Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Railway Exchange Building and Huber's Restaurant

Requesting project member feedback at Talk:Railway Exchange Building and Huber's Restaurant whether Railway Exchange Building and Huber's Restaurant should be split into Huber's and Railway Exchange Building or not. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion and article improvements welcome, but just as an update, I've gone and split the article into Huber's and Railway Exchange Building (Portland, Oregon). Help especially needed to make both pages NRHP-compliant. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Member of this project may be interested in this discussion, and this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to hear an independent editor with photography experience chime in in this discussion. Filetime (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Another of my images has been challenged by Filetime, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sag Harbor Village District issues

The article for the Sag Harbor Village District was tagged for it's large gallery. I think we can solve that by reorganizing them in a chart for each individual site within the district. Plus, I have a sandbox for a contributing property known as the Sag Harbor Custom House, which was added to the district's gallery, convincing me that it's a contributing property to the district. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons exists for a reason. You can move this gallery there and link to it with {{Commons}}. For this article, only contributing sites should be illustrated, not individual graves, inscriptions, or historical markers. See these for a list of sites: 1, 2. ɱ (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't intend to maintain the arrangement it has now, and I'd gladly create new commons categories for individual sites within the district where needed. I've been thinking of charts similar to what you might see on MPS articles, or something of that nature. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Old Pioneer Fort Site, Salt Lake City

I've gone ahead and redirected Old Pioneer Fort Site to Pioneer Park (Salt Lake City), but not sure if Old Pioneer Fort Site should actually be an entry for the fort and the latter specific to the present day park? I guess something to be sorted out over time, but asking here in case an editor's curiosity is piqued. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Clocks on the National Register of Historic Places?

Would Category:Clocks on the National Register of Historic Places be helpful? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A discussion of interest

Members of the WikiProject may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Saint John's Methodist Episcopal Church (Kingman, Arizona)

• Saint John's Methodist Episcopal Church (Kingman, Arizona) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm hoping someone with NRHP knowledge can check edits made in May 2021. It looks like a new church has formed? And staff want to use this article? However, presumably the article is about the original NRHP-listed church? Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I just reverted it all. MB 04:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Griffin High School (Georgia)

Griffin High School (Georgia) needs one of the combination info boxes for NRHP and a high school. I don't know how to do it. Can someone do it or tell me how to do it? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, maybe it shouldn't have NRHP - its Sam Bailey Building is on the NRHP. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

FAR for History of Baltimore City College

I have nominated History of Baltimore City College for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

H.D. Abrams House

The H.D. Abrams House is listed at 403 N. Church Street, Aztec, NM in the article. The coordinates for the house in the article to a parking lot behind a Pizza Hut. Google Maps shows 403 N Church Avenue at the corner with Safford, and the house at 36.825 N, 107.9928 W looks like it could be on the NRHP. But I couldn't see what the house looks like on the NRHP form. Can someone check to see if this is the right house? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Never mind - the link to the Aztec Walking Tour shows the house. I'm correcting the coordinates. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Former national landmarks

Mesa Verde National Park, Dry Tortugas National Park, and Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve have been categorized as Category:Former National Historic Landmarks of the United States. Is that true? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems unlikely. The category was added without comment or supporting documentation. Magic♪piano 00:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I saw you reverted the one at Timucuan. It is hard to believe that Mesa and Dry Tortigas would lose that status. The editor may have done more. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

My wife says that they got upgraded to something else. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The Mesa Verde Administrative District has been a National Historic Landmark District for some time, while the park itself is on the NRHP. I wonder if someone had mistakenly added the landmark category to the park not realizing the difference between the administrative district and the park, and then someone else realized the park was not a national landmark and thought the landmark status had been removed, even though the park had not actually had it in the first place. Indyguy (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Flatiron Building RfC

This RfC may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Mackinac Island

I have nominated Mackinac Island for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 05:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC of interest

This RfC may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

How best to handle minor items from MPS block nominations that have minimal extra coverage

When I was working on National Register of Historic Places listings in Linn County, Kansas earlier this year, I noticed that Landers Creek Bridge (added to the NRHP has part of a MPS) has basically no individual coverage. While I truly believe that the vast majority of NRHP listings are individually notable, for some of the minor MPS items I don't know if there's enough that can be sourced to really warrant a stub. For instance, the tiny bit in the table is about all I could produce for the Landers Creek bridge. What's going to be the best way to handle this? 1.) Keep the individual very short stubs, 2.) merge to the applicable county lists, or to 3.) create a list article for the MPS submission and then merge the rare handful of MPS ones that have only the slightest possible coverage. Through my occassional work with expanding NRHP stubs, I've come to firmly believe that 95% of these article have significant coverage somewhere and that the 5% are mainly the least significant items from MPS additions. My inclination is that for that small minority, option 3.) may be the best, as it can give additional context for the MPS and the background behind it. Hog Farm _Talk 14:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd make a list article "Historic X of[alternatively in] Y" (where X is the resource type e.g. "bridges" and Y is the geographic coverage area). It doesn't necessarily have to be limited to the entries in the MPS that way. Magic♪piano 15:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are cases where there is not enough information about listed places to develop an article. I agree some variation of option 3 is best. May not always be a list article. Missouri Lumber and Mining Company is an example where there are many places mentioned that really should have been grouped into a district but for some reason have individual numbers. MB

Hey i think it is quite a nice little article, with photo added relatively recently, if i do say so myself. Maybe having the article helped get the photo, who knows. But, theoretically, yes, some minor NRHP-listed places could/should be redirected to a list-article. But usually it does not make sense IMO to create an article about an MPS, which is a study, and an article about a study should discuss the authors, why it was done, what is important about this study, etc., like a Wikipedia article about a non-fiction book. Sometimes the topic of a study can be a Wikipedia article though. In this case, there is List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Kansas, but redirecting to its row there would be less than satisfactory in my view, as the article size is perhaps larger than what could appear in a description there. And the list-article is almost all redlinks. Perhaps an editor could develop about all/most of them in rows there. Another option would be to develop an article about Goodrich, Kansas (currently a redlink) and make a section for it there. At the redirect left behind, bridge-type categories should be left. I see its NRHP document cites a "Survey of Historic Bridges—Kansas Dept. of Transportation"; i wonder if an article about KDOT would make sense, but even if this bridge was a KDOT project it would be too minor to mention. Overall I don't think it is too important to try to reduce the number of NRHP articles; I'd rather see positive development say about historic bridges in Kansas and allow editor(s) working on that to make their own decisions how to group the info. My 2 cents. --Doncram (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

St. Anthony Falls Historic District

The St. Anthony Falls Historic District (Minneapolis, MN) has been included on the NRHP
Coddington, Donn; Hess, Jeffrey. "Nomination of the St. Anthony Falls Historic District to be on the National Register of Historic Places". (1971, 1991). US-DOI-NPS. Retrieved July 1, 2021. is the nomination document

---

Saint Anthony Falls is a contributing resource to the historic district
The article has a NRHP identification box including:
"Name: St. Anthony Falls Historic District"
> The St. Anthony Falls is only a contributing resource to the Historic District
"Built Apron built 1848"
> The apron is not, the subject of this article; the period of significance starts 1858
"Architect Apron by Ard Godfrey, et al."
> The apron is not, the subject of this article
"NRHP reference No. 71000438[1]"
> standard NRHP page
Recommendations
1. Change NRHP box name to "Saint Anthony Falls"
2 eliminate "Built Apron built 1848"
3 eliminate "Architect Apron by Ard Godfrey, et al."
4, "NRHP reference No" should be more like "part of..."???

---

List of contributing properties in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District
This article is an organized list of all contributing resources (and only contributing resources) to the St. Anthony Falls Historic District.
Recommendations:
5. Add NRHP identification box "St. Anthony Falls Historic District" - Same as box above with deletions?
6. This article has been attacked by mindless Wikipedia bots claiming it needs "additional citations"and "contains original research" - both are false, as explained in talk. Could someone eliminate this box.
Alternate, I could create a new initial section on "Mindless Wikipedia Bots".

---

wikipedia search for "Saint Anthony Falls Historic District" - redirects to
Saint Anthony Falls

wikipedia search for "St. Anthony Falls Historic District" - also redirects to
Saint Anthony Falls

Recommendation:
7. change both redirects to List of contributing properties in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District
BudKey (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Old Town Chinatown

Old Town Chinatown (Portland, Oregon) describes two NRHP-listed districts within its boundaries. I'm curious if any project members see value in attempting to separate out information about the individual districts. I think, ideally, we'd have standalone articles for the districts with lists of the contributing structures. (?)

I'd like to help assess, but I'm struggling to find the NRHP listings for both of the districts. Anyone more familiar with NRHP databases/websites able to share helpful links to the nomination forms? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: I think I found one, which can be accessed here or via the 'heritagedata' link here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q51816423 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey again - so NARA is the best resource to use.

• Oregon SP Portland New Chinatown--Japantown Historic District
• Oregon SP Portland Skidmore/Old Town Historic District
• Oregon NHL Skidmore/Old Town Historic District (NHL doc)
• There's also Oregon MPS Old Town Historic District, which is not really a district as much as a Multiple Property Submission; you could feature these sites collectively or individually.

--ɱ (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Ɱ, Thank you, I'll take a closer look. Meanwhile, I've started a related discussion on the article's talk page. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've created entries for Portland New Chinatown/Japantown Historic District and Portland Skidmore/Old Town Historic District, if project members see ways to improve further. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Architectural style

There's a discussion at Talk:Southgate–Lewis House that has to do with, among other things, how reliable the NRHP listings are about architectural style. If anyone has knowledge or experience or opinions about this, please chime in. Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

A discussion of interest to the members of this group can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Marble House RfC

This RfC may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Historic Ely Elevator

This is a new article on a CP of the Dows Street Historic District (listed 2003). The article says it has been individually listed since Jan 2020 and has a ref, without a link, to a nom form. I can't verify it is listed. Maybe it has been nominated but not yet approved? MB 04:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

If the document was published in 2019, it cannot be evidence that a nomination was approved in 2020. There is no evidence this property (or any in Linn County) was listed in January or February 2020 in the NPS weekly actions. Magic♪piano 18:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Missing item - Slade Spice Mill

Slade Spice Mill in Revere, Massachusetts appears to be on the NRHP since 1972 - see National Archives and MACRIS. However, it doesn't appear on National Register of Historic Places listings in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, and (unlike almost all other NRHP listings in Massachusetts) does not have an article. Am I missing something, or did this somehow fall through the cracks in our lists? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on its reference number starting with 09, I'm guessing it's another example of this problem, where several sites that were listed well before 2009 were never given reference numbers at the time and were left out of some versions of NRIS data until someone noticed the issue in 2009. Like those sites, it actually is listed, and should be included in our lists. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure looks that way, although the refnum is out of the range identified there. Magic♪piano 20:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Strange designation

How often are individual entries actually multiple buildings? It seems that University, Hayes and Orton Halls is classified as an SP vs. an HD. I am writing Draft:University Hall (Ohio State University), to cover the modern and historical building. Apparently the historical building's demolition made it scratched from the NRHP listing. How do I reflect all of this in the infobox? I might not be able to, and will just use {{Infobox building}}? ɱ (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I've come across quite a few individual listings for things like (courthouse AND jail) or (church AND rectory) or (farmhouse AND barn) or other sets of related buildings. Jonathunder (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a database?

Is there a database of NRHP sites, giving their location - but most importantly - if they have a good photo on Wikipedia? Sometimes I wind up in unexpected areas and would like to have something to carry on my laptop and be able to use it on the road when not connected to the internet.

I've considered downloading the page for each county in the state. Is there an easy way to do that? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Once upon a time, User:Faolin42 produced an app/website IIRC called "Unvisited" that would (among other things) search WP pages of NRHP sites for unimaged sites, and produce potential driving itineraries for a set of them. I don't know the status of this, or how well it might meet your needs. I believe it produced KML files, which can be used in offline mapping apps.

What I've done for long trips (1-3 months, more or less cross-country) is to just take detailed notes in advance on areas I plan to explore, and adjacent ones. Magic♪piano 13:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I did have an app called Unvisited. But it's not working now because the wikipedia API changed slightly. I need to get my act together and update it and publish the working version. It searches any wikipedia page with coordinates, but no image. Not limited to NRHP sites. Faolin42 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate something like that. Most of my trips are short, as short as spending only one night somewhere. We often avoid Atlanta congestion. For instance, 8 days ago, she decided to go east on I-20 from the Atlanta I-185 bypass. I knew that there were things out that way that needed photos, but I didn't have the listings with me. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Blackstone Canal

This site apparently is 71000030 (Rhode Island part - 1971), 73000328 (Massachusetts part - 1971), and 91001536, 95001004 (1991 expansion) per National Register of Historic Places listings in Providence County, Rhode Island.

The Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park was created in 1994. It includes the canal and a half-dozen other HDs. An editor just changed the infobox from protected_area to NRHP. {{Infobox NRHP}} requires a refnum - I haven't yet found if a new refnum was issued in 1994 or does this just fall under the canal, or something else? Is anyone familiar with this? MB 19:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Also Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park now has a NRHP infobox. Both are missing refnums and therefore are listed in Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup. I've found refnums for all the other National Historical Parks but can't figure out what do do with these two. MB 23:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm unaware that any NHP in general needs to have a refnum, or a listing encompassing its boundaries. The boundaries of the Blackstone Canal NHP are unlikely to coincide with all of the resources included in the various NRHP listings for the canal. IMHO it is an error to include {{infobox NRHP}} in NHPs where this is not the case. Magic♪piano 13:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

GAR notice

Tower Building of the Little Rock Arsenal has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 01:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Independence Hall, Philadelphia; HABS images

Attention historians with Wikimedia Commons accounts; I have just created a new category for images of Independence Hall in Philadelphia that are from the Historic American Buildings Survey. I'm inviting all users and editors to move the appropriate images to that category. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Historic district contributing properties

I was looking at Category:Historic district contributing properties in Virginia and noticed that the hatnote ("For convenience, all NRHP historic district contributing properties in Virginia should be included in this category. This includes all the contributing properties that can also be found in the subcategories.") had been removed, so I began cleaning out the subcat. Further review indicated that the hatnote had not been removed from other categories, so I backed up and undid my edits. That being said, it got me to thinking...

Do we really need the hatnote for any of the by-state categories at this point? Honestly, I've never seen the point in keeping all contributing properties in one category, and I can honestly see some value in separating out those which are part of a historic district and those which are additionally identified by their listing on the Register. So I thought I'd throw out the question to chew over. If there's consensus to remove I can go ahead and start doing so at some point down the road. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It has never made sense to me that articles in Category:Individually listed contributing properties to historic districts on the National Register in Virginia, and the like, should also be included in the general category as well. For one, there is no reason to over categorize. Secondly the NRHP itself treats these properties differently as the individually listed properties have their own reference number and listing. They are also not included in the HDs resource count if they are already on the NRHP. Those that are not individually listed are on the National Register by virtue of their inclusion in a historic district. Some of them are not considered individually significant for NRHP purposes, but may be significant for other reasons and therefore are justified in having in their own page. Farragutful (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm wary of moving on this one way or the other in the absence of any other comment, so I'd like to revisit it. If there's no further comment, I will go ahead and start cleaning out the categories one week from today...so next Monday, October 11. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, there's been no movement. I'm going to begin this cleanup in the next day or so. Others are welcome to join in, of course. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: I believe I am now done, except for the insular areas. I'll have a look at those in a little while and see what's up. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

SS Lancing

SS Lancing is showing an error in {{Infobox NRHP}}: "Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 422: No value was provided for longitude." The NHRP reference has two links neither of which does anything useful. I'm hoping someone who understands the NHRP system can either find a working link (and fix the coordinate problem), or perhaps remove the infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• The root cause appears to be that Infrastruktur (talk · contribs) imported a coordinate location from the Norwegian Wikipedia into Wikidata. There was already a null value, based on the assertion in the NRHP form that the wreck location is restricted. Assuming this wasn't causing an error before today, I guess {{Infobox NRHP}} (or, rather, some helper template) doesn't know what to make of multiple values. Mackensen (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The easy fix was to remove the map_type, since the coords are supposed to be restricted there should be no map displayed. MB 04:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! The two NRHP links don't work for me but not everything can be fixed now. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Chaco Culture National Historical Park Featured article review

I have nominated Chaco Culture National Historical Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Madison biggest NHL?

“In 2006, the majority of Madison's downtown area was designated the largest contiguous National Historic Landmark in the United States—133 blocks of the downtown area is known as the Madison Historic Landmark District” [pipelinked to Madison Historic District (Madison, Indiana) ] ...can this be true? I thought there were some huge ones in Alaska and in Montana. That’s from Madison, Indiana article, which i looked while watching Madison (film) movie from 2005 on Amazon Prime. —Doncram (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like peacock language. There are probably any number of NHLs that are larger than the Madison Historic District, which the nomination says is about 2,000 acres (Alaska's Cape Krusenstern is >600,000 acres). Even claim of the largest number of resources (more than 2000) is probably suspect as well -- I wouldn't be surprised if there are other urban districts with comparable resource counts, and large archaeological districts may also have more. Magic♪piano 20:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Could be highly couching the phrasing - it could well mean that it's the largest out of all of the NHLs where the entire area is contiguous, but even if true, it seems so couched with qualifying things that I don't know that it's worthy of mentioning in the article. Hog Farm _Talk 20:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if you disallow archaeological districts with otherwise non-contiguous features (as opposed to districts composed of discontiguous sections), the Lincoln Historic District (Lincoln, New Mexico) is 2348 contiguous acres, more than Madison's ~2150. Valley Forge is also larger; it is basically contiguous, although the map in the nom is drawn to exclude the Schuylkill River, a feature separating a sliver of land from the bulk of the site. Magic♪piano 21:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The claim is definitely meaningless puffery, then. Hog Farm _Talk 21:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, this clarifies that it is not the largest in geographic area. Could it be largest in population or number of buildings or similar? I was also thinking of Savannah Historic District (Savannah, Georgia), a huge city area. Actually it is apparently approx. 1,300 acres (5.3 km²), but maybe has more structures/buildings/population. --Doncram (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Lincoln Historic District article linked above states it has 48 structures. Valley Forge National Historical Park (1966-listed), per NRIS2013a version, has 2,515 acres (10.18 km²) with 25 contributing buildings and 4 contributing structures (and 2 contributing sites). Madison Historic District of Indiana (1973-listed) has 2,160 acres (8.7 km²) with 1666 contributing buildings, 12 contributing structures, and 14 contributing sites. Savannah Historic District (1966-listed) on 1300 acres had approx 1100 contributing buildings per NRIS2013a, and later 60 acres with 20 buildings or structures was added. So, hmm, it seems maybe not inaccurate to say Madison HD was in fact a huge district, a big deal, perhaps the biggest deal in NHLs and even in NRHPs up to 1973 at least. It would be nice to have reports/tables of NHLs and of NRHPs sortable by areas and by numbers of buildings/structures. --Doncram (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Dyas Hexagonal Barn

It was noticed off-wiki that this building is actually octagonal. Is it possible to persuade the registry to correct the listing and name? Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to imply that I was being a jackass when my edit was just a bit of copy editing (tweaked the coordinates and a couple of citations)?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Tennessee NRHP template

Why is there no statewide NRHP template for Tennessee? I was just checking out the Bristol Virginia-Tennessee Slogan Sign, and saw one for the Commonwealth of Virginia, but not the Volunteer State. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Santuario de la Monserrate de Hormigueros and Casa de Peregrinos

NRHPPR Hormigueros has a church and an article.
An editor named Luciferman with this edit, moved the article without discussion.
Editor was blocked a month later.
This is the form that shows the name of the church as "Santuario de la Monserrate de Hormigueros and Casa de Peregrinos".
Can / should this be moved back to the name as it is seen on the NRHP form?
Cheers and Happy New Year. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

References

I don't think so. It looks like the status was upgraded in 1999 to a Basilica, so the name changed (24 years after the listing). It seems reasonable that the article is at the new/current name. The name/title on the infobox is the name when listed. The prose discusses it all. So I think it works as is. MB 01:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this place listed?

New article Shore Apartments has an uncited claim that it was added to the NRHP as NHL in 2014. I have confirmed that it is a contributing property of the Normandy Isles Historic District which was listed in 2008. But I can't find anything further about a 2014 listing. Everything else about the article looks legit, so I don't know the basis of this. MB 22:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I added a {{citation needed}} tag to this dubious claim. Magicpiano went ahead and removed it (the dubious claim) from the article. The editor that created the article hasn't edited in three weeks. I'll keep an eye on the article in case they or someone else puts it back in. MB 05:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing from county listing?

The data for this house File:Jackson headquarters.png says that it is NRHP 67000027. But it isn't listed at National Register of Historic Places listings in Frederick County, Virginia. Why isn't it there? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Because it's in National Register of Historic Places listings in Winchester, Virginia. Magic♪piano 22:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice that the city had its own listing (usually only much larger cities have their own listing). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bubba73: Winchester's an independent city - it's not part of the county. See Independent city (United States). One of my favorite quirks of living in this beloved ol' Commonwealth of ours. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd never heard of that before. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The really strange thing about Virginia is that the independent cities are sometimes county seats (as Winchester is for Frederick County), despite not being part of them. I don't know any other state that does this. Magic♪piano 16:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Navbox creation and replacement at state/county levels

Hey all, I've returned after a long WikiBreak, and have taken to creating navboxes at the state and county levels for those divisions lacking them (as well as for insular areas and associated states). I sifted through years of discussions regarding NRHP navboxes here and on NRHP template talkspaces. The general consensus has always seemed to be that state-specific navboxes (such as Template:National Register of Historic Places in Michigan) should be created and used on state NRHP pages and NRHP county lists; and that Template:National Register of Historic Places should be phased out of county-level lists and individual listing articles in favor of county-specific navboxes (such as Template:National Register of Historic Places listings in Keweenaw County, Michigan). This is also supported at the project MOS. This is something that has slowly been implemented in each state independently over the years, but I'm taking the initiative to start implementing it on a wide scale as this process has been very slow to roll out.

Some examples of navboxes I've created are Template:National Register of Historic Places in the Northern Mariana Islands, Template:National Register of Historic Places in Nebraska, and Template:NRHP in Sioux County, Nebraska.

Three points especially here:

1. I hesitate to create county navboxes with an overwhelming number of redlinks. Should we hold off on those until articles are created, or should it not matter? In many states, the counties with the lowest percentage of articles created are the most populous ones-- the ones that will generate the most use.
2. What should we do about counties and insular areas that only have, say, 1-3 listings? Should they even be given a new navbox, or should we just use the state (or next-highest division) one?
3. Should we officially set a standard about how to handle counties or cities that get absolutely enormous? We can set the navbox to collapsed and/or split it. See Template:National Register of Historic Places listings in Wayne County, Michigan, which as the kids say these days is an absolute unit.

I should have said something here before starting this process, buuuuut.... I am doing so now. Thoughts, objections, comments? – TCMemoire 19:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I modified the template for Indianapolis/Marion County, which is also quite large, by grouping the listings by various categories such as residences, commercial, manufacturing, etc. To date, no one has complained about that change. Indyguy (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, this is a really great idea! That template looks much better this way. – TCMemoire 01:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I like the state and county examples. Question: one county example you give uses "National Register of Historic Places listings in..." and another uses "NRHP in..."...should the naming be consistent?

For #2, I'd say use the next-highest division/state nav box. Schazjmd (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Great point. The existing state and county navboxes have not followed a consistent naming convention (see Nevada vs. Michigan vs. New Jersey)—we should set a standard there too. I followed New Jersey in using NRHP for its counties, solely to cut down on wordiness; for states and insular areas, I used the full name. – TCMemoire 12:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Another point to bring up: although state and county are different, there are many things about these navboxes that should be standardized. One of these is the way county-level templates are organized. Some (like Oklahoma) group by the town, and this is the example provided on Template:NRHP navigation box; but this can quickly balloon the template, and in many places would result in 12+ rows even in rural areas. Although place names are more recognizable to users, my opinion is that it's better to do it by grouping them by NRHP type (as is done in the vast majority of counties already, like Alabama and my templates) or by the building/site type like Indyguy demonstrated, and as New Jersey does. – TCMemoire 12:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

New listing / new article? Or not?

Last week's new listings (1/14) includes a new Leelanau County, Michigan HD, listed as "Fishtown." It turns out that this HD is wholly contained within the 1975 NRHP Historic District Leland Historic District (Leland, Michigan). Per the new Fishtown nom:

The Fishtown Historic District is contained within the previously-listed Leland Historic District (1975). In 1975 local residents feared that both the commercial district of the Village of Leland and Fishtown would be negatively impacted by the new Harbor of Refuge, hence the boundaries drawn in 1975 include both. Fishtown, however, has long been a distinct area.

However, the 1975 Leland Historic District consists primarily of the Fishtown section. So. Question is, should the new 2022 listing have its own article, or should it be (remain) combined with the 1975 listing? Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It could have a separate article is someone writes one with enough new information. There is no need to have a separate article; the existing article could be expanded a bit first to explain the new HD within the 1975 HD and why it was listed separately. MB 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review for Avery Coonley School

I have nominated Avery Coonley School for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 06:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata links

Many items in our lists have a Wikidata item but no article, so our lists have a redlink for the article and no link to the WD item. Ought they have a WD link, and if so, how? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What would be the purpose? Would having a Wikidata link help anyone get more information on the NRHP listings? I've never been given a satisfying explanation of what Wikidata is for, and I've never followed a Wikidata link that was helpful to me in any way. Ntsimp (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Combine info boxes

How can you combine NRHP and Building info boxes at Milam Residence? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Done! I moved the NRHP infobox below the building one and removed some duplicate fields per our project's MoS, as the latter is much more fleshed out and higher in importance. Also added a navbox and some categories. Happy editing! – TCMemoire 11:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes to Jantzen Beach Carousel

I felt compelled to revert recent changes to Jantzen Beach Carousel, even though I believe the editor was attempting to update the entry in good faith. Not only was too much text changed at once, but some of the claims were poorly sourced and others contradicted previously used sources. If any editors want to help make Wikipedia-compliant improvements, please feel free to help out! I've started a discussion on the talk page and hope the editor will engage. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hyphen or endash?

Many houses on the NRHP that are associated with more than one person use endashes to separate the names e.g. White–Turner–Sanford House, Bradley–Wheeler House. This seems correct to me, according to MOS:ENDASH ("Use an en dash for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound"). However, many such titles use hyphens (Bradley-Hubbell House, Sanford-Humphreys House). Should these be changed to endashes? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe there are bots that convert hyphens to endashes (including renaming articles that have hyphens in the name). Many newly created articles use hyphens because they appear on keyboards, unlike endashes. Magic♪piano 18:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I've compiled a list of 1800 articles related to the NRHP which I believe should use an endash rather than a hyphen in the title - see User:Colonies Chris/NRHP/Hyphen to endash. Comments please, If there's consensus to go forward with these changes I'll request a bot to make it happen. (Note: there are many other NRHP articles where a hyphen to endash conversion is probably desirable, but for various reasons they are more complex or debatable. These 1800 are the clearcut cases.) Colonies Chris (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I am among Wikipedians who don't really care about phrasing in a few articles' names, but I dislike polarization of groups in general and dislike the intensity of hyphen vs. dash fanatics. I do understand that for persons actually knowledgeable about the grammar, that apparently sometimes a dash is better than a hyphen, and sometimes the reverse, depending on certain circumstances which I don't recall easily. But I think one case is when a house is named the Jones-Murphy House because it was the home of Mr. Jones-Murphy (who had a hyphenated name), vs. it being once known as the Jones House when the Joneses lived there plus later being known as the Murphys' house.

Also, as you must know, there have been previous efforts or attacks or what-have-you upon hyphens vs. dashes in the NRHP area before, and various specific cases have been sorted out fully. No new proposal to change everything should be considered at all, unless all the old discussions are properly reviewed and addressed. Such discussions reside in the Talk archives of WikiProject NRHP, as well as within WikiProject Oregon (I happen to know), and probably other discussions are linked to them.

A related matter, which your proposal does not address, is the usage of hyphens vs. dashes in redlink names of NRHP places not yet having articles. And relatedly in redirects from hyphenated versions to dashed versions, when the place articles had not yet been created. In these cases, we so far know little about the particulars, or at least have not figured the particulars out in mainspace or talkspace, so what's right vs. wrong can't easily be determined. A previous "solution" to address one hyphen-dash-changer-wannabe, was to require a list to be created and managed so the redirects could be set up or not, only after the articles had been created and the particulars were sorted out.

In summary, running a bot to change every instance of hyphen to a dash seems absolutely wrong, ignores previous work in this area, and seems like it would be a huge win for fanatics on one side of the "issue". Anyone implementing it would be knowingly making "incorrect" changes as well as "correct" changes.

By the way, sure, your list of all articles with a hyphen that you want to change, starts off with 102-116 West Congress Street, 17-21 Emerson Place Row, and 33-61 Emerson Place Row. I am not an expert on the grammar, but I currently believe that those should remain as hyphens.

Overall, I just don't see value of doing any big thing within this topic-area, and I feel like I am gonna resent it if one or more editors force something upon us. --Doncram (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Fisher-Zugelder house, in commons photo named File:Fisher-Zugelder House and Smith Cottage.JPG, which name was used because hyphen is the actual if not "correct" usage

Not to be unfriendly, though. User:Dicklyon, in previous analysis, found that about 20 percent of NRHP hyphen usages should remain as hyphens. In my view the examples they gave were slam-dunk definite hyphen usages. I do see that your list omits at least some of those examples, but you have not at all explained how these are "the clearcut cases". And for ones on your list such as Fisher-Zugelder House and Smith Cottage, whose article explains that there once was a Fisher and later there was a Zugelder, I don't agree there should be any change to use an en-dash instead. Because all the actual usage in practice, as far as we know, is that it has been called the Fisher-Zugelder house with a hyphen. Search on Google, try it. There is hyphen usage in the NRHP document for it, and in the NRHP name for it in NRIS and all National Park Service references to it as far as I know, and there is additional local usage with a hyphen in this Gunnison walking tour brochure. There is no usage anywhere, AFAIK, involving a dash. I don't think Wikipedia should be going out on a limb, telling people their usage is wrong, has been wrong, when we are supposed to reflect the actual world and its actual usage, not chide everyone for not having always done something else more "correct"l Which no person who can be named in mainspace has ever advocated (because Wikipedia editor names and opinions can't be given in mainspace articles). So I personally don't think any should be changed to dashes, and those that have been changed should be changed back, frankly, unless dash-usage in practice has been proven. Sure, let's run a bot, in the other direction. --Doncram (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved to Fisher–Zugelder House and Smith Cottage. I'm pretty sure the owner and stonemason weren't married to each other. Dicklyon (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Unlike Windows keyboards, the Mac keyboard has had the en dash on it since its start in 1984 (at option-hyphen). Yes, when the house names are made by joining names of separate owners, WP style would be to use the en dash (which does not tell anyone that their style is wrong, it's just not WP's style). It seems unlikely to me that a bot could make that determination, but editors can, and do. Dicklyon (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I was working on this back in 2019. See my list at User:Dicklyon/Houses. I don't think they should be done in bulk. Dicklyon (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(←) I came along here having noticed an inconsistency in the usage of hyphens and endashes in naming these articles. And I put some work into compiling a list of those that seem to me to be clearcut cases for conversion to endashes. It seems, however, that I have unwittingly strolled into a gang war, where one of the gang leaders has decided that I'm a zealot for the other side and that the best way to deal with me is to gve me a good kicking and send me back home. It's not exactly the collegiate approach I would hope to experience from Wikipedia editors. To answer the specific comments of User:Doncram - not I'm not proposing "running a bot to change every instance of hyphen to a dash" - that list of of 1800 or so is quite selective, as I pointed out. I'm aware that there are cases where the hyphen is correct - that's why, for example, you won't find Harriet Campbell-Taylor House or Honeymoon Creek Snow-Survey Cabin in my list. Secondly, the use of an endash for a range of numbers is absolutely standard - since you acknowledge you're not an expert on the subject, how about you try looking up MOS:ENDASH before hammering me? (It says "For ranges between numbers, dates, or times, use an en dash".) And as for redlinks - I've made clear that I'm suggesting dealing with only these specific cases in my list. Redlinks are an issue which I haven't addressed at all and don't intend to. And to User:Dicklyon i'll repeat that I have not suggested a bot to change everything - a bot would operate on that list that I compiled, minus any possible exceptions that other editors might identify on reviewing it. Didn't you see where I asked for comments? I'm shocked at the hostility and the failure by all parties to properly read what I wrote in a good faith attempt to at least partly fix an inconsistency. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You're over-reacting. If you've already looked and these and determined that they are from names of two people, not a married person of hyphenated last name, then I support fixing them. We can do a bot request and RFBA, which has worked for me before. There may be a person or two against dashes, but there's no gang war about that, since the issue was settled in 2011. Dicklyon (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

yeah, by saying "Not to be unfriendly..." i meant to come across as more friendly than my first comment. Colonies Chris, are you aware there were horrible wars about dashes vs. hyphens more generally (not involving NRHP) in the past, which led to ArbCom injunction against anyone making dash vs. hyphen changes. There is a long history, and I suppose there will always be new people showing up who want to change one way or the other. I would rather that wp:NRHP be moderate/conservative in not making radical changes back and forth. And I acknowledge that in 2018 discussion "Dash fix list" here at wt:NRHP I was agreeable about accepting those two people ones. But I reserve the right to change my mind, and I think I have changed my mind (I don't feel like telling the world that they have all been "wrong" now), and nothing has to be "settled" already. A new consensus can be different. Dicklyon, what was "settled in 2011", can you point to that? --Doncram (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's no "ArbCom injunction against anyone making dash vs. hyphen changes", since I've been doing such repeatedly for years with no complaints (including over 1000 NRHP titles, mostly in 2017). The arguments were settled with a wide consensus for the terms of MOS:DASH in 2011, with a few tweaks since then. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussions leading up to the 2011 consensus update to MOS:DASH can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion. There was some further turmoil after the updates were made, but it settle down after a bit. There was no controversy that I can recall about the usage we're talking about here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Further refinement and consensus building can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_124#Dashes:_a_new_draft. The one editor generally objecting, User:Pmanderson, continued to cause grief after this was settled, until he was blocked for a year for sock puppetry violating a topic ban, and later "indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles". I don't recall any significant disagreements over our dash style since then, and I've done probably a few thousand hyphen-to-dash moves without incident. Dicklyon (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Aeneas Yates-Charles Hurlbut House

One oddity I've discovered while reviewing my list is Aeneas Yates-Charles Hurlbut House, which is definitely mistitled. The NRHP registration shows is as "Hurlbut, Aeneas--Yates, Charles, House" and the nomination has it as "Hurlbut, Aeneas / Yates, Charles, House" or "Yates House, Historic Eastlake Manor". Either way, the existing title is definitely wrong. But what should it be? (BTW, Eastlake is not a district of Lincoln, Nebraska, as I at first assumed - it's the surname of the architect, Charles Eastlake.) Colonies Chris (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The city of Lincoln calls it the Hurlbut-Yates House. I'd opt for that, dropping the first names altogether, as the common name (with the appropriate dash/hyphen). Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I have code in the infobox generator and the list generators that takes "lastname, firstname, House" and reorders that to "firstname lastname House". That code (and its author) never realized that there'd be oddities like this where two persons' names would be combined like this. I'd say go ahead and rename it to "Hurlbut-Yates House" and make sure to update the infobox text (which is wrong) and the associated list article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, done. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I don't think it's quite done. I see the city of Lincoln does call it the Hurbut-Yates House, so it is okay for the ARTICLE title to be that, as long as there is some referencing in the article to the city of Lincoln's usage, which there is not. Currently nothing in the article supports the short name with hyphen, much less supporting the short name with dash. So, fine, adding some referencing can be done (i can do that, I suppose) supporting the hyphenated version at least.

But still, what is the NRHP name for the place? That is what should show in the infobox and in the corresponding county NRHP list-article. The name showing in the National register digital assets page for it, https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/AssetDetail/NRIS/99001167, is "Hurlbut, Aeneas--Yates, Charles, House". And "Hurlbut, Aeneas--Yates, Charles, House" is what shows in the National Park Service's "weekly list of actions taken" announcement of it becoming NRHP-listed back in 1999. --Doncram (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The double hyphen in some of those sources is how they represent the dash. We use en dash for that (or em dash in some other contexts). Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

In these edits I have added City of Lincoln documentation supporting the "Hurlbut-Yates House" as a name for the property, and asserted that "Aeneas Hurlbut–Charles Yates House" is the NRHP name for the place (adding that into text and using that name in the NRHP infobox). With note, perhaps a bit wordy, defending interpretation of "--" as "–" and defending "unwrapping" of "Lastname, Firstname, House" phrasing into "Firstname Lastname House" order. It is necessary to show the actual NRHP name for the place in the article (or at least a recognizable version of it), so that readers seeking the NRHP-listed place of that name (which is mentioned on the internet in various places, and in the NPS webpages and documents) will understand that this is the article covering that place. --Doncram (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

New category for listings by year proposal

I've had a thought recently that perhaps we should establish a new set of year categories to designate the year a property was listed on the NRHP. For example, "Category:National Register of Historic Places listings in 1983", with a parent category of "Category:National Register of Historic Places listings by year". This could provide an interesting new context for the properties. How this would apply to expanded districts and individually-listed contributing properties would need to be worked out. Thoughts? – TCMemoire 17:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Article merge

There has been a request to merge a NRHP article, Hi Jolly Monument open for over a month. The have been two comments opposing the move, none endorsing it. There have been no further comments in over three weeks. Can someone do a close as an uninvolved editor? Thanks. MB 02:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Is WPA Moderne the same as PWA Moderne?

I think so, but WPA Moderne is currently a redlink. It comes up for me as i'm developing Draft:Administration Building for the City of Grand Forks at the Grand Forks Airport whose documents describe it as WPA Moderne as well as Streamline Moderne. The Grand Forks building was constructed in 1941 to 1943.

Wikipedia's PWA Moderne wikilinks to Art_Deco in the United States#PWA Moderne, which starts "PWA Moderne (or "P.W.A. Moderne", PWA/WPA Moderne,[19] Federal Moderne,[20] Depression Moderne,[19] Classical Moderne,[19] Stripped Classicism) is an architectural style of many buildings in the United States completed between 1933 and 1944,[20] during and shortly after the Great Depression as part of relief projects sponsored by the Public Works Administration (PWA) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA)."

Apparently there was important distinction between Public Works Administration (terminated in 1944) which did big projects like Hoover Dam, vs. Works Progress Administration (terminated in 1943) which did smaller projects and had provision of employment as one of its major goals.

It's probably an innocuous thing, to relabel that section as "PWA Moderne and WPA Moderne", and to redirect WPA Moderne to it. But I don't know about the relative prevalence of the two terms, or whether there is in fact some distinction to be made. Also I somewhat wonder whether either style name applies for any construction after 1944, or otherwise to buildings not built by the PWA or the WPA. Any suggestions welcome. --Doncram (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say this might be a better question for the folks over at WP:ARCH, as they might have some insight into the differences if any, but their WikiProject seems even less active than ours. The reference at Art_Deco in the United States#PWA Moderne claiming "PWA/WPA Moderne" is a deadlink. I would imagine the styles are rather similar, but with some marked differences-- I think WPA projects tend to lean towards influence from vernacular and regional styles, as they focused more on local and rural projects, and so I would hesitate to fully conflate the two. – TCMemoire 14:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Decode

Can someone decode this for me? Was the Marsh, George Perkins, Boyhood Home listed as an NRHP and NHL simultaneously in 1967 (link), and then the larger Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park was listed as an NRHP in 1992 (link)? ɱ (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Without decoding anything, that is what is stated in the articles (George Perkins Marsh Boyhood Home and the NHP linked above). Do you suspect an error? MB 03:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I had edited the linked article, which I suppose should not list a 1967 entry or NHL, as that was just for the house itself. The house article wasn't very prominently linked anywhere; this is the first I am seeing it. Thanks. ɱ (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this is the first time I've seen a building listed on the NRHP and as an NHL on the same day. I almost read it that it became an NHL before the NRHP, which shouldn't be possible. ɱ (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The NHL program was begun in 1960. The NRHP was established in 1966. So there are landmarks that were such before they were listed on the NRHP. Magic♪piano 16:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting, unexpected. ɱ (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

When splitting lists

This is a (recurring) request to project members to please alert the project here when splitting NRHP lists, either within the same page or by creating separate pages. Not doing so can result in the collection of incorrect statistics gathering on the progress page (WP:NRHPPROGRESS). This has occurred recently with the Guam list and Polk County, Iowa, and possibly elsewhere. Magic♪piano 13:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for USS Missouri

I have nominated USS Missouri (BB-63) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Need some information

I'm going to Jacksonville tomorrow, and I want to photograph the most recent one added to the NRHP in Duvall County, Florida. It is number 100006358. I can't find the nomination form.

The county listing has a photo of the cornerstone of a building (without the rest of the building). But there is a building at that address (with a Job Corps sign on it). The Jacksonville Jewish Center and the Job Corps are now both at different locations. So I'm trying to determine if the building at that address is the old Jewish Center building.

Can anyone help? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This picture might help. Magic♪piano 00:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

That is NOT the building at 205 West 3rd St., Jacksonville, but it looks a lot more likely to have been added to the NRHP than the one at that address. However, the Job Corps sign is covering up something that was carved between "Jacksonville" and "Center". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I found some history at [1] which has a link to a PDF with more detailed history. It confirms that the JCC was at the NW corner of 3rd & Silver, facing a park and built around 1927, later expanded (1950s I think) into a complex of three buildings, moving to present location in 1970s. So I think the building with the Job Corps sign is it. If you look at the different views, you can see that building is connected to others. I looked at google street view and just can't find where the cornerstone in the photo is. I will be interesting to hear what you find. MB 00:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see the cornerstone either. Silver and 3rd, across from a park matches 205 W 3rd, so that must be it, but it is a pretty nondescript building. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I made it there today. Two photos:
  • Building today
  • plaque on cornerstone

The Jewish Center was nominated for the NRHP in 2010. There was a fire in 2011 and the building was demolished. It went on the NRHP in 2021.

It sounds to me like the building that is there today was part of the center, but a nicer building burned and was demolished. I suspect that the Flickr photo above shows that building (and that it was at the NW corner of 3rd and Silver, a vacant lot now). Also, the brick fence in the Flickr photo matches the brick fence today. The cornerstone that is pictured in the county listing is on the other side of the street and a little to the east, at the edge of the park. It has an informative plaque on it (see photo). The cornerstone may be directly across the street from the building that burned. So I'm not sure what photo to use. I should have gotten a photo from the park side with the cornerstone in the foreground and the current building in the background, but I didn't think about it at the time. Also, some explanation should go in the description.

What do you think? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't think to look for the cornerstone in the park, but there it is. The Flickr photo is dated 2009 and says the fire was in 2011. It does seem strange that it was listed 10 years after it was destroyed. The surviving buildings don't look NRHP-worthy. I would like to see the nom form. MB 03:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen the nom form. It was nominated a year before the fire. I agree that the surviving buildings don't look noteworthy, but they may be included in the nomination. I think there are copyright restrictions against using the Flickr photo on commons, but it could go on Wikipedia. (I can't figure out how to download it from Flickr.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The Flickr photo says The owner has disabled downloading of their photos. Even if you could download this, you can only use fair use images on an article on the subject, not in the list article. (Unless you are writing one on the building, which would be difficult without the nomination form). MB 17:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll do a screenshot so we will have that, if needed. It is a shame that the building is gone. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I found this at Digital Commons at the University of North Florida! It is likely it is freely available. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  The notice at the bottom says the photo is under copyright. Although you can click on the download button and make a copy, I don't think it is licensed as we would need it. MB 01:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. I emailed them a couple of hours asking about it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is more information on their copyright. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

How about this? It's from the 1939 Jacksonville Jewish Yearbook. It does not assert copyright, so should be PD-US-no notice. (There are multiple yearbooks available if you want to find a better image. ED: Like this dedication yearbook.) Andrew Jameson (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not probably not free-use either: Copyright, Jacksonville Jewish Center. Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. At least that applies to the yearbook, so I assume also to the images within. MB 15:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a boilerplate notice. I don't think it applies here - as I understand copyright, material published prior to 1978 without copyright notice is public domain period. Claiming copyright later doesn't change that. Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I got more information from the source. It is released under this, which says that it is free for non-commercial use. That means that it is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. But would it be OK for fair use in Wikipedia? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, I'm communicating with the person in charge of the archives, and they say it is OK for me to use it if it is credited and linked to the source. I've asked them for more information. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The person in charge is checking on it. As far as a Wikipedia article, between the history on the website and the plaque, I think there is enough information for a short article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

PS - the photo of the cornerstone in the county listing says that it cannot be copied to Commons. I uploaded my photo of the cornerstone to Commons but left the one in the county listing. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think your photo can stay on Commons because the engraving on the cornerstone is considered "artwork", and artwork I believe has to be 150 years old. I have had my own photos (of plaques that said something like "this was the location of ....") deleted for this reason. MB 23:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It may get deleted (it isn't used anywhere). But I think archeture (sp?) is exempt, and this was part of it.

I heard back from the University of North Florida collection. Their photo of the building can't be uploaded to Commons, which is what I suspected. Would it be OK as fair use on Wikipedia in an article about it - a historic building that no longer exists? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I started an article, Jacksonville Jewish Center. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Template not working

{{NRHP-PA}} on at least one article is leading to a deadlink. This may be a more widespread problem but I haven't looked into it. See my comment at Template talk:NRHP-PA. SpinningSpark 10:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Michigan State Capitol

I have nominated Michigan State Capitol for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

GAR for Spirit of the American Doughboy

Spirit of the American Doughboy has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 13:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Local California historic list

List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea refers to a "Downtown Conservation District Historic Property Survey" which appears to be just a list of historic properties. I believe a few of the properties are individually NRHP listed, but the collection is not a NRHP HD. New articles of two buildings in this survey, Monterey County Trust & Savings Building, Kocher Building, and El Paseo Building both say they are on the survey and "recorded with the National Register of Historic Places". Being on a local historic property survey does not give any NRHP "status" and these statements should be removed, right? MB 00:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I just deleted a similar false claim from Reardon Building. There may likely be more of these. Ntsimp (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, I removed the claim from the three above also. MB 17:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

WD links

Ought every list item have a link to its Wikidata item, if it exists? Jim.henderson (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. Are you meaning an explicit clickable link, from each list item? Then no. The item is covered in the list; it would not add to readers' experience to direct them to Wikidata, which is not the encyclopedia. Or maybe i don't understand what you mean. --Doncram (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

John Wood House (Huntington Station, New York)

I've been struggling to get a photograph or two of the John Wood House (Huntington Station, New York), whenever I get the chance to drive on Long Island. All aspects of the site are behind a wooden fence, but there have been some openings where I was able to grab a shot, and some on Google Street View. The description I read about is nothing like what I've seen though;

"It was built about 1704 and is a four bay, one story dwelling which has a saltbox profile and massive central chimney."

Instead, I see a standard two-story suburban house with a one-car garage, which leads me to believe the original structure was torn down and replaced. On the other hand;

"Also on the property is a gable roofed well structure."

This I've seen. Unfortunately, none of the reference links function properly. The second link leads to the usual malfunctioning website of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. So none of the links show what the place used to look like. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

You can see the NRHP photos of the house via the NARA catalog here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/rg-079/NPS_NY/85002554.pdf They're not the best, but it's clearly not the house in the street view. (Most pre-2013 non-redacted listings docs are available at NARA, see WP:NRHPHELP for links.) Magic♪piano 14:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Geology Hall, New Brunswick, New Jersey Featured article review

I have nominated Geology Hall, New Brunswick, New Jersey for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Are redacted nominations form for address-restricted listings available anywhere?

I was hoping to work on Tate's Bluff Fortification, but it'll be difficult without the NRHP nomination form, which I can't find any evidence that it has ever been digitized. I'm assuming this is because the address is restricted. Any chance there's a way to request redacted copies of these listing forms? Hog Farm _Talk 00:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

In the past I've been able to get redacted copies of nomination forms by emailing the National Register staff, which you can do through their contact page. If that doesn't work, you can try reaching out to Arkansas' state historic preservation office. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm, what TheCatalyst31 suggests, first. But I have had luck when calling any agency or landowner or local historical society or librarian, out of the blue, to ask about any NRHP site, sometimes getting access or even a guided tour of a remote place or a place past otherwise-locked gates. In this case I note that This Encyclopedia of Arkansas page on Tate's Bluff is authored by Mark K. Christ, of Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, so that's a person I would aim to try to reach. Faces and phone numbers of AHPP staff are given here, though Christ isn't shown there, perhaps he was in the past. You could call any one of those numbers and ask about reaching Christ though, or if he's not available, to speak to anyone else knowledgeable about the site. About archeological sites in general, where we have brief indication in NRIS that the site is restricted, we don't know the current status of that, years after the place was listed. Sometimes the location of a site and info about it has become available publicly. Sometimes a museum there has opened, or tours are given, etc., and we would not be revealing anything that should be kept secret, if we write stuff that would tend towards disclosing its location. And possibly the whole original nomination, unredacted, could be given to you. Good luck! --Doncram (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ellen E. Ward Memorial Clock Tower

Last night I added a Contributing property infobox to the article on the Ellen E. Ward Memorial Clock Tower However, the infobox I replaced contained a more localized map, and parameters for the owner of the property. How van we add these features to the existing NRHP infoboxes? -------User:DanTD (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The local map is apparently already supported (something I just found out about recently) - see the article you indicated. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I just tried the same edit with another contributing property. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Jones/Derenne Range

Jones/Derenne Range is a contributing property to the Savannah HD. It has an info box for historic building and one for NRHP. Is there a better way to combine these two info boxes? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me, except the type should be CP only, there is no second type. Info about the district goes only in part_of. MB 07:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

NRHP infobox needed

Harpersfield Covered Bridge only has a bridge infobox at this time. I'm requesting that someone from this project add the NRHP box since I don't want to miss anything. Mapsax (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I added this. There was a conflict between the construction date given in the NRHP nomination and the date given by other sources already cited in the article. I left both dates in the article for now as I have no way to know which is more accurate. Jua Cha (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The original source, the Covered Bridge Festival website, may not be the most authoritative, but it's backed up by other sources: This one has a transcript of an entry from the state's Historic Bridge Inventory, apparently no longer available from the DOT's website, and this one has a photo of a bridge sign and an official historical marker (the latter's info available independently here), and all say 1868. Not sure what to do about that since NRHP is also considered reliable.

In addition, the bridge infobox now seems redundant. Mapsax (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The infoboxes should be combined with one embedded in the other; info should not be repeated but each infobox has some fields unique to the other. MB 03:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Case changes by Dicklyon

Hey all, I've noticed a bunch of adjustments in the past week by Dicklyon, changing the case of a number of sites. I need to know if there was discussion somewhere on changing these. If there hasn't, I would request the Dicklyon please stop until this has been discussed. I personally disagree with al the changes, because these sites and basins are all proper names, including the word 'basin' or 'site'. Would anyone else care to comment? Thanks. 25or6to4 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

For each article that I changed, I checked sources to see if they consistently capped. Overwhelmingly, especially for XXX site (archeological site, usually), sources do not usually capitalize. The only "basin" I recall is represented in this book search, where at least half of the first-page hits use lowercase basin. In general, none of these were close to meeting the requirements of MOS:CAPS or WP:NCCAPS for capitalizing. Indeed most of the "site" articles already used lowercase site in the body of the article; and there was lots of other over-capitalization in these; these suggest that the question of case had never been looked at for those articles, and that editors just used title-case titles, as many do, being unaware of WP:NCCAPS. If you still want to discuss after reviewing these background items, I'm happy to do so. In particular, if you see an article I moved to lowercase, where sources consistently use uppercase, let's start there, and make it right. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, most of those books in the search I linked are showing citations, in various styles, to this paper, which in the text uses lowercase "basin". Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

And yes I'm happy to stop such moves for a while. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Dicklyon, thank you for your responses! Your reasoning makes sense, and I can tell you did due diligence in your research. So my reasoning in using more upper case goes back to the National Register nominations themselves. Since the nomination forms have all been first-letter upper case (Start Case), and the NRHP WP has always kept the site names based on what was in the nomination forms, it's always been standard procedure to have the listings follow that style. Thus my conundrum. A possible solution may be to leave the NRHP lists as Start Case, but the actual articles follow the NCCAPS convention.

Yes, the NRHP uses title-case in their listings and nomination forms (usually). But that doesn't automatically convert a descriptive name to a proper name, so we should be looking to independent sources for how to apply Wikipedia style. Dicklyon (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, NRHP usage is legitimate usage and does mean something. It should actually have fairly heavy weight as usage, relative to one-off usages in say one academic article about a place. NRHP listing means that sites are covered with initial caps names in multiple sources such as National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places nomination documents and in the NRIS database and in weekly National Park Service announcements of new NRHP listings, etc. And these usages are widely repeated in mirror sites such as www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com and in state historical department website announcements and newspaper announcements and so on. And this usage is reflected in Wikipedia, at least in the big system of lists of NRHP-listed places, and in all the mirrors of Wikipedia. You can say those mirror usages are not independent of the NPS/NRHP usage, but the NPS/NRHP usage is itself "independent" and are not to be completely dismissed. By that I mean those usages are entirely "independent" of the places themselves; no one can assert that the National Park Service is biased in some way here and has a commercial stake in achieving a different naming, right? Please explain or retract your implied dismissal of National Park Service usage as being non-independent (of what?) in some way.

That said, sure, the NPS/NRHP names of places, while significant usage, do not completely govern what we use in article titles. The NPS/NRHP usage can be outweighed by other usage, especially by usage in years following an NRHP listing which goes towards establishing that the NRHP name did not "take". --06:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

There are a couple sites I would like changed back, as the references to those locations are widely used in literature capitalized. Those are the Horner Site, the Folsom Site, and the Harrell Site. These have become proper names in the archaeological research community. 25or6to4 (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time to study these at the moment (preparing for a trip to Copenhagen today), but here are some quick book searches to go through: Harrell, Folsom, Horner. I've limited these to 21st century books so we can see if they "have become proper names", but feel free to do other book searches, scholar searches, etc, to get an idea how consistently these are capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Made it to Copenhagen, and uploaded a few aerial shots already. Reviewing these book searches, I'd say that capitalized "site" is pretty rare outside of titles, headings, citations to titles, etc. Let me know if you still have reason to conclude that these have become proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Some but not all of Dicklyon's moves are of sites that are listed on the National Register. Reviewing one example, Dicklyon's move of "Coats-Hines Site" to "Coats-Hines site", about a site which is listed on the NRHP as "Coats-Hines Archeological Site", I do not see the move as justified. The article stood at Coats-Hines Site since 2009 until just now (ignoring any old or new differences about en-dash vs. em-dash). Please forgive me if this analysis by me now, using simply titles of sources in the article, is misinformed. I might just be wrong, and I am one whose general belief is that proper noun names of people and places basically always should be capitalized; to me it would be exceptional for a proper noun thing not to be capitalized. But anyhow what I see is that the article has five sources which refer to the site by name. The titles show no usage at all of lowercase "site". The titles show four usages of uppercase "Site". The one title refering to the site but not using the word "site" calls it "Coats–Hines–Litchy", and is a 2011 article whose link shows a 404 error. The four showing uppercase "Site" usage are dated 1996, 1995, 2011, and 2010. Of those, the 1996 and 1995 ones might be viewed as "not independent" because they have many of the same authors, but on the other hand maybe those authors who have studied and written the most about a place should be given more weight than others. The 2010 source is a National Register nomination document; I see no reason why that should be regarded as less valid than any other of the sources.

Here are the 7 sources cited in the article

The five titles referring to the site, copy-pasted from the article (and thereby losing any links), are: Breitburg, Emanuel; Broster, John B.; Reesman, Arthur L.; Stearns, Richard G. (1996), "The Coats–Hines Site: Tennessee's First Paleoindian–Mastodon Association", Current Research in the Pleistocene, 13: 6–8 Breitburg, Emanuel; Broster, John B. (1995), "A Hunt for Big Game: Does Coats–Hines Site Confirm Human/Mastodon Contact?", The Tennessee Conservationist, 61 (4): 18–26 Deter-Wolf, Aaron; Tune, Jesse W.; Broster, John B. (2011), "Excavations and Dating of Late Pleistocene and Paleoindian Deposits at the Coats–Hines Site, Williamson County, Tennessee", Tennessee Archaeology, 5 (2): 142–156 Tune, Jesse W.; Waters, Michael R.; Schmalle, Kayla A.; DeSantis, Larisa R.G.; Kamenov, George R. (2011), "Assessing the proposed pre-last glacial maximum human occupation of North America at Coats–Hines–Litchy, Tennessee, and other sites" (PDF), Quaternary Science Reviews, 186: 47–59 Deter-Wolf, Aaron; Tune, Jesse W. (2010). "National Register of Historic Places Nomination: the Coats–Hines Archaeological Site (40WM31), Williamson County Tennessee". {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help): Cite journal requires |journal= (help) There are also two other sources which are not online and do not name the site in their titles.

I think it is valid to consider the usage in article titles. If lowercase "site" is the actual general usage, then I think it would be used in the titles. I do apologize if my reasoning appears simplistic; I did not read any of the articles. But based on just this, because I cannot immediately see any usage of lowercase "site", it sort of seems to me that Dicklyon might just personally prefer lowercase usage and is simply applying it. And then, for Dicklyon's moves of sites listed or not listed on the National Register, I am moved to question them all. If there is just a personal preference being applied, that is not right. A lot of previous editorial effort went into composing the articles at their names using capitalized "Site", whether by NRHP editors or not, and that editorial weight should not be ignored. So I am inclined to think no moves of these types should be done without full, proper wp:RM processes being performed. Perhaps a new wider understanding can be created by going through a number of such wp:RM processes, and if "site" wins out over "Site" in a good number, then perhaps in the future there could be moves en masse. But right now I myself see no justification for any moves at all, and therefore I consider any moves should be considered contested and the full wp:RM process should be applied. And, while I would appreciate myself receiving, and wp:NRHP receiving, notices of wp:RM processes, proceeding in this way would move this discussion away from here, into a forum which I think is better suited to sorting out possibly thorny stuff like this. This is what I think, as just one NRHP editor here at wt:NRHP. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The word "site" is capitalized in the titles of sources above because the entire title is capitalized. Quickly looking at the sources that are available online, this one uses "Coats-Hines site" (lower case s) in the main body of the paper, this one uses "Coats-Hines-Litchy site" (again lower case s), and this one uses "Coats-Hines site" (lower case). Looking at other mentions, this one uses "Coats-Hines-Litchy (CHL) site" (lower case), this one uses "Coats-Hines Mastodon site" (lower case) and this one uses "Coats-Hines site." More interestingly, the NRHP nom form uses "Coats-Hines Archaeological Site" (upper case) in the first summary mention, but "Coats-Hines site" (lower case) later in the document. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you User:Andrew Jameson for stepping in and looking further into this. But, I don't get it, or at least not right away, how it is justified to dismiss the capitalization of "Site" in titles, i.e. in the naming of the place as a proper noun, as not being being meaningful. You (and User:Dicklyon) want to say that it is okay in the sources for the proper noun names of the places to be capitalized when they are mentioned in titles of articles, but that doesn't mean anything about what the actual names of the places are when spoken of in the body of texts? But, the proposed or already-implemented moves are all about changes in titles of articles, of Wikipedia articles. Why should we not follow the established usage of capitalization of the word "Site" in naming the places in, yes, titles of Wikipedia articles. It is common and right to capitalize in proper noun names of persons and places, specific places. Not just any "ghost site mounds", but rather THE specific "Ghost Site Mounds" that are proper noun named "Ghost Site Mounds", to reference another case of Dicklyon moves in question. The "Ghost Site Mounds" site appears not to be NRHP-listed, but if it were NRHP-listed, I do expect it would be named (properly) by the state of Louisiana and by the National Park Service as "Ghost Site Mounds". I wonder if there is some weird affectation in some current(?) or recent(?) or modern(?) writing about archeological sites, to deliberately use lowercase word "site" in some usage within articles, despite the fact that one is referring to a specific site which has a proper noun name, with all initial caps. Like there are some "cool" magazines or e-zines or whatever, that have an affectation in deliberately down-casing when up-casing is required by English grammar rules, just for sake of being "cool" somehow. (Going further astray, why should we have ever indulged E.E. Cummings, when he said "no i want my proper noun name to be down-cased just so "i" seem cool and different, or whatever the heck was his reasoning....and I have no idea why so many people, even Wikipedia editors of the article currently named "e.e. cummings"... yikes, hey, no, Wikipedia's article is "E.E. Cummings"!!! Just because some magazine wants to be cool and downcase in its usage, against grammar rules, doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to go along in the confusion of matters. The right thing for Wikipedia to do is to show in its article titles at least that the title refers to a specific proper noun place, not one of some or many generic ghost site mound places.

And again, or further, I don't think that countering my (and perhaps others') inclination to dislike new-fangled down-casing is properly done here on WikiProject NRHP's talk page. I think these are matters for more editors to be involved in, in the more general issues and in what has gone on in actual usage for each specific place, so I think this discussion should be removed to wp:RM for one or two or more specific cases, and for fairly wide notice to be given out to parties better skilled at analyzing what is proper for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia to use in its titles, than merely me and some other NRHP editors who are primarily interested in writing about, in communicating about, locally- and nationally-significant historic places, not about language technicalities. I would be happy to hear more here in response to my admittedly-perhaps-not-the-best-reasoning, but still I am inclined to want to say that any and all proposed moves, or already-implemented moves, in this domain, should be addressed in the proper wp:RM forum, not here. --Doncram (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Words in titles are capitalized because it's in title case, not because the words form a proper noun. For example, the title of your second source is: "A Hunt for Big Game: Does Coats–Hines Site Confirm Human/Mastodon Contact?" This doesn't imply "Big Game" should always be capitalized, or "Mastodon," or "Site." (Although it could be; there's no question that "Coats-Hines" is capitalized.)

For your Ghost Mound site example, the two sources in the article are contradictory: this uses "Ghost site" and this one uses "Ghost Site." As a tie-breaker, the state of Louisiana historical marker uses "Ghost site."

I don't really care that much about capitalization in WP article titles, and honestly a full capitalization makes more sense to me; as an analogy, I've always seen organizations like the "First Methodist Church" fully capitalized, and the "Coats–Hines Site" sounds similar to me. However, the little bit of research I've done seems to indicate that for archaeological sites, lower case "site" is more common. Andrew Jameson (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew, for helping to explain – I'm pretty busy at a conference this week. Don, this distinction between title case and sentence case in Wikipedia titles is pretty firmly established in WP title policy and conventions. Please review WP:NCCAPS, which in the lead says "leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence." Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Image captions

This is not specifically about NRHP, but many of the affected articles were NRHP. There is a discussion about image captions for buildings here if you would like to comment on appropriate captions. MB 00:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Ticonderoga MRA

On the NRHP... or not?

I'm trying to understand the status of the former Delaware and Hudson Railway station in Ticonderoga, New York. The image lists NRHP #88002206 , which is apparently linked to "New York MPS Delaware and Hudson Railroad Depot". That appears to be part of the Ticonderoga (Village) MRA. However, I can't actually figure out where (or if) the station building is actually listed on the NRHP; neither appears on National Register of Historic Places listings in Essex County, New York, nor does any historic district that the station would be part of. What am I missing? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Search for the number in Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/NRIS_information_issues and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_51 and you will see some prior discussion. It looks like it may have been delisted due to owner objection. MB 05:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Should it be added to the former table on the Essex County listing? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Not if it was never listed to begin with. It may not have got that far before the objection, so it may be more of a nomination withdrawn than a delisting. I really don't know anything specific, I just did a quick search and found those old discussions. Judging from what I read there, it's not clear which it is. This may need further research. MB 05:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The Ticonderoga MRA document at NARA has the entry for the station stamped "DOE/Owner Objection", so it was probably never listed. Magic♪piano 14:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Photo description and categories at Commons updated by this edit, accordingly. --Doncram (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Delisting a property not actually listed?

The latest weekly list from the NRHP contains three delistings, one of which is the New York Central River Raisin Railroad Bridge. However, I can't find any evidence that this bridge was ever listed in the first place. It's not in the NRIS database, although apparently it got through enough of the process to be assigned a number (82005048). So is the delisting a tacit admission that it actually was listed? Or is this just a miscommunication between the NRHP and the Michigan SHPO? Or more directly: should this bridge be added to the delisted section of the National Register of Historic Places listings in Monroe County, Michigan? Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

NARA has an entry for this listing, whose nomination form is redacted. Searching for the refnum turns up this finding aid at NARA. It says that the listing was part of the "City of Monroe Multiple Resource Area", listed 06/23/1982. You might examine the form for that resource area (especially the copy at NARA if there is one, which may have further annotations), and/or make inquiries at the Michigan SHPO about it. Magic♪piano 21:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The City of Monroe MRA has a non-redacted summary of information on the bridge. At the time of the MRA submission the bridge was listed as DOE (no owner objection, so it needed a fuller workup). Magic♪piano 22:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

So I see in the The City of Monroe MRA document that the state was specifically asking the NPS to determine eligibility for the Bridge, but was not asking for it to be listed. Seeing as there's not other indication of the state following this up, I infer it was never listed. For completeness, should we put a note to this effect on the county list page? Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That's interesting that the weekly announcements stated "REMOVED" without more explicit indication that this was a removal of eligibility. It also did use prefix code of "OT" (defined as "All other requests (appeal, removal, delisting, direct submission)"). (Hmm, does that give a hint that it could be a removal of eligibility, or would OT also be used for regular removals?)

Yesterday I just added to wp:NRHPHELP a copy of current to weekly announcement prefix codings, and the old, more detailed NRIS status codings, in these edits. I added frequency counts by NRIS status code as of 2009, which showed 1054 determinations of eligibility up to then (nris codes DO, DC, and DD), and 11 removals of eligibility (code RE), vs. 84,326 listings (code LI) and 1560 "removals" (code RN, meaning delistings from having been already listed in that context i assume).

I also have become more aware of the significance of properties having been determined eligible, through the mechanism of affecting projects with Federal funding. It appears to me that the numerosity of listed + determined eligible in a slice of Kentucky coming through Shelby County had a significant effect in changing routing of the planned new interstate highway that will swing east and south to avoid Louisville traffic. And the fact that a number of people in rural Shelby put together a big MRA for City of Shelbyville and another big MRA for the rest of Shelby County back in 1987, has then made a big difference many years later. This assertion has not been publicly claimed, and I don't know of any other similar claim elsewhere, but that's what it looks like to me.

So...among other things, I am wondering if it would be a good idea to make a list-article of Determined eligible for National Register of Historic Places or similar. Perhaps start with a statewide one for Michigan? And review and cite all the Michigan-specific MRA studies (27 per dated wp:MPS), which will have provided most of them. Provide a table of frequency counts by MRA vs. all separate ones, and provide a list of all the individual properties, eventually with coordinates. The public, broadly, has a right to know what DOEs are in place, possibly affecting big future land use decisions. IMHO.

And if that were to be done, then in each county list having any DOEs, one could just make a statement "In addition there are [3 or 30 or whatever] properties which have been determined eligible but not listed," and provide a link to the statewide DOE list. Only just been musing along these lines, am not sure about this vs. other options. I personally think it's fine for you to add the City of Monroe item to its county list-article for now, anyhow. --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarinda and Page Apts, Douglas County, NE

Can someone doublecheck somethin for me? The Clarinda and Page Apartments are on the former listings for Douglas County, Nebraska. But I am finding no such listing for those apartments, either current or delisted. The NRHP reference number on the Douglas County list is for the Guy Barton House. The site is not in the NR removed spreadsheet from the NRHP website either. Is it possibly part of a HD that I'm not finding? Thanks. 25or6to4 (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The Clarinda and Page Apartments were accidentally included on that list. They were controversially demolished in 2014 to make way for new construction by Mutual of Omaha; the City of Omaha successfully lobbied to remove their nomination to the NRHP, and successfully erased their inclusion from all local records. However, they were also official Omaha Landmarks, and the former buildings are still acknowledged here. Freechild (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That entry was added in 2020 by User:Freechild. It does not appear on earlier versions of the list that I spot-checked (either the current or former lists). My guess is they may have mistakenly thought it was an NRHP listing when it wasn't. Magic♪piano 11:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

A bit of Googling shows that there was a report deeming the apartments NRHP-eligible. I think that got misunderstood and repeated. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

OK thanks for the help. I'm going to take it back off the list. 25or6to4 (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me okay and good for the National Register of Historic Places listings in Douglas County, Nebraska page to state something accurate about the site's association with the National Register, however especially as multiple mirrors to Wikipedia have copied that page and will continue to state that the site was NRHP-listed. I found a letter to the editor speaking of a report, but no evidence of actual application to NPS for determination of NRHP-eligibility. I hope this statement added by me is okay. I also updated the article Clarinda & Page Apartments. Andrew Jameson, if you found a different/better mention of a report deeming the NRHP-eligibility and could add that, or otherwise clarify the situation better than I have tried to, please do. --Doncram (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

AuSable Chasm Bridge; Clinton County or Essex County?

It is time for yet another geographical dispute which may not only need the attention of this project, but of the National Register of Historic Places organization itself;
As I was sorting out images that were in the generic category "Bridges in New York (state)" today. I stumbled upon this image which claimed to be of the Grand Canyon of the Adirondacks. After careful examination with the geotag, I found out it was the AuSable Chasm Bridge. However, I found something unexpected during my research. Even though the bridge is listed on the NRHP in Clinton County, New York, a Google Street View of the bridge along U.S. Route 9 in New York clearly suggests that the bridge is just across the Clinton County border in Essex County, New York. So why is this bridge registered on the NRHP in Clinton County, when in reality the bridge is in Essex County? -------User:DanTD (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The sign is not at the county border. The actual border is the center of the Ausable River, so one end of the bridge is in each county. I presume it was listed under Clinton County because it is named after the town of Ausable in Clinton County, although it could have been listed in both. MB 03:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the nomination form for Ausable Chasm Bridge lists it in both counties. Magic♪piano 14:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No WLM in the USA for 2022?

I was looking through the list of countries participating in Wiki Loves Monuments for 2022, and I see that the United States isn't one of the countries participating in this. Why? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hurricane Fiona in Puerto Rico

This news video shows a historic bridge being swept away in Hurricane Fiona, labelled as being in utuado.

It looks like Silva Bridge built in 1897, but that's 100 miles away from utuado. so it would be another one of PR's metal bridges imported from France or Belgium before the Spanish-American War in 1898. mps doc on historic bridges in pr mentions some other utuado bridges]. -- Doncram (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that just a modern Bailey bridge meant for temporary replacements? Might have been installed after Hurricane Maria a few years ago. SounderBruce 20:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, u r right and i was wrong: Bridge built in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria is swept away by Fiona floodwaters --Doncram (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

A new one in the weekly updates

This week's batch of NRHP listings includes something quite unusual:

NEW YORK, ERIE COUNTY, 
Aldrich and Ray Manufacturing Building, 
1491 Niagara St., 
Buffalo, OT100008184, 
Appeal, 9/22/2022

The odd things about this notice are the prefix to the refnum (OT meaning "other"), and the designation on the last line, "Appeal".

According to this news item, the property owner has sued NPS over its "arbitrary and capricious" decision to refuse listing. Magic♪piano 17:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hanford Site Featured article review

I have nominated Hanford Site for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Michigan historic markers

Been away for a bit so don't know if this has been shared, but I found that https://www2.dnr.state.mi.us/HistoricalMarkers/ has at least some of the content that the many-years-defunct pages at http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/hso/sites/5922.htm (and other IDs) had. Using this particular example I see that some material isn't on the DNR site, but it may be a source for sites that never had the original website archived. Chris857 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

OSM map display of all NRHPs in a state or any other area

Just for fun: [2] --Doncram (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I added the above to main NHL list-article.

This provides means to have a OSM map link, showing all NRHPs in the state, on each state's top-level NRHP list-article. The top-level list (if it has any coordinates) and all the county- and city-level lists that have coordinates, need to be in one category, to make this work:

• All NRHPs of North Dakota having coordinates that appear on main List of RHPs in ND page in one OSM map: [3] (by use of Category:Lists of National Register of Historic Places in North Dakota). This includes former NRHPs.
• All NRHPs of North Dakota having coordinates in one OSM map: [4] (by use of Category:Lists of National Register of Historic Places in North Dakota by county, after adding that category to main List of RHPs in ND page). This includes former NRHPs. Currently, two faraway map locations suggest E vs W coding issue for longitude of two NRHPs.
• Many NRHPs of Alabama having coordinates, presented in one OSM map: [5] (by use of Category:Lists of National Register of Historic Places in Alabama is empty...
• Many NRHPs of Alaska having coordinates, presented in one OSM map: [6] (by use of Category:Lists of National Register of Historic Places in Alaska looks incomplete.... Two faraway map locations look wrong at first glance, but are for NRHP sites on Attu and Kiska at far end of Aleutians.

Maybe using a dedicated new hidden category, something like Category:NRHP-OSM-ND-all, just for this purpose, would provide consistency and avoid future problems from any category changes? And I'm pretty sure there would be a way to exclude former NRHPs, if wanted. --Doncram (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Demolished but still listed on the NRHP

I feel that our collective documentation of NRHP-listed places which have been demolished, but are not yet delisted, is pretty good. These are documented in places' individual articles and in the WikiProject-internal wp:NRIS info issues pages. I also believe in the WikiProject's cumulative, collective updating using weekly changes reports from the NPS (performed by numerous editors almost entirely without myself contributing), that we know well enough that a delisting has not occurred, in these cases.

How about categorizing these explicitly in mainspace, now, and beginning to report on the total in national-level tallies of current NRHPs?

Specifically: add Category:Demolished but still listed on the National Register of Historic Places where we have explicit documentation such as a news report of a demolition, or where we otherwise prove well enough to state in mainspace that a building is gone (e.g. by showing a photo of a given address that the building is gone). Add also add related Category:Demolished buildings and structures in STATE and, if demolition year is known, Category:Buildings and structures demolished in YEAR.

To test the waters, at least, i put the category onto a few articles. There are currently 142 (which updates occasionally) in Category:Demolished but still listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

A potential issue that comes up for a plantation whose plantation house has been demolished, is that some other contributing building(s) do survive. Offhand I think it is still proper to identify the plantation as "demolished but still listed". At least an evaluation of whether the surviving structures still serve well enough as artifacts to merit continued listing is needed, given that the main contributing resource is gone. --Doncram (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination Form photos

Many of the Wikipedia pages containing NRHP listings do not include a photo for various sites, and yet the actual Park Service’s Nomination Form for that site almost always has a photo. At least the Nomination Forms I’ve viewed don’t show a copyright restriction, and in fact seem to say that if photos don’t show such a restriction, they are public domain. So can we simply copy and paste the Nomination Form photos into the Wikipedia articles for that site? This would certainly be easier, and in some cases would be the only way to get such a picture. Plus, someone could always replace it later if they get a better photo, but at least they’d know what they’re looking for if they want to hunt the sites down. Thanks.

TulGuy

Umm, not generally. Quite a few images accompanying nomination forms have been deleted from Commons over copyright violations. Nomination forms are created by a wide variety of individuals and organizations. They are not necessarily the work of the federal government, which is pretty much the only type that would be virtually guaranteed be public domain. Even photos accompanying nomination forms created by federal government agencies may have been taken by non-government actors, and may be subject to their copyright.

To use nomination photos, you have to establish (1) who took the pictures (2) and when (3) and were they a federal government employee (as opposed to a state or local govt employee, or something else) at the time? If you can demonstrate they were in fact taken by a federal government employee, then they are public domain and can be freely used. Otherwise, you have to apply the rules summarized in the Hirtle chart to see if they can be used. If there are copyright legends accompanying the photos (I've seen this), then they most likely cannot be used unless they meet some narrow exceptions listed in the Hirtle chart.

Lastly, some nominations have terrible photos that don't actually illustrate the listing well (I've seen this). Magic♪piano 20:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Boulder County Courthouse

This new article said it was a 2018 listing, having been a CP to the Downtown Boulder Historic District since that was listed in 1980. The sources seem to support that saying "Earlier this year the Boulder County Courthouse was officially listed in the National Register of Historic Places in order to recognize its significance to LGBTQ history." I don't see it in National Register of Historic Places listings in Boulder County, Colorado. Anyone know more? Refnum? MB 20:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the Boulder County Courthouse was listed as a contributing property in the original 1980 listing for the downtown Historic District. In 2018, additional documentation was submitted to the National Register adding the additional LGBTQ significance, but is still a contributing property to the overall downtown HD. The additional documentation has been added to the original submission on the NRHP website [7], appended between the HD map and original photos starting around page 100. 25or6to4 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article used to cite its supposed listing on the NRHP appears to have been written by someone ignorant of what actually happened (which was nothing more than the filing and acceptance of additional documentation). Magic♪piano 20:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't asking if it was a CP to the district, I was just asking if it was individually listed in 2018 as well, which I doubted since it wasn't in the county list. I see you updated the infobox. I also changed the text to match. MB 21:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I further revised the infobox. I don't know how the infobox is supposed to reflect the filing of additional information, if it could. I confirmed the additional documentation in 2018 weekly NPS announcements, where it shows with refnum AD80000878. I tried searching at NARA for original refnum 80000878 and for AD80000878 and do not find the additional documentation. This all seems rather unhelpful for the article editor if we can't find and add the 2018 additional documentation! --Doncram (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Try the end of this document. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Jameson, thanks! Added, could be used to expand the article. The additional documentation for the HD was entirely about the LGBTQ history related to the courthouse, not about any other properties in the HD. --Doncram (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

25or6to4, thank you also. I started out just trying to improve the article by adding the NRHP HD document, which I did think could possibly include the AD. I found it was not, at least not in NARA's NRHP document for the HD, a 166-page PDF. And i didn't notice your pointing to it, above, as being available within the NPS's NRHP document. Pages 102-118 is the final, signed AD, within that 187-page PDF. Added to the courthouse article and to the HD article. --Doncram (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC) 19:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the NROP infobox

I was working on the Julien Dubuque Bridge and saw that it has an NROP infobox. Should I change it to a bridge version? Mitch199811 (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If you'd like to incorporate a bridge infobox, it's be preferred to keep the NRHP infobox, embedded within the bridge infobox, using the "embed" parameter in the NRHP infobox (see, for example, American Legion Memorial Bridge (Michigan)). Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Doing this would not be necessary unless there is some bridge-specific information to be added to the infobox. In this case, I see there is the length and width of the bridge, so an embedded approach would be appropriate. MB 15:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The Charles Bolsius House

I noticed new page The Charles Bolsius House about a place perhaps both individually NRHP listed and also part of a historic district. Contributed by User:ArizonaArt, who has edited occasionally in wikipedia over 5 or so years, but maybe has not done NRHP articles before. Could anyone please take a look and perhaps contribute/improve/discuss? I can't do so myself right now. I did add a welcoming type note to their Talk, which could be expanded. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I just saw that article and came here ask if anyone could substantiate the claim that it is The Charles Bolsius House was designated a contributing property to the Pima County Fort Lowell Historic District in 1976 and was individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places under the Fort Lowell Multi-Cultural District in April 1978. That doesn't even make sense. "Pima County Fort Lowell Historic District" could be some county designation, if Pima County does that. But it being individually listed under a NHRP HD doesn't make sense, and there is no Fort Lowell Multi-Cultural District. (the ref for that looks made-up). There is Fort Lowell (Tucson, Arizona) which has a section explaining the related NRHP listing; no mention of this house. MB 22:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I infer that the "Pima County Fort Lowell Historic District" is a county historic district. The "Fort Lowell Multi-Cultural District" is a confusion of terminology; I think what's meant is the "Fort Lowell MRA," which does indeed date from 1978. There's no "Charles Bolsius House" listed in the Fort Lowell MRA, but it's possible that this article is about the "Quartermaster Storehouse", or alternatively it's intended to refer to the Post Trader's Store and Riallito House (which as you can see already has an article). Andrew Jameson (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew Jameson, I looked into this a bit more after reading what you said and don't think is is the Post Trader's store as they have different addresses and on the satellite view you can see each are nearby but different building. This shows the property a listed as Contributing, non historic to the Pima County "Fort Lowell Historic District". The Fort Lowell Multiple Resource MRA does list 5495 E. Fort Lowell Road as a contributing property to the proposed NRHP historic district, but since that was never approved, there are still just the individual listings. Now I see that the address matches 78003360 or Site No. HD 5-26 in National Register of Historic Places listings in Pima County, Arizona - so this may be it. MB 04:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that's it! The associated form shows the owners of 5495 East Fort Lowell Road as Charles and Leora Bolsius. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The complete nomination form for Site No. HD 5-26 is illuminating in several ways. First, it is little more than an Arizona state inventory form. Second, it uses the terminology "Fort Lowell Multi-Cultural District", which is then struck out and replaced by "Multiple Resource Area" (both hand-written). Third, the listed "site" is described as a storage building constructed out of adobe, which appears to be the core structure of the Bolsius house. The period of significance lists the dates 1948, 1961, and 1967, which presumably map to the periods when the Bolsiuses altered and expanded it; its style is listed as "Contemporary". Magic♪piano 13:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Magicpiano, I see you cleaned up the article. What about the redlink to Site No. HD 5-26? Should that be a redirect to the article or just changed? MB 14:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I made a redirect for the site name, and also added mention of the house in the Fort Lowell article. Magic♪piano 20:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

AfD: Skinner Building (Seattle)

Skinner Building (Seattle) has been nominated for deletion. Discussion participation welcome. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Could a project member possibly add a map to the infobox? Also, I've started a discussion at Talk:Skinner Building (Seattle) re: architectural style, if anyone's able to weigh in and help improve the article re: design. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional documentation on Mechanics' Hall, and new "Best Practices Review" from NPS

This article of Nov 10, 2022 declares that Mechanics' Hall (Portland, Maine) is just now listed on the National Register in 2022. The article was edited to state that, with source, by User:RRex4949, but that overwrote previous statement that the place was NRHP-listed in 1973! Article did have NRHP infobox already, and back in 2016 was edited by User:Magicpiano to include NRHP document... Eventually I found there was an additional documentation, not a new listing, announced by NPS, and revised the article including to comment in the local newspaper reference that they are mixed up. (Again?), I am not sure how to reflect Additional Documentation in an NRHP infobox or NRHP county list-article, if that should be done.

And FYI, per a recent NPS "weekly listings", [The inaugural issue of “Best Practices Review,” a new quarterly publication to provide successful nomination examples on specific topics, is now available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/publications.htm." --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say that the infobox should only list the date it was first added (unless expanded). The additional documentation can be used in the text as a ref to expand the article. MB 19:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

From the news coverage, it appears the register designated it a "Nationally Significant Landmark Building". However, I'm not seeing this phrase used much in Google results besides for this building. Does it just mean that the checkbox for significance moved from "local" to "national"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

AFD on proposed national monuments of the U.S.

Please consider participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proposed national monuments of the United States. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for USS Missouri (BB-63)

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Hog Farm _Talk 03:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

NRHP article at AFD

Something is wrong there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy C. Barton House. Related and relevant deletion (but not NRHP) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Reed House. Toddst1 (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Vieux Carre Historic District

Does the Vieux Carre Historic District have any non-contributing structures? Why are these lists so unclear? Is the Old Absinthe House contributing to the district? It is certainly within the boundaries and mentioned throughout these nominations. ɱ (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

A great many early National Historic Landmarks have poor quality nomination forms, especially when compared to standards promulgated in the 1970s and 1980s. In quite a few cases, NHLs were designated with vague boundaries and minimal detail on contributing elements, and only some of these have since been updated to more modern documentation standards. The Vieux Carré was designated in 1965, so there may not be detailed documentation about contributing vs. non-contributing properties. Magic♪piano 03:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Appomattox Court House National Historical Park

Appomattox Court House National Historical Park has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 02:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a move request at Talk:TBM-3E "Avenger" Torpedo Bomber Warplane#Requested move 2 February 2023. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

organized labor historic sites

The new Signpost has a WikiProject report about WikiProject Organized Labour. That WP is having a Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Online edit-a-thon February 2023. I wonder if there are red-link NRHP places which could be suggested for that edit-a-thon?

There are Ancient Order of United Workmen and other labor-related places in the "Ethnic and Fraternal Orders" section of {{Lists of clubhouse buildings in the United States}}. There are no redlink NRHPs among the 4 AOUW places it links to, but perhaps there are others? And/or some of their Talk pages warrant getting wp:Labour banners ({{WikiProject Organized Labour|class=|importance=}})?

Some NRHP's with "Union" in their title are:

• Bellman's Union Church, Centerport, PA, was redlink, see Draft:Bellman's Union Church
• Black Student Union Center, Tiffin, OH
• Liberal Union Hall, Hanska, MN
• Logia Union y Amparo No. 44, was redlink, Caguas, PR, see Draft:Logia Union y Amparo No. 44
• Union Hall (Danforth, Maine), NRHP-listed not clear why called "Union Hall", but apparently not labor-related
• Union Hall (Searsport, Maine), NRHP-listed not clear why called "Union Hall", but apparently not labor-related
• Union Hall (Truro, Massachusetts), NRHP-listed
• Union Hall (Chaumont, New York), NRHP-listed
• Union Hall (North Salem, New York), NRHP-listed i assume not labor-related
• Union Miners Cemetery Mount Olive IL
• Western Bohemian Fraternal Union Hall Meadowlands, MN
• Woodmen of Union Building, Hot Springs, AR
• Yakel House and Union Brewery Alton IL
• Yale Union Laundry Building Portland OR

Some NRHPs with "Labor"

• American Federation of Labor Building, Washington DC
• Hard Labor Creek State Park, Rutledge GA
• Labor Bank Building, Jersey City NJ
• Labor Temple Missoula MT, was redlink, see Draft:Labor Temple
• Socialist Labor Party Hall Barre City VT

Others:

• Ludlow Tent Colony Site, related to Colorado Labor Wars
• Isn't there some NRHP-listed commemoration of the Pullman Strike?

--Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Black History Month NRHPs?

February is Black History Month, and in the past this WikiProject has often had DYKs posted during the month, often created beforehand and saved up by DYK editors. Draft:Persons of Color Cemetery at Kinderhook, in New York, is one DYK-eligible draft that I started but didn't finish, could use help on. I wonder if there are other DYK possibilities in progress by anyone?

There are numerous redlinks on List of African-American historic places and its subpages for states with a whole lot of entries:

• List of African-American historic places in Florida
• List of African-American historic places in Georgia
• List of African-American historic places in Washington, D.C. (few if any redlinks, due to past editing campaigns)
• List of African-American historic places in Mississippi
• List of African-American historic places in North Carolina

And I see there are a number of unlinked museum items on List of museums focused on African Americans, all of which should probably be redlinks indicating articles are needed, some of which are likely housed in an NRHP-listed or other historic building. Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

List of historic places in Allentown, Pennsylvania

Would some members of this WikiProject mind taking a look at List of historic places in Allentown, Pennsylvania? The first part of the article seems fine, but after that things aren't so clear. The "Notable landmarks" section and "Significant legacy historical sites" have unclear inclusion criteria and some of the entries are completely unsourced and read like PR blurbs. Some of the entries have stand-alone articles written about them and perhaps these are OK; many, however, do not and it's not what criterion besides having a stand-alone Wikipedia article about them that they satisfy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I have tagged the list for not having inclusion criteria. Magic♪piano 17:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

[I made an incorrect assumption that it was yourself who created the list, and I was assuming recently. In fact it was User:Bwmoll3 (no longer active) back in 2013-14, and several editors have developed it further. Please be charitable about my comments, following?]

Interesting work. Thank you for asking about it here. This WikiProject, or at least me as one member, has had, let's say, mixed feelings about comparable collections of historic places specific to a given area, and how those are to mesh with corresponding NRHP lists. I myself participated in some AFDs, at least once on side of Keeping and at least once as nominator for deletion and on side of Deleting, related to a series of "historic places in TOWN" type list-articles of places in Arizona all developed by one editor. I recall liking the first one I saw there, like I was enthused to see a local-type editor enthused about their local historical places, but then it rubbed me the wrong way. I recall not liking there how it seemed to be competing with the corresponding NRHP lists and leaving the NRHP lists undeveloped; I thought it would be better if the local editor would help develop descriptions, etc. in the local NRHP lists first, but IIRC instead they were just duplicating anything in the NRHP lists and adding more in their own version. A second way it rubbed me wrong was that the editor appeared to me to be just using their own personal knowledge/opinions about what was historic and deserved preservation, in their choice of the non-NRHP-listed places in their lists. This seemed non-encyclopedic to me. Like User:Magicpiano just observed here, that there were "unclear inclusion criteria". I really didn't think that editor had local conflicts of interests, like if they were an investor and owner of properties and they wanted to promote their own ones or nearby ones for their own financial advantage. And I did not suggest that, but there and maybe here I do not see how the groupings are being defined in any objective way that anyone else could verify. Editors here in this WikiProject in the past and editors in other areas of Wikipedia have been very meticulous about finding objective-type criteria to make divisions (i.e. to set up categories) between different types of things, e.g. to divide a given city into neighborhoods (best to find a division of the city used officially in some way) and refraining from making the division if someone else's division cannot be found and relied upon (perhaps with one or a few tweaks that can be justified by brief explanation).

About this example, I first wondered how it would fit with the Allentown, Pennsylvania article (like maybe it should be a section there), but I see that the Allentown article has been well-developed (probably by you), and this would be too long as a section there I suppose, and it does seem to "fit" with it. It is linked from Allentown's section "Arts, culture, and recreation"'s subsection "Landmarks and popular location", which also links to List of city parks and recreation facilities of Allentown, Pennsylvania and National Register of Historic Places listings in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. Comment 1: could that subsection give some more introduction about those three sublists, and link to them from its body rather than in italics from just below its header as if they were {{Main}} links? E.g. say at least that there are so many park sites and so many NRHP listings and that this one has 18 historic places, perhaps saying further that there are x, y, z numbers of its three types.

The division into three types, "National Register of Historic Places" vs. "Notable landmarks" vs. "Significant legacy historical sites" is interesting. Comment 2: I haven't seen that division before, am not sure exactly what those are. Without explicit explanation, it may convey accurately enough that the NRHP ones are the best-preserved or most historical or such, that the landmarks are next, and that significant ones are third most important. I'll think about this a bit more, but Marchjuly can you explain about what you mean by the three types and how you have determined which sites are which? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments Doncram and apologize if my post made it seem as if I had created the article. I actually came across it while checking on something else. As for possible WP:CSC, it would seem that the first section would be limited to entries which have been officially registered as US historical places and can be reliably sourced as such. Many of the entries do have a stand-alone articles and perhaps these include citations supporting such claims, but those that don't probably can be included as long as they are supported by proper citations in the list article. I'm not two sure about what criteria could be used for the other two sections. It seems the most basic one would be that a stand-alone article be created or already exist per WP:WTAF. Often when dealing with "Notable people" sub-sections in articles about schools, population centers, organizations, etc. lots of WP:LISTCRUFT gets added over the years for WP:Namechecking reasons by people applying their own personal and subjective standards. The "best" way to try and control this seems to be stating that a stand-alone article which clearly establishes a properly sourced connection between the subject needs to already exist for inclusion even to be considered. In some cases, even when such a stand-alone article does exist, a local consensus might be established through article talk page discussion in favor of non-inclusion because some individuals aren't deemed as "notable" as others. I'm not sure how things are done for non-people type of entries such as businesses, landmarks, buildings, etc. For example, I don't understand the point of the "Mack Allentown Assembly Plants" entry in List of historic places in Allentown, Pennsylvania#Significant legacy historical sites since it's nothing but a mini-list of GPS coordinates, a link to a photo, and a single sentence. The entry for "Sears, Roebuck & Company Building" in the same section seems to rely on a TV station website's piece focused on the memories of one local resident. An example of completely unsourced content is "Ritz Barbecue" in the List of historic places in Allentown, Pennsylvania#Notable landmarks section. There are other entries in those two sections as well for which inclusion seems more subjective than anything else. Absent any kind of basic criteria, it's going to be hard ensure some kind of encyclopedic standard for those two sections. Anyway, maybe it would be better to move further discussion about this to the article's talk page where it's there for others to more easily see and participate in. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! This is an example of a bigger problem "we" haven't resolved here. I'd personally like to keep a bigger discussion here, though post notice at the Talk page of Allentown and of the specific article, for now. And maybe ping editors of the specific article there, too.

I see that National Register of Historic Places listings in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania has 56 items, of which 16 are Allentown NRHPs. And their description fields are mostly blank. As with the other case, I'd rather see development in one list-article of the NRHPs, not duplicated and inconsistent discussion.

The 16 Allentown ones could be split out of the Lehigh County NRHP list. There are many NRHP lists for single towns, split out often because the county list was too long. How about doing that, putting a table of the Allentown NRHP-listed places into List of historic places in Allentown, Pennsylvania, dropping them from the Lehigh county list and providing appropriate linking? Then follow with a table or two of the other types. Certainly any historic sites that are designated by a local historic registry (and which are not further NHRP listed) can be included in a table of their own, say if the town of Allentown has a historic review board etc and does such designations as many places do.

About the "significant legacy historic site" ones, maybe those are big hunks of now-abandoned industrial buildings etc. which clearly are artifacts of important town history, but which haven't found their way into any economically viable re-use or other situation of historic preservation. I dunno, why not just state that kind of thing outright, in the TOWN article or in this separate list of TOWN historic places, that there exist big swaths of TOWN history not represented by any specific formally preserved places, and state that the big hunks of abandoned buildings do survive, nonetheless, in 2023. And include a photo or two, and link to a commons category of lots of photos? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's better to keep this discussion going here, then I would suggest adding {{Please see}} to the talk pages of the various WikiProjects and articles relevant to any such discussion. I see you've already done so on the primary article's talk page (someone has, btw, already responded to your ping) as well as a few other talk pages; so, I've done the same for Talk:Lehigh Valley and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. My initial suggestion would be to remove any unsourced entries and any sourced entries which might not be considered be viable WP:REDYES candidates if stand-alone articles about the subjects don't exist. In other words, the most basic criterion for inclusion would be to have a stand-alone article already written or be something for which such an article could almost surely be written. After that perhaps some more detailed assessments could take place on a per case basis in cases where there might be disagreement on including certain subjects which meet the most basic criterion. This, however, might be too much of a bull in the china shop approach and perhaps its better to see what some others may think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I am just now moving User:Keystone18's comment there to here. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

[Comment moved from Talk of primary page to here::The National Register of Historic Places, of course, is a definitive list with no subjective nature to it. The other two sections seem more subjective and the entries should probably be assessed to see if some might be missing or whether some included are unwarranted. In a more bold edit move, the page might be restricted simply to the National Register of Historic Places. Most of the other listings do not have articles, which means they lack encyclopedic value on their own merits and these two other sections might simply be worth removing. Meanwhile, I'm going to copyedit the page. That has been my only contribution to the page to date. My two cents. Keystone18 (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

In response to both Marchjuly and Keystone18, I dunno, I want to be somewhat supportive to local editors developing more than about just the NRHP-listed places. Of course if non-local NRHP places have a separate article it's clear they can be listed. Not having an article doesn't mean they lack encyclopedic merit though. It is fine in a list-article to have redlinks (where a future article is wanted) and also to have unlinked entries (where no future article is expected), IMHO. I don't have clear vision what one of these list-articles should look like, including what sections it should have, though. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Walton Danforth Stowell of national park service

I just came across Draft:Walton Danforth Stowell which was removed from mainspace after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walton Danforth Stowell. The person, a longterm National Park Service who designed interpretative displays and more, seems notable to me. The article probably has too much detail and it was started back in 2009(?) by a relative apparently. There was a prior AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walton Stowell in 2009. Seems like newbie-type editor(s) needed some help but could not withstand unsympathetic pressure of skeptical non-historic-preservation-interested editors at the AFDs. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 08:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I jotted some notes at Draft talk:Walton Danforth Stowell. Maybe it's not adding up to establish notability. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 09:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I see something here but I really wish more of these 118(!) sources were digitized so I could better-assess, and help rework the article. Definitely a huge COI problem affecting the article's tone. As self-stated, the subject's son was the primary author there. ɱ (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Hanford Site

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Hanford Site/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rschen7754 19:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Is being on the NRHP sufficient to count as notability?

This has come up lately in a few places. While obviously there can be such a thing as a poorly written article on a notable topic, to the point where it merits deletion: if a building/structure/etc. is on the NRHP, is it ipso facto notable, or is something beyond that needed? - Jmabel | Talk 01:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The way I see it, the National Park Service has higher standards for what makes a site historically significant than Wikipedia does for article notability, and nominations require a list of references. This means that NRHP listing is an extremely strong indicator that a site is notable, but it's not in itself the reason it's notable. The one exception to this is multiple resource area nominations, which are sometimes best covered in a single article rather than with individual articles on every site, as there sometimes isn't enough material on the individual sites to justify an article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There have been countless discussions about this. Please read up before renewing perennial topics like this one. ɱ (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

(EC) To give you another !vote, I agree with TheCatalyst31. NRHP topics should be presumed solid, in advance of seeing actual NRHP nomination documents and related materials. That said, there is no requirement that such require separate articles, and it can sometimes/often be better to cover them in combination with other topics. NRHP-listed archeological sites where disclosure of NRHP nomination material is prohibited is another exception area, and frankly some/many redlinks for these currently showing in NRHP county-level list-articles should be delinked. And ɱ is correct also. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

intolerable pattern of editing on oldest houses

As best i can recall, i have _never_ requested a block of any editor besides effectively requesting that by opening sockpuppet investigations. But there is arrogant-seeming editing going on at List of the oldest buildings in Connecticut and related articles by editor User:Old houses, in mode of wp:BATTLEGROUND. The editor's contribution history since 2016 shows they are probably capable and smart and informed (about architectural styles, types of glass in old window, dendrochronology, and/or similar), and could potentially contribute a lot. However, their behavior--unwillingness to discuss, unwillingness to provide sources, unilateral deletions of material with disregard for development of actual understanding by the editor corps here--is intolerable.

I believe I have never been aware of this going on until informed just now (partly as that list was not previously part of wp:NRHP until I just added NRHP banner there, and I didn't take an interest there). I just reverted two undiscussed deletions. I have myself dealt patiently and sympathetically with a good number of difficult editors, many for multiple years, in order to turn situations around. But I am not inclined to try to work with this editor, if they are not dealt with forcefully in order to seriously get their attention and cause them to seriously consider others who have been burdened already. I request total block of their editing. About details, actually I am inclined to want them to receive a 7 year block, including being blocked from editing at their own Talk page, but I am not an administrator and am not informed about what is appropriate practice.

It may be pointed out that wp:ANI exists for this kind of request and discussion, but also it is not prohibited to discuss behavior here, and there are administrators present here who could probably evaluate the somewhat specialized topic area easily. And they could take action without confusingly involving others who do not have subject expertise. (And I freely admit I hate participating at wp:ANI). I will notify the editor now. They were no spring chicken when they started with this in 2016, so figuring out their editing under multiple accounts would be a different way forward. So it is another advantage of discussion here, that NRHP editors are more likely to be able to identify similar accounts. I don't mind if someone feels it necessary to move this over to ANI, and if nothing happens here I suppose I would eventually do so myself. But I would simply prefer forceful action. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I don't like ANI and try to avoid it, and the issues seen here are about NRHP sites. I will keep an eye on the oldest buildings in Connecticut page, and support a block for this user for anyone with the power to do so. ɱ (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I have submitted a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. ɱ (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User:Ɱ and to User:Magicpiano for participating at List of the oldest buildings in Connecticut article and [[its talk page, giving message needed. Thank you User:Ɱ for the 3RR report (since archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive466) which resulted in the user getting blocked for 24 hours; I bet that helped.

When searching for that, I found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive316 that User:N0TABENE (the 2nd character is zero "0" in that user name) was having same trouble with user at the same article, some years ago. The 3RR did not yield a block. User:N0TABENE, if you come here from the ping, I hope it wasn't awful for you back then.

It was intolerable but it looks like it has settled down, with claims about ages and sources made at the Talk page. User:Tomticker5, do you agree, how is it now for you? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It's back to the way it was. User:Old houses controls the page. He/him/she/her/it will use the newest construction date regardless of the source. Old houses is inconsistent which source to use for a building's erection date. On one hand the NRHP nomination form is used, on another the website of the organization is used, then on another an old book. Tax records are considered worthless, etc. The Colony of Connecticut kept good tax, court and government records. I'm tired of battling over dates.Tomticker5 (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I have a more nuanced view of what Old houses is doing. They have several broad points that IMHO are valid:

• you cannot rely unequivocally on a specific source (e.g. an early 20th-century survey by Kelley) or category of sources (NRHP nominations) when you are aware that information in them has been supplanted by subsequent research. This means you *have* to be nuanced. And I am not at all surprised that subsequent research assigns later construction dates to particular buildings. Early surveys which relied on things like tax records for dating information are notoriously problematic because of said reliance. As I said on the talk page there, tax records indicate *a* structure stood there. You have to demonstrate that the current structure is that one (or includes substantial elements of the original), and not a later construction. This problem does not affect just Connecticut, but just about anywhere where there are First Period buildings.
• sources are often vague about what they say about building construction and existing of structures at a given site. A site was "settled" in 1639; great, but when was the current house built? Older sources were often vague, relying on arguably ambiguous interpretation of the documentary record. This means that current analysis needs to be based on feature analysis and comparison, and on the less ambiguous science of dendrochronology. While this point is basically sound, Old houses does not always cite usable sources to bolster their assertions. It is fine for them to claim "this building has feature X, which only appears in buildings of date Y or later/earlier", but this (building has feature X; buildings in this region with this feature were typically built when) *needs to be sourced*. Ditto the claimed existence of unpublished dendrochronology reports. If we can't see them (or their reputably-published summaries), we can't use them. Further, care needs to be taken to avoid synthesis.

And, Old houses' aggressive style doesn't help. Magic♪piano 14:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, use the best source. In this case, according to every wikipedia guideline, the NRHP source is the best available source. It was written by an expert, and it's far newer than the other cited sources. The NRHP source clearly states the house was built in the early 18th century, "ca. 1725." Nowhere in that source does it say it was built in 1640. I think mentioning the older, traditional dates for this house is fine in the house article, but there is a no doubt, no brainer reliable source here.Old houses (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Tomticker5 the Oldest Buildings of Connecticut is completely dominated by you, I'm just trying to use the best possible source for these buildings, and you consistently use very old sources when there are newer, more reliable sources available. Most of these houses have no reliable source period, so there's nothing we can do. But for Buckingham House, there is a reliable source, a well-known expert on early Connecticut architectureOld houses (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

when there are newer, more reliable sources available Where?! Nothing has been provided from you. The "very old" source from NRHP is where local officials and federal officials verified the accuracy of the information provided. That's why it's always used as a base for sourcing such items. The bias is definitely with you, Old houses and what you're doing is standard sealioning. – The Grid (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Rats. Okay, I am myself not willing to work with them. Given this is still going on, I wonder if we could we deal with this editor by getting them blocked permanently for sockpuppeting. Their Wiki-skill-level from the getgo showed they must have edited plenty before. Can one figure out any other accounts they have used? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Doncram, they've already been indeffed. Schazjmd (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

(EC) P.S. An editor sockpuppeting, i.e. working from multiple accounts and/or non-logged in i.p. addresses, is usually taking advantage of other editors ... they can be incredibly difficult in one area, say, as here, while not risking their ability to continue in Wikipedia in general. This is unfair to others who have to be civil and reasonable in face of the opposite, partly because we do have our reputations and rights to continue in Wikipedia at stake. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

(EC) Oh, I see now that they were blocked indefinitely on 5 April by User:EdJohnston (thanks!), though they are still allowed to edit at their own Talk page. I personally hope that does stick. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for USS Wisconsin

I have nominated USS Wisconsin (BB-64) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 21:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Zabriskie-Schedler House in Bergen County, NJ

There's a house at exactly 40.98850°N 74.09282°W / 40.98850; -74.09282 (460 West Saddle River Rd, Ridgewood, New Jersey, in Bergen County, New Jersey that's in the news today: "Ridgewood moves forward with controversial artificial turf fields at historic property", by Marsha A. Stoltz, NorthJersey.com, April 13, 2023. It's known as the "Zabriskie-Schedler House" In our list system, it's apparently the John A. L. Zabriskie House (currently a redlink), NRHP-listed on November 22, 2019 in National Register of Historic Places listings in Ridgewood, New Jersey (which is broken out of National Register of Historic Places listings in Bergen County, New Jersey, which has other houses with "Zabriskie" in the name).

As it is in the news, it would be nice to have an article about the house and its history, and redirect Zabriskie-Schedler House (currently a redlink) to that. I can't find an NRHP document at NPS or at NARA (catalog.archives.gov), although I do see news articles about the listing and controversies. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Texas regions

Texas has the lowest percentage of articles started, per wp:NRHPPROGRESS and relatedly the system of NRHP webpages there has been hardest to navigate. The scale -- 254 counties -- is huge, and it has been very difficult if not impossible to see which listings are near to one another, at least in regions of "small" counties, and then go get photos and get to work on missing articles.

Hopefully it will help to create compendiums of NRHPs in Texas' 12 zones defined by the Texas comptroller for population and economics reporting. The zones are mapped on page with 2022 map of 12 zones.

Check out the following 5 draft compendiums and especially the linked "Map of all coordinates using OpenSourceMap".

• National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas' High Plains region (the Texas Panhandle, the region I wanted most to see)
  • Note the mapping currently reveals that one NRHP's coordinates must be wrong, placing it quite a ways outside of the region.
  • I dunno if anyone [else] likes changing colors for a county in the wp:NRHPPROGRESS maps? Note the High Plains region list currently shows four one-NRHP counties where the NRHP is a redlink. So creating just one article will change a county from 0 percent articled to 100 percent articled, hence most extreme color change possible to see in the next update. I developed this High Plains one more, adding links to the individual separate county lists, for a viewer who wants to go edit a given row. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Alamo region, with San Antonio, is too big to compend on one page given Wikipedia's current limits for transclusions, so:
  • National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas' Alamo region: Bexar (San Antonio)
  • National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas' Alamo region: Victoria (Victoria)
  • National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas' Alamo region: all other (forms rings around San Antonio and Victoria)

• Gulf Coast region, with 19 counties including Houston, is also too big:
  • National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas' Gulf Coast region: Harris (Houston)
  • National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas' Gulf Coast region: all but Harris

Note: Harris County was previously split (into 4 parts) partly because its page size made it difficult to edit, and partly because it was difficult for readers/editors to understand/interpret. The region page here puts them back together (actually it compends the 4 sections), achieving the benefit of allowing occasional viewing the linked OSM map, working fine for that purpose. For editing, that is still to be done at the separate four pages; in fact the region page basically cannot be edited (which is fine, one just follows a link to the appropriate one of the four). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Metroplex region (this is defined to be bigger than [how] the U.S. OMB defines the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex statistical area, and this is the region which I thought would be hardest to address):
  • National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas' Metroplex region: Dallas and Tarrant (Fort Worth)
  • National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas' Metroplex region: all but Dallas and Tarrant (Fort Worth) This shows ring of counties around Dallas and Tarrant (Fort Worth).

• Upper Rio Grande: National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas' Upper Rio Grande region (with 6 counties, including El Paso). (Hopefully many of the 7 other regions will also fit nicely on one page.)

Update: The Capital and Central regions each did require 2 pages. Upper East, Northwest, Southeast, South Texas and West Texas each fit on one page. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This approach wasn't exactly what I was hoping for, but is doable using wp:transclusions. Do especially check out the linked OSM maps. I don't know what software to use and how to do it myself, but these enable one to download all coordinates to one's laptop or smartphone, enabling one to have active maps when touring the area. (Can anyone share on how to do that?)

I am hoping these can be presented as user-friendly viewing options for readers at List of RHPs in TX. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Knock on wood, I think the now-developed-out system at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas/ByEconDevArea will work, and addresses/avoids all problems previously pointed out in 2018 discussion here about Texas regions. What readers will see is a modified table of the 254 Texas counties, now with a region column, as below (showing example for just the "A"s). This enables them to see a given county's info on either just the individual page for the county, or on a region page where they can have more perspective. Note the region pages' "Map all coordinates using OSM" links work really great now, IMHO. What editors have to do differently is .... nothing. This has no impact on how the NRHP updating system works. This has no impact on wp:NRHPPROGRESS reporting.

	County	# of Sites	# of NHLs	Region
1	Anderson	28	0	Upper East
2	Andrews	1	0	West Texas
3	Angelina	41	0	Southeast
4	Aransas	5	0	South Texas
5	Archer	1	0	Northwest
6	Armstrong	4	1	Gulf Coast
7	Atascosa	3	0	Alamo
8	Austin	8	0	Gulf Coast

References

Pinging many participants in 2018 discussions of splitting Harris County (which was done) and of dividing Texas by regions (which was not): User:Oldsanfelipe, User:Magicpiano, User:Fortguy, User:WhisperToMe, User:TheCatalyst31, User:25or6to4, User:Reywas92, User:Fortguy, User:Bubba73.

I see again that back in 2018 Magicpiano mentioned using Google My Maps application to download and use KML files of NRHP locations from multiple counties before going on trips, which I meant to try myself but never did. At Google My Maps, I see mention that there was an Android app called "Google Maps Engine Lite" which would display a user's KML info, but that was "removed from the Play Store in October 2021". I'd be happy to learn what app would work now, esp. for an iPhone, myself.

For now, please note that the link for "Map all coordinates using OSM / Download using KML" works fine on the region pages, so one can get all of the "Upper East" region or all of the "High Plains" region, say, in one download, while previously it would have been impractical to collect KML for all of the counties in either of those areas.

--Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Risking it seeming like jumping the gun, I moved the table with region column into the live List of RHPs in TX page, along with map of the 12 regions just prepared by User:25or6to4 (thanks!). I just had noticed that the page had not been updated since I started drafting the table, so it happens the numbers in the table were still correct for each county, and I am hoping this (with modifications) will pass muster. If it is acceptable, then copying in the table now saves editing time and avoids possible errors, if a merger would be required due to the numbers having changed. Knock on wood. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Doncram, thanks for the ping the at the RTHL article. I don't think any of those above went through since you had to fix it, the ping must be in the same edit as a four-tilde signature. I support merging county lists by region rather than having 254 individual (often very short) lists, but I do not support duplication. What's the deal with having both National Register of Historic Places listings in Travis County, Texas and National Register of Historic Places listings in the Capital region of Texas: Travis County???? National Register of Historic Places listings in the Capital region of Texas: Travis County just transcludes the tables from the nine other county articles, so this doesn't exactly appear to solve anything (other than being able to map all coordinates in a region or subregion at once?) – was the intention to make these as a framework and substitute in the small counties later? Reywas92^Talk 20:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That's about Talk:Recorded Texas Historic Landmark#Reorganize by Texas regions?. Thanks, i will fix, add another editor, and ping again.

I see the National Register of Historic Places listings in the Capital region of Texas: Travis County page had a bad link (it went to a Talk page instead) for National Register of Historic Places listings in the Capital region of Texas: Other, now fixed. The capital region has 10 counties, and the tables are too big to appear all on one page. So there is Travis County vs. Other. The National Register of Historic Places listings in the Capital region of Texas: Travis County is indeed essentially the same as National Register of Historic Places listings in Travis County, Texas, just with a different title to fit into the naming system for the region pages.

There are 18 region pages in total. For 7 of the 12 regions, all the counties fit on one page. For Alamo region, there are two single-county pages (Bexar and Victoria counties) and then all the other 17 counties. For the other 3 regions, there are two groupings each having 2 or more counties.

All of "the small counties" have been transcluded into place already. No tables were copied, like template:subst would do; they are all transcluded, which is different and does not make an editable copy. Does this start to make more sense? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

So currently there is the overall TX list-article, plus almost (because some counties have no NRHP listings) 254 individual county pages (editable), and 18 region pages (non-editable). Honestly, the almost 254 individual county pages could be eliminated, and just rearranged into 18 editable region pages instead. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Eliminating the individual county lists may cause problems for the scripts used for updating the progress pages; I'm virtually certain without testing it that reading the region pages with transclusions is likely to be somehow problematic to the maintenance scripts. If there is consensus to make this sort of structural change, I will have to find the time to do some testing and possibly coding to accommodate it.Magic♪piano 21:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Right. It's not urgent to "eliminate" the county pages, as I put it; it's certainly fine for people to get used to the 12-region partition of Texas for quite a while before doing that. If the rearranging were to be done, though, no tables would be eliminated, they would just be moved, and then there would be no longer any use of transclusions. As long as redirects were put in place, e.g. for National Register of Historic Places listings in Anderson County, Texas to go to National Register of Historic Places listings in the Upper East region of Texas#Anderson County, I think the scripts would work fine. Ensuring redirects were done was all that was necessary previously when counties were put into, or moved out of, statewide list pages, I think. Again no urgency. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion that may interest these editors

Flickr user Warren LeMay file uploaded by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, along with other(s) of similar angles. This one was Buffalo's main post office, built 1897-1901, in Gothic Revival-style six-story building, designed by James Knox Taylor, William Akin, and Jeremiah O'Rourke which served as Buffalo's central post office facility until 1963, per photo description. --doncram

Hello, there is a discussion regarding photographs of a National Register-listed building taking place at Commons:Deletion requests/Warren LeMay files part one - Old Post Office, Buffalo, New York. ɱ (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems complicated. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed refactoring of geographic feature notability

We are discussing a proposal to refactor the guidelines for geographic feature notability. Please feel free to join in the discussion of this proposal. — hike395 (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Random article that may or may not be of interest

https://www.pressherald.com/2023/04/24/portland-orders-restaurant-to-remove-antique-doors-over-false-sense-of-history/ SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Ohio Historical Center and Ohio Village

Ohio Historical Center and Ohio Village were just listed as one individual property, giving headaches as our system is built for individual properties to have one set of coordinates, one article, one commons category, etc. I'm not sure why it wasn't listed as a district or mpsub... Does anyone have a workaround to provide both article links here? Or can we edit {{NRHP row}} to allow this? ɱ (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You can create a stub that references both. See e.g. Boston Common and Public Garden. If you have access to the nomination, it might give you an explanation as to why they were listed together. Magic♪piano 12:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I considered that, but I wonder if people might object when each topic is already independently notable, and it's mostly a technical limitation that is obstructing me. It would also increase the number of clicks for a reader to access the best information about each topic... I'll still consider it, but I wonder if an extension of NRHP row parameters might solve this. ɱ (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Magicpiano. I may have created (I am not now checking) the Boston Common and Public Garden page, and though I believe its edit history shows I disagreed with something at some point, I think the final result (short article, and 3 entries in the list of Boston NRHPs) works quite well.

Now, though, I think the current treatment in National Register of Historic Places listings in Columbus, Ohio is wrong and needs to be fixed. There needs to be three entries, where (i think) there is now just one.

• Ohio Village was previously included. Its listing, with reference number 100008897 was not revoked AFAIK. The list of listings is incomplete without it.
• Ohio Historical Center was previously included, should also be restored.
• Currently just an entry for the May 2023 listing "Ohio Historical Center and Ohio Village" shows, this is a hidden (pipelinked) redirect to the Ohio Historical Center article (which does not explain anything about Ohio Village). Ohio Historical Center and Ohio Village (currently a redlink) should be included in the list-article instead of the pipelink. It would be okay by me for it to show as a redlink for now, but it would be better to go ahead and create the short article.
• Also probably the 3 separate articles should link to one another.

The list-article purports to be a list of all listings. We are inconsistent, we don't bother to explain, in many cases, that various entries were in fact increased or decreased (and have additional reference numbers) but that can and should be done (the additional reference numbers and dates of increase or decrease should be shown). Many increase and decrease refnums and dates which were in place were lost long ago in too-quick-in-my-view conversion of NRHP list-articles to use {{NRHP row}}, {{NRHP header}}, etc. Some have been restored.

The very few combo situations, as here and the Boston example, should be treated very explicitly with 3 separate entries showing.

That's my 2 cents (or 8 or 10 or 12 cents, whatever). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

photos

What are opinions on how many contributing properties are too many to include on a table? Some of the small ones like Mount Vernon Triangle Historic District are just a short list, but has anyone ever added a table on an article that has a larger number of CPs? APK whisper in my ear 05:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

wp:NRHPMOS's section on "Historic districts" (does wp:NRHPMOS#Historic districts work as a link to that?) links to some previous discussions which list out what were thought to be good historic district article examples.

For some really truly huge historic districts, it seems to be helpful to have a separate list of buildings included in it, e.g. Savannah Historic District (Savannah, Georgia) has corresponding Buildings in Savannah Historic District. Which cannot, will not ever, list all the thousands of separate buildings, partly because they are not even documented anywhere accessible (the NRHP nom forms, written early in NRHP history, do not identify all the buildings), and there's no guidance about which would have been deemed contributing or not. For the similar Charleston Historic District there is incomplete/draft Draft:Buildings in the Charleston Historic District.

For small HDs and even quite large ones where a full list of buildings is available, I think it would be good to tabulate all the contributing buildings and selected non-contributing ones, and thereby in effect seek photos for each one. I have a collection of photos of 80 or 90 percent of all of its buildings obtained a couple years ago by driving up and down almost all of the streets in the district's (I think well-defined area) in Colorado's huge (about 1000 buildings) Leadville Historic District; if these were uploaded to commons and the buildings were tabulated in the HD article, that would be "useful", historic preservation-wise, documenting the current/recent district. For this HD there may in fact be definition of which were deemed contributing: the article states that buildings built after 1919 are deemed non-contributing; building construction dates might possibly be obtained from the city. If all of these were tabulated, then historic old pics corresponding to many current buildings could possibly then be identified and linked. Doing all this could be deemed the job of a local historical society, rather than for Wikipedia to do. But I think this would or should be allowed by Wikipedia (what do others think?). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, just as one example the massive recent Lawrenceville Historic District in Pittsburgh contains over 3,200 contributing structures. A lot of them are photographed in the available nomination form from the city, but obviously not every one. What should the approach here be? Sbb618 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Doncram: Yesterday I finished photographing the 116 surviving buildings (but none of the 100+ outbuildings) from the Middletown Historic District (Middletown, Virginia). They're all here, but I thought maybe a collapsed table on the article would be interesting since the whole district is now documented. I don't know if that's too much for mobile viewers? APK whisper in my ear 18:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The kind of problem I think should be considered is something like Princeton_Historic_District_(Princeton,_New_Jersey)#Contributing_properties for the Sag Harbor Village District article. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the first one looks a lot better. APK whisper in my ear 19:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:GALLERY applies to Sag Harbor Village District; this gallery should be moved to Wikimedia Commons. ɱ (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

List of the oldest buildings in New York

A while back some anonymous IP inadvertently broke up the List of the oldest buildings in New York, and I can't seem to fix it. I looked at the history and thought I found the obvious error, but it didn't work. Can anyone else solve this dilemma? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this has been resolved? By the way, were you just referring to the extra narrow column to the right, in this version of the page? You can see which rows have an extra cell by looking closely for the rows where there are row lines above and below. Note the narrow column is mostly one tall cell, broken up only by lines separating out the last cell of each of two rows. User:Sbb618 just fixed that by deleting the extra cell on those two rows. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

automated counting of items in tables

I just noticed, in List of Hindu temples in the United States, use of coding which might be useful in this WikiProject. I have edited at that list-article before, including disagreeing with one editor whether all temples in the United States, regardless of notability, should be listed. But I apparently didn't focus on the coding which was added by a non-logged-in editor in February 2020.

The coding allows the article to start with statement including an automated count:
"This is a list of the 0 Hindu temples, centers, and ashrams in the United States as of 2022."

Within that sentence in the original, what shows currently is the counted number of 909. When I pasted that here, it shows counted number 0. My guess is that the code was referencing named tables on that page; I expect that code may be modified to reference named tables on other pages. The code, copy-pasted from that page and put into "nowiki" display, is:
This is a list of the {{sum|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiAL}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiAK}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiAZ}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiAR}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiCA}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiCO}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiCT}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiDE}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiFL}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiGA}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiGU}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiHI}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiID}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiIL}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiIN}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiIA}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiKS}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiKY}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiLA}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiME}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiMD}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiMA}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiMI}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiMN}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiMS}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiMO}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiNE}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiNV}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiNH}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiNJ}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiNM}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiNY}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiNC}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiOH}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiOK}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiOR}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiPA}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiPR}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiRI}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiSC}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiSD}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiTN}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiTX}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiUT}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiVT}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiVA}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiWA}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiDC}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiWV}}|{{table row counter|id=tableTempleWikiWI}}}} [[Hindu temple]]s, centers, and [[ashram]]s in the United States as of 2022. {{Dynamic list}}

--Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I began to test use of this coding at National Register of Historic Places listings in the Upper Rio Grande region of Texas, which is small and is obscure and uses transclusions of tables elsewhere (it is not one of the NRHP list-pages updated by anyone). The first problem is that the NRHP tables in 6 counties need to be "named", so they can be referred to. E.g. at National Register of Historic Places listings in Brewster County, Texas, the table defined there needs to include an "id=" field applying a name, say "NRHPtable-TX-Brewster".

Given that the table there is defined by a call to template:NRHP header, an argument needs to be passed in that template call, so instead of having

{{NRHP header|NRISref=2008b|state_iso=us-tx}}

make that call be

{{NRHP header|NRISref=2008b|state_iso=us-tx|table_id=NRHPtable-TX-Brewster}}

instead.

And in template:NRHP header change that to allow for an optional argument "table_id=", and in its first row change from

{|class="wikitable sortable" style="width:100%; box-sizing:border-box;"<nowiki><br> :to something like <nowiki>{|class="wikitable sortable" style="width:100%; box-sizing:border-box;" tablename=table_id <nowiki><br> :(which would apply the table_id to be the name of the table there) instead. :And then just see, does <nowiki>{{table row counter|id=tableNRHP-TX-Brewster}}, i.e. , show the number 13, which is the number of NRHPs in Brewster county?

An admin could do this, using sandbox testing or not. For me to get a change of a protected template like template:NRHP header would require request taking perhaps weeks/months/years of explanation. Actually the best thing would be for an admin to remove protection from that template. That template and other NRHP templates have been protected for years, unnecessarily IMHO, inhibiting sensible small improvements. When there was never any vandalism, never any need for protection. Could an admin please unprotect the NRHP header one? If some admin would, I would work conservatively, i.e. generally use the preferred method of testing changes first using the template's "sandbox" to be relatively sure of not causing any display problem throughout the NRHP list system (but even if there was a temporary display problem, so what). Otherwise, I am capable of working a bureaucratic process but pretty much hate to have to beg others each step of the way. And what I (or someone else) could do, could save the time of a number of good persons who spend hours every week or two updating the counts throughout the big system of NRHP lists. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Continues at Template talk:NRHP header#modify to allow naming of table so rows can be counted. With User:Jonesey95's help, it seems likely that an NRHP-specific version of template:table row counter can be made to work. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

George Perkins Marsh Boyhood Home‎ and Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park‎

@Reywas92: seems intent on merging these two subjects, into one or into the other, without a preceding discussion. I wanted to know users' thoughts on that here. I do not believe such notable historic sites need to be merged, and their articles can surely be fleshed out much further. Reywas's justification was "the duplication is ridiculous, even if expanded, since these are integral to one another.", but on Wikipedia we follow WP:Summary style, where articles like Grand Central Terminal and Main Concourse exist. Sure they are integral to one another, but we create new articles to expand on larger topics all the time. ɱ (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The National Historical Park consists of the mansion and its respective estate. The NHP is not an inherently separate concept from the home, but the federal designation and operation of the home and its estate, and they can and should be covered together. Everything relevant to the Home is relevant to the NHP. It's not appropriate for the articles to have identical, WP:REDUNDANT, WP:DUPLICATE information about the site's history, and it would likewise be a disservice to readers to have this split between separate articles, or to remove the home's history from the NHP article to leave just a summary, even if expanded. Even if the the surrounding forests and trails of the estate are not immediately part of the NHL designation, I see no reason they must be described in a separate article, and I can't imagine expansion warranting needing the split. I note that the NHL designation itself is not what's notable (it's merely a designation, not an entity or body like the NPS management is), but rather the bigger picture of what the NHL protects, which overlaps the NHP (a more significant Congressional protection) – the notable site will be covered as both regardless. My preference is that all is covered under the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park‎ title. Your justification was National Historic Landmarks deserve their own articles, but a short search found Girard College#Founder's Hall not having its own article separate from the college and Massachusetts Historical Society Building and The College of Physicians of Philadelphia Building not having separate articles from their institutions (nor needing them); of course the designated site should be covered in an article, but like many NHLs there is greater context than what was in the 1967 NHL application so that can and should be incorporated in the same article – effectively this is still its own article because the mansion's history is the basis for and centerpiece of the NHP, and any coverage of its current management or the surrounding estate that was not included in the original NHL application does not distract from that at all or need to be covered independently. The scope of Grand Central Terminal is so much more, with that article having subarticles not only for the the Main Concourse but for the art, history, and subway station – but were it not for WP:LENGTH concerns I'd support merging those too, so it's not a great comparison! Reywas92^Talk 17:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I know, I wrote many of those sub-articles :). Agree to disagree overall, and encourage others to comment. ɱ (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Argh, I wrote an evaluation of each of the two articles before, and the currently merged version, then lost it by some new-to-me window opening on my laptop which i chose to close, not realizing it would close the entire tab.

Bottom-line: it seemed to me that the way forward is to develop the two articles separately, more (and they both deserve better development), with the house article focusing on the house better than it currently does (cover the exterior and interior details, and give "History" of the house not of other stuff), and with the NHP article being organized better to have a summary section on the house, and other section(s) on the rest of the 640 acres (i.e. one square mile) besides the house and the 40 acres that it was listed with. Cover the dairying and the forest, and develop more about the unusual forestry award. Give "History" of the development of the NHP, not of other stuff. After each is better developed and focused, then consider a split vs. merge decision: should the summary section about the house in the NHP article be replaced by the whole detailed treatment of the house in its separate article.

Both of you, would it be okay to proceed that way? I bet it would become clear(er) whether the house article should be separate or not, and either way the writing/organization would get better. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

So the most useful overview will be the Foundation Document that describes the NHP's resources, values, and goals. Also useful is this experience of a former superintendent, the NHL nomination, and the Cultural Landscape Report. If the article is expanded with information on both the mansion interior and park grounds to the point that its length and structure justifies a split, that may be appropriate, but I still believe that as this is the centerpiece of the park, its architecture, etc. is still immediately relevant to the NHP. There can still be further development of the page(s), but at the least there should be neither such substantial duplication nor relatively short pages that split content relevant as a whole to readers. A comparison may be Hampton National Historic Site, where there is both history of the main building itself and history of the grounds and outbuildings as well as administrative history of the NHS. Reywas92^Talk 17:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Tech Tower

I have nominated Tech Tower for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Doncram

According to a posting on his talk page, User:Doncram has passed away. His many contributions to this project cannot be understated. 20:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Magic♪piano 20:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Seconded Also, for those of us who worked with him, there is a link to his obituary and memorial service in Montrose CO dm (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

New State Duplicate

The latest NRHP list includes Anaem Omot, which is cross-listed in both Menominee County, Michigan and Marinette County, Wisconsin. I've included it in both lists, and added it to the duplicate list. However, the duplicate list has some stats at the bottom of the table that I couldn't decipher, but probably need to be incremented. Can someone who knows the process update this? Is there anything else that needs to be done? Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I will take care of this, it is the work of User:NationalRegisterBot. Magic♪piano 20:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This is done now. Magic♪piano 17:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

infobox

I'm not very good at dealing with NRHP infoboxes (or most types in general). Is there a way to incorporate the CP info into Bonnie Blue Southern Market & Bakery. I used the restaurant infobox, and tried merging the two without any success. APK whisper in my ear 09:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Set embed=yes on the NRHP infobox. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I finally got something to work. APK whisper in my ear 09:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio that may interest members of this WikiProject. ɱ (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on creating a WikiProject for National Historic Landmarks and/or National Historic Landmark Districts?

How would one go about creating such a project? Thank you for any advice! Minard38 (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

A WP:TASKFORCE sounds like a better idea. APK whisper in my ear

Doncram obit

It has been my experience that User:Doncram was the main person who updated all the NRHP listings in individual geographical areas (county lists, etc.). He died on July 9, 2023, but certainly did a lot for this project over the years. — Maile (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that. He didn't get along well with everyone, but he and I did. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Editors have left their thoughts and memories of Doncram on his talk page... dm (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

PICO Building (Sanford, Florida)

The article for the PICO Building (Sanford, Florida) has two infoboxes. Is there any way the one with the localized map and other content can be added to the existing NRHP-CP one? -----------User:DanTD (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

About 100 drafts by Doncram up for deletion

About 100 drafts by Doncram are up for deletion in 7 days, see User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon. There is a lot of good stuff here. Can these be saved? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

And see User_talk:Doncram#Doncram_drafts_coming_due_for_deletion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Help getting uploaded photos categorized

I have uploaded multiple photos to Historic Register listings but only one photo shows up for some of the listings. These are the listings:

Douglas County, Nebraska

Stephenson and Williams Livery Clifton Hill Commercial Historic District Union State Bank Building Firestone Tire and Rubber Building

Barton County, Kansas

Wolf Park Band Shell

Ellsworth County, Kansas

Ira E Lloyd Stock Farm

Shawnee County, Kansas

Ritchie Cemetery Park Plaza Apartments Charles and Dorothy Kouns House

Please let me know how I can get these photos categorized.

}}}} Sharonpapierdreams SharonPapierdreams (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

If you create a category for the images on Commons, you can link it from the listings page by adding the commonscat= parameter to the listing. If you add the NRHP reference number template to the Commons category, there's a user script that can add them for you. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

I am not familiar with these terms. I do not create categories.

Usually I just add photos to a Historical Register listing and someone else categorizes them and all the photos show up.

I've compared the photos that don't show up to the ones that are added to the listing but I see no difference in the information.

Thanks for any more information you can give me.

}}}} SharonPapierdreams (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

New National Historic Landmarks

We have a new raft of National Historic Landmarks designated. Department of Interior press release and NPS weekly list with designation details. Of interesting note is the de-designation of the SS Ste. Claire, which appears to retain NRHP listing status despite its NHL-significant losses. Magic♪piano 00:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way, if contributors want to help propagating this information into WP's lists, the project's weekly maintenance guide has information what needs doing. It's rather more than just adding and removing regular NRHP listings. Magic♪piano 00:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Monte Ne

I have nominated Monte Ne for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Captain Nathan Hale (statue)

The article has been about the statue in Washington, D.C., even before my overhaul of the page. Would it make more sense to change the title to Captain Nathan Hale statue (Washington, D.C.) or something along those lines? There are several copies, and some can be seen in the article's gallery. APK hi :-) (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@APK Perhaps Statue of Nathan Hale (Washington, D.C.). Any interest in creating Statue of Nathan Hale (Chicago), etc, for the other copies? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Another Believer Yeah I like your suggestion better. I'm currently working on American Revolution Statuary (8 down, 6 more to go). I'll try to gather sources for the Chicago version when I'm done with my current project. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

neighborhood/historic district

If a neighborhood's boundaries are also the same boundaries for its historic district, should the name of the article be just the neighborhood's name or the name of the historic district? APK hi :-) (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, if a historic district is mostly or entirely synonymous with a feature, they can be represented in the same article (with naming priority given to the locale's name, not the NRHP listing name). For example, some locales (like Deadwood, South Dakota) have HDs encompassing the entire site. It depends, I think, on coverage. If coverage of the historic district itself is far too extensive to fit comfortably, it can be split in that case. In almost every case, though, it's enough to merge them and create a redirect for the NRHP listing name. Template:Infobox NRHP can be embedded in the place infobox and relevant sections created as needed. – TCMemoire 17:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for the advice. APK hi :-) (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ben's Chili Bowl

Ben's Chili Bowl has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Good article reassessment for The Blackstone Hotel

The Blackstone Hotel has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 01:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for George Rogers Clark National Historical Park

George Rogers Clark National Historical Park has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 14:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Website of the current occupant that just so happens to be occupying a NRHP property

The question is, should the website of the current tenant/business of NRHP buildings be included as EL or in infobox as the website? Graywalls (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

To me, it's a matter of notability. I don't think whatever fly-by-night business that happens to be occupying a property warrants inclusion in an article at all; however, if the business is a notable one, or if it's been an occupant long enough to have accumulated local/regional press, then it likely would be mentioned in the article's prose. At that point, depending on the degree of notability, it would then warrant an external link and possibly the link in the infobox. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with DrOrinScrivello on when to include the link and, looking at articles I created, I've put them both places. But maybe the infobox makes more sense if it is the original organization (like the church website) and the EL section makes sense if it's not the original purpose but a long-term occupant (like here). This is just a thought; I don't think either location is "wrong". RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Individually listed non-contributing properties to historic districts?

Generally, when a building is non-contributing to a historic district, we wouldn't care about it for this wikiproject. But I just created the article for the Danish Brotherhood in America Headquarters, which was individually listed in 2016 when it turned 50 years old. The nomination form mentioned that it was within the Gold Coast Historic District (Omaha, Nebraska) but was listed as a non-contributing property because, at the time, it was only 31 years old. I expected to see that text followed with something like "and we're requesting it be added at this time" but it didn't.

The historic district nomination form does list 3717 Harney as non-contributing but doesn't say why. I looked for updates on the Gold Coast Historic District that reclassified the property, but didn't see any. (This wouldn't be an increase per se, since the building sits squarely within the original boundary.)

Clearly, this is an obscure question, but is this really an individually listed non-contributing property to a historic district? - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

A property may be historic for one reason, and the district in which it sits may be historic for a different reason. Imagine a 19th-century town center that has a 1930s Art Deco building in it (perhaps the only such building in the entire community). Both notable, but the building does not contribute to the district's character. In your case, if the district is ever updated, the building's status might be changed to contributing. Magic♪piano 22:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)