge No. 19 and Fowlersville Covered Bridge for another way of dealing with this issue - suggestions for other ways of dealing with it are welcome. By the way Lawrence L. Knoebel Covered Bridge was also moved, but has been in its current position since the 1930s. Also Rohrbach Covered Bridge No. 24 was disassembled and put in storage, which is a different kind of move. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
For lighthouses which have been moved we have generally put in two geocodes, one for the original site and one for the current location. But I think what we're talking about in the Los Alamos case is a split between the lab article and the NHRP site article. Mangoe (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Categorization of churches

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 4#Congregational churches categories. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Listing inaccuracies

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I've trolling around the MD/DE lists looking for things to write about/photograph and came across a couple of discrepancies that have foiled my rather weak NHRP skills. First, all evidence I can find suggests that either the MHT info on the James Hamilton House is wildly inaccurate, or the building has been torn down. There's nothing at the given address which could possibly be it. Is there a ready way of determining whether it has been delisted?

Second, in Delaware there is supposedly a listing for McColley's Chapel, which is a Methodist church down at the south end of the state. It is definitely there, and I can find lots of notices that it was being listed (e.g. [5]). NRIS, however, stubbornly refuses to acknowledge it, so matter how I search. Is there some other way to try to find the listing forms and such? I could write a stub article except that I'm not absolutely sure it is (still) listed. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the Hamilton issue (coords were off a bit), still could use help on the other. Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
So are you set on the Hamilton House? Was it just a co-ordinate issue? It looks like the road runs "behind" the house, so the view from the road is of the rear facade rather than the front facade. For McColley's Chapel, seeing the fairly recent listing date I suspect it's an update issue, and the NRIS hasn't yet been updated. FWIW, the weekly listing notice (that you linked to) is enough to establish that the property has certainly been listed. Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, part of the issue is that Google gives a different location depending on whether you say "Bowie" (NRHP/MHT) or "Mitchellville" (NCPPC). We're all set on that one. As for the other, any suggestions on where I might find more info besides the raw fact of listing? The church does not have its own website, and AFAIK there's no comprehensive DE site as there is for Maryland. Mangoe (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
For recent listings, I'll usually Google the name of the site plus NRHP (i.e., McColley's Chapel NRHP in this case); there will often be a local news report or press release that gives basic details. In this case, though, I got lucky: Here's a pdf of an evaluation of the chapel for NRHP eligibility, which includes probably everything that's in the actual nom form. It comes from a Delaware state site, so there might be more info on other properties hidden there. Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! I don't know why it didn't show up for me (probably masked by the road name) but I'll keep that source in mind. Thanks muchly. Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mangoe --- note that the James Hamilton House is set back well from the road. I've been by there and cannot get a good picture from the street. That's why there isn't one with the article.--Pubdog (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Best to go there before spring comes, so you can get something when the trees don't have leaves. Pubdog, see File:Elm Spring Farm fields.jpg, File:Kintner-Withers House from the road.jpg, or File:Joseph Finney House from a distance.jpg; if you think the Hamilton House is far from the road, you should try getting photos in rural Indiana :-) As far as the chapel, I think NRIS is only updated once or twice per year. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Jewel Bain House

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Recent listings for 8 February contained an additional-documentation-accepted note for the Jewel Bain House Number 2, refnum 12001228, in Pine Bluff, Arkansas (nomination). However, it's not included on National Register of Historic Places listings in Jefferson County, Arkansas, and I can't find it in any of the recent listings for last year. Any clue what's going on? I'm inclined to think that they listed it but forgot to put it on a recent listings page, so I think it best to put it on the list, but I'd prefer getting input to doing it unilaterally. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The nomination form was submitted in October 2012, so it can't be that old, and the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program claims it was entered in the National Register on January 29. My guess is it was listed on January 29 and the NPS just put down the wrong action. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 09:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
You might try emailing Edson Beall (Edson_Beall@nps.gov). I've had some success in the past getting responses from him to emails, although he hasn't always responded. --sanfranman59 (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

NS Savannah

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Is it normal that is is listed as a NRHP property on the list of York County, Virginia and also as a national historic landmark in Maryland?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ships move around. This one has moved around a lot. VA, in and out of Baltimore, SC, and back to Baltimore. The Baltimore listing is under "Former." What do you suggest? Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I seem to recall that there was a Weekly Listing update about the Savannah when she was moved to the James River Reserve Fleet. Einbierbitte (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I see. Should we then remove the Maryland category from the article and keep the Virginia category?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed this: the Savannah has been in Baltimore since 2008, and is expected to stay there indefinitely - I was aboard for tours twice in 2012 and had a lengthy discussion with the Maritime Administration official in charge of the ship (his office is aboard). We ought to lose the York County listing and go with Baltimore City. Acroterion (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This is easy to do, but where is it actually listed?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It ought to go into National Register of Historic Places listings in South and Southeast Baltimore, which covers things and places around Baltimore Harbor. Acroterion (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Let us wait if there are no objections, if not I am going to move it to the "former" listings for York County, VA (with an explaining footnote) and to the South and Southeast Baltimore list.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Done.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliability question

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here in Indiana, the Department of Natural Resources' SHAARD system provides nominations and other information for almost all sites, as well as documentation on things such as historic bridges, cemeteries, and theaters. They also make available nomination forms for sites that have never made it to the Register, such as this one for the Edgewood School in Anderson. Most of these sites aren't in NRIS at all, so it appears that many of the nominations were never sent to Washington. With this in mind, what do you think about these forms' reliability? Should we assume them to be reliable unless proven otherwise, or unreliable unless proven otherwise, or always unreliable? Some are definitely unreliable, such as one that I've found that was a high-school project and reads like one. Others are produced by professionals; the Edgewood School is an example, as it's the work of an architectural professional, and several of the archaeological nominations were written by academic archaeologists, including at least one by Edward E. Smith, an Indiana University professor who wrote or co-wrote ten nominations that appear at List of archaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Indiana. Nyttend (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think they'll have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, with preference given to those written by preservation professionals. They're not too hard to spot and sort. It's not too different from a lot of the early (and often very important) NRHP properties that were nominated and documented before there were preservation professionals, often written by Mrs. Timothy van Snootington of the local garden club or the DAR, unreferenced, and riddled with problems. They're interesting in their way, but should not be put ahead of professionally-written sources. A useful report will have its own lists of sources and references, and should be recognizable as a carefully-written report rather than a regurgitation into a document template. Acroterion (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

NRHP Parameters for People

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

For some reason there are NRHP-related categories and a navbox for George A. Crawley. I know he was the original designer of Old Westbury Gardens, but none of those cats are appropriate. Would anybody be willing to fix this? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

After editing by several of us, the issue seems to be resolved. --Orlady (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Good, because there's another one; Frank J. Nies. I wonder how many more people are incorrectly categorized this way. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I got rid of the offending category for Nies. The category intersection tool might help root out any others. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln Highway, Douglas County, Nebraska

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

On National Register of Historic Places listings in Douglas County, Nebraska, we have two separate listings for the Lincoln Highway. According to the nom form for the later one, it includes the earlier one. Should these be combined? At the Focus site, they've got separate refnums: Item No. 87002098 for the earlier one, titled "Lincoln Highway"; Item No. 03000104 for the later one, titled "Lincoln Highway--Omaha to Elkhorn". The later one's nom form is available through the Nebraska State Historical Society's "Nebraska National Register Sites in Douglas County" page; on the fifth page of the document, labelled "Section 7 Page 1", it states "This nomination encompasses a .87-mile section of the Lincoln Highway between North 180th and North 191st Streets that was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) in 1987."

Should we keep these as separate items in the county list article, or should we combine them? This feels like a boundary expansion to me, although it's not expressly stated that way. Ammodramus (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think they could probably have separate listings in the county list, but they could be combined into one article. There are actually four sections in Nebraska listed on the National Register: Omaha to Elkhorn (refnum 03000104), Gardiner Station (Butler Township, refnum 07000655), Duncan West (refnum 07000656), and the previously listed section in Elkhorn, refnum 87002098. The first three are listed in the "Lincoln Highway in Nebraska Multiple Property Submission", while the earlier-listed section in Elkhorn isn't. I don't think it makes much sense to have four separate articles.
By the way, there are several sections on the National Register in Greene County Iowa, as well as two highway markers. Here's the Multiple Property Submission for that section. And, there's a bridge in Tama, Iowa and a bridge in Dugway Proving Ground, Utah on the National Register. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be logical to cover all of these segments in the article Lincoln Highway? The bridges that Elkman found would merit separate articles, and there may be local significance to some of the individual sections of the road that are NR-listed, but the listed sites ought to be included in the article about the historic highway. --Orlady (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
That solution makes more sense to me. Mangoe (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Something similar was done with the Old Spanish Trail. Take a look at it for some ideas. Einbierbitte (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't look to me like a boundary increase; much better to give them separate entries on the list but a single article for both. For what it's worth, we have a bunch of National Road-related listings; National Road (Cambridge, Ohio) is the only chunk of the road itself, but there are many bridges, mile markers, inns, and the National Road Corridor Historic District as well. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Numbers represent an alphabetical ordering by significant words. Various colorings, defined here, differentiate National Historic Landmarks and historic districts from other NRHP buildings, structures, sites or objects.
  2. ^ The eight-digit number below each date is the number assigned to each location in the National Register Information System database, which can be viewed by clicking the number.
  3. ^ Weekly Register Lists, 1985, p.47
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference nris was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "Main Street Walk, Ferndale, California". Ferndale Museum. 2011. Retrieved 12 December 2011. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_54&oldid=1091020647"