Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 50

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

→

Lighthouse for Sale

Thought it would be of interest here...if you've got a spare $5,000, why not buy a Lake Erie lighthouse. We don't have an article yet, but the Conneaut Harbor West Breakwater Light in Conneaut, Ohio, which is listed on the NRHP, is being auctioned off by the government [1]. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 00:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And for less than $2.5 million Oakdale (Hillendale Road near Chadds Ford, Pennsbury Township, Chester County, PA) [2] Can real estate listings be considered as reliable sources? Smallbones (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable for what purpose? Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For a source in the article, e.g. on the house's area, existence of a swimming pool, additions, and other amenities, the size of the associated land parcels (being divided up into 3 pieces now), all the stuff that is listed on the whatchamacallit sheet (perhaps it's just called the "listing sheet," "fact sheet" or maybe "spec sheet.") Smallbones (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Stoney Creek Independent Presbyterian Chapel of Prince William Parish

The article on the settlement claims unsourced, that it was used as a filming location in Forrest Gump. Maybe one could verify and source this and add into the church article as well. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

IMDB does list filming locations in Yemassee, South Carolina, which is nearby. So it does seem likely to be true. I'll keep looking. Altairisfar (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, found it at [3]. Altairisfar (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Kuerner Farm

Kuerner Farm is one of 14 new NHLs listed at the end of June 2011 (mentioned in a section above). Going through articles with infobox errors, I found this one. The error comes from not having an NRIS reference number. Usually this is a quick fix: I find the reference number in Elkman or in a weekly list and just insert it. Problem is, Kuerner Farm appears not to have been listed on the NRHP before it was designated an NHL. This pdf (page 3) says the farm was designated on 6/23/11, but the weekly list that includes June 23 does not include the property, so I don't know where to look for any reference numbers. Anyone know anything about this?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes things fall through the cracks. It may be listed in a later release. I'd suggest e-mailing the NRHP folks, since they may not have realized. Possibly the relevant Pennsylvania agency may know more as well. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The NHLs all show up on this week's Weekly List. Teemu08 (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a question

Good day altogether! In an article I am preparing now to translate into the German Wikipedia I found that:

The rear bay has two smaller four over four windows.

Now that is not really difficult to understand but what does four over four windows mean? Is this a window which has between bars in the bottom four panes and above another four panes or does it have in total 16 panes, as in four in a row and four rows on top of each other? In the latter case, i.e. if meant as a simple multiplication, that would have it's equivalent in the German language as "vier auf vier". The article window isn't much enlightening on this topic, and also dictionaries seem not to deal with that "<number> over <number>" expression. Any ideas, hints? --Matthiasb (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It usually applies to sash windows only, meaning that the upper sash has four panes of glass and the lower sash has four panes, for a total of eight. Altairisfar (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the help; I've encountered this term multiple times in sources but never learned what it meant. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad that I could be of help. I guess that all those years of watching This Old House weren't for nothing after all. ;) Altairisfar (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Another Set of Eyes

Hi all. Working on Brooke County, West Virginia. While preparing Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion, it seemed to me that the pic posted on the list did not match the description since it's not Spanish Colonial in style. See the pic of this house included near the end of the NRHP nom form. From what I can tell, the pic on the Brooke County list page, File:Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion from the northwest.jpg looks more like the Lewis Hall Mansion, see pic in NRHP nom form. However, another picture, File:Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion front.jpg shows "1312" on the front and that is indeed the address for Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion.

To me, the pic File:Lewis Hall Mansion.jpg looks to me like it is the Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion; I can tell it is a Spanish Colonial and it has the tile roof, etc. It also looks very much to be like the Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion pic included near the end of the NRHP nom form.

I think everyone would agree something is messed up. Perhaps the addresses in the nomination forms, or perhaps they renumbered since 1985? Is this possible? Communicated this to User:Nyttend, but I thought have another set of eyes look at this would be helpful. Hope this makes sense.--Pubdog (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Paull mansion is part of an MRA of large houses along Pleasant Avenue. When I photographed them, I had a significant difficulty: several of them didn't have visible addresses, and with one exception, the houses other than 1312 were difficult at best; since I virtually never work with West Virginia (these photos were from the first time I was in the state for over a year), I didn't think to check the nomination forms when I was photographing. Pubdog already talked with me about this, and his arguments seem to make the most sense, but I agree that more eyes could be helpful. When you're looking at the various bits of evidence, pay attention to the maps in the nomination forms — it's a lot easier to mess up on the numbering or to have the numbering change than to mess up on the map of the house (which shows it far back from the street, similar to the Duval mansion photo) or for the original house to be moved.. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

14 new NHLs

Two of these have already been mentioned above. Here is a full list of new NHLs that were added on June 23rd: list. I have already included some of them in the lists. But some are still missing an article, an image and an description. -- Firefox13 (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I also need to check their type. Some might be NHS or something else.. -- Firefox13 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Two additional sites were added in mid-July, reflected in this week's list. Also one NHL boundary change and one delisting. Teemu08 (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Stretching arguments to their logical conclusion

If the NRIS database is not a reliable source for whether somebody is an architect, a builder, or an engineer, does that mean that any articles on architects/builders/engineers sourced only to NRIS should not be created in the first place? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, there's an idea! --Orlady (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

New National Register database loaded

I've loaded the most recent version of the National Register Information System into my infobox generator. This contains the properties up to July 9, 2010.

The reason it took me so long to load this is because they changed all the schemas around when they upgraded their database from .dbf files into Microsoft Access. Fields that were in sub-tables in the previous database are now rolled into some main tables, so the data was denormalized. I had to rewrite some queries as a result. I've been experimenting with the database on my own, though, so I believe things should be working now. Still, if you see any discrepancies or odd behavior, let me know. Also, you can tell if you're using the new version if the text shows up in dark red instead of dark blue.

The queries are as follows:

Oh, and one thing to note: If the infobox lists an architect for a given property, that could be either the architect or the builder. The National Register nomination forms, and consequently the database, don't distinguish between architects and builders. My infobox generator lists it as the architect, but it could actually be a builder. A careful examination of other references should reveal the difference. In fact, I would greatly prefer it if people used the infobox generator only to populate the infobox, and use other reliable sources to write the rest of the article.

Finally, I've added links to the National Register nomination forms for states where they're online. Certain states have all the forms digitized in NPS Focus, but many don't.

Again, if you have any comments or questions, you can either ask here, or on my talk page. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. --do ncr am 18:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi ... thanks for the updated database. It does not appear that Historic District tags are being included in the infobox, nrhp_type? Check generating Vancroft and Wellsburg Historic District in the Elkman tool; I already added hd to the infoboxes in the articles. Cheers--Pubdog (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't seem there are coordinates being included in the HD infoboxes. I don't recall this being an issue previously, but none of the last three HD infoboxes I've generated (two above, plus Bethany Historic District) have had coordinates included.--Pubdog (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Same thing happens for me; it's probably some minor coding error that will take an hour to find and twenty seconds to fix. I really like the links to the Focus URLs for sites in certain states, although I hope Elkman will add links at least to Kentucky nominations, which are almost all online. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the coords issue is fixed. Is it possible to get an "importance=" for the talk page template? "importance=Low" might fit 80% of the articles. Thanks for making and keeping up this great tool. Smallbones (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to previous suggestions to include linking to NRHP nom and photo documents where those are available. I see you do this in your lefthandside material in states where the NRHP noms are mostly available. A couple simple suggestions:

Could you please draft a copy-paste ready reference for the NRHP nom and photo documents? It could be left in the lefthandside material. Forming a reference like <ref name=nrhpinv3>{{cite web|url=http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/REFNUM.pdf |title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: NAME / ALTNAME |date= |author= |publisher=National Park Service}} and [http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/REFNUM.pdf ''Accompanying photos'']</ref> with REFNUM, NAME, and ALTNAME filled in would save a lot of tedium for many future editors.
For states where NRHP noms are mostly not available from the National Park Service, it could be better to provide message: "Nomination forms and accompanying photos usually aren't available yet for West Virginia; check the NRHP Focus search page for this one if you like", rather than "Nomination forms aren't yet available for West Virginia; check the NRHP Focus page for status, code = 0".
For the architects, builders and engineers, associated with a site, please output into one NRHP infobox field architect-builder-engineer=, rather than put into architect= field. That combo field will not display in a wikipedia article. It properly leaves it to the editor to split any contents into architect= or builder= fields (note the contents are very rarely an engineer). This will avoid future errors of interpretation.
Please drop the line-break after the refnum, so the reference will appear on the same line
Please do put "importance=Low" into the WikiProject NRHP talk page template, as it should be the default, as articles for all National Historic Landmarks and other higher importance articles have already been started.
Please convert dates to avoid leading zeroes, i.e. want "added=April 1, 1982" rather than "added = April 01, 1982".

--do ncr am 00:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram: I thought you weren't using my infobox generator. Since you're using your own draft article generator, I think you should incorporate those enhancements into your own generator, and not ask me to do anything for you. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Elkman, my comments are in response to your statement that you would welcome suggestions, and are more for benefit of future others who might use your generator than for me. It seems odd that you would generate statements "Nomination forms aren't yet available for STATE", given that nomination forms are in fact available upon request for all NRHP-listed places. And where nomination forms are even available on-line for hundreds and thousands of items where your generator says they are not, as for National Historic Landmarks and others. So I suggest, respectfully, that you revise that statement. Also I would request that you stop with the accusations that others have been saying you were lying. I myself am not aware of your making deliberately false statements, except perhaps on this matter of what others have been saying. --do ncr am 12:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't get to make enhancement requests on behalf of other users, either. Oracle Corporation doesn't have the right to call IBM and tell them that they need to enhance DB2 so other DB2 users can do certain things. As far as "nomination forms are not yet available", I meant that they aren't available in NPS Focus. Sometimes they are, despite what I've assumed. I'm not going to go back and say "Nomination forms aren't available in NPS Focus, except in the case where they are, and you could look for the nomination forms in another place, or call your state's SHPO, or write to the National Park Service and ask them to send you a copy." I'm simply providing a convenient link to the form in a case where I'm reasonably sure one is available. I can't possibly be the arbiter of truth and say, "This nomination form is not available online, and I checked everywhere," or, "This nomination form is not online at the usual spot, but you might be able to find it via Google, Bing, Yahoo!, or even AltaVista if they're still around." You may love that sort of wishy-washy, disclaimer-loaded, all-alternatives-considered language, but I don't.

Now, does anyone other than Doncram have any enhancement requests? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Mixing firms and architects

Should architectural firm articles have the architects redirected to them, and have the architects' works included in the article whether or not they were designed by the firm? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Most architects are closely associated with a single firm, or their name and the firm's name are indistinguishable. For architects who were members of partnerships, the possibility of an article on the individual would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If included in a firm's article the notable work by an architect without their own article could be mentioned as pre-dating their association with the firm. Some architects are notable enough to merit their own articles in addition to their firms (i.e., Charles Follen McKim, William Rutherford Mead and Stanford White all merit their own articles in addition to the McKim, Mead & White article), or served apprenticeships with notable architects before establishing their own firm or partnership. Examples of the latter would be Louis Sullivan, who worked for Frank Furness, and who in turn employed the young Frank Lloyd Wright. The short answer is no, it shouldn't be some sort of default or action-in-lieu-of-research.Acroterion (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So, it was correct to remove the list items from Harvey & Clarke that were claimed to apply to only one of them? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, yes, if it was clearly the work of the individual and is not so stated in the compny's article. If you're talking about Doncram's attributions, I don't think NRIS is an appropriate source, nor do I think Elkman intended that the database be used in that manner. NRIS's architect/designer/contractor attributions are often suspect or confusing, and sometimes just plain wrong. Citing NRIS doesn't take the place of additional research, just as reference solely to NRIS isn't a sufficient foundation for an article on an individual property. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Acroterion, I don't quite know what you mean by "and it is not so stated" in your first sentence. The Harvey & Clarke article clearly, and even more clearly now, is about the firm and its two principals, whose names redirect to the joint article. Attribution of firm or individual is given in list of works. So I think you mean that it was incorrect for SarekOfVulcan to remove the individual works, clearly stated as what they are, based on best available information so far. It is premature to argue for splitting the article, too (not that SarekOfVulcan was advocating that, he was just removing material).

I agree that NRIS often has incorrect spellings or other problems, and it is now widely enough understood that it does not differentiate between architects, builders, and engineers. To support good development of NRHP place articles, it seems important then, to sort out what type of role a given NRHP-associated person has, and often to document that in a separate article, where a person is clearly wikipedia-notable. NRIS is a fine starter source for identifying the NRHP-listed places with which a person is associated. NRIS alone will not usually be enough for a good architect article, i also agree.

Note, just after starting this thread here, SarekOfVulcan opened same topic at [4] at WikiProject Architecture Talk page, which i noticed first and already responded to. wp:FORUMSHOP? --do ncr am 19:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For another example, consider George P. Washburn, where SarekOfVulcan has not deigned to actually state his objection, or to explain what he finds to be "inaccurate", when he removes all works of George P. Washburn (about 10 works), and of firm George P. Washburn & Son or Sons or other variations (about 8 works), and of successor firm Washburn & Stookey (1 work), which IMO are all best discussed in one article. This version shows complete list. Help restoring the complete list there, and dealing with the too-aggressive-in-my-view editing, would be appreciated. --do ncr am 20:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I would expect the article to clearly state (from sources) who did what projects when, if it's all combined in one article. That's what I mean by "is not so stated." Attribution of work by an individual to a firm or vice versa is a matter of considerable contention in the real architectural world, and we shouldn't just lump in works by John Smith to an article on Smith and Jones unless we clearly state which works by Smith predate Smith and Jones. Partnerships and corporations change more often than you might think, and it's not always tidy, nor is authorship of a given design as clear-cut as people might assume. As for NRIS, I would prefer attribution be made on the basis of a deeper source, since NRIS, as we all know, is subject to transcription issues, inconsistency or oversimplification. As you say,it's a starter, good for lists and infoboxes with an appropriate backcheck, but I'm not convinced that it should be used as a sole source for "buildings by Mr. Architect Jones." Acroterion (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. If an editor is concerned that an existing combined article should be split out into separate articles about the firm vs. the individual involved architects, that should certainly be considered at the Talk page. Obviously the firm article should continue to link to the separate architect articles. In the Harvey & Clarke article case, there were not separate articles about the individual architects and no one has suggested starting separate ones, so for the moment including information about them (that might eventually be split out) seems good to me. I don't know yet whether the individual architects merit separate articles. --do ncr am 15:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I perceive that an unstated assumption of this discussion is a perception that it is vitally important for Wikipedia to have an article "about" any architect, firm, or group that is named in NRIS as the designer of a property listed on the National Register, and that said article must contain a complete list of all NRIS entries that mention said architect/firm/group, even if that list is a badly formatted/punctuated list created in a rush from an NRIS data dump, and even if the list contains duplicate entries and buildings designed by other people with similar names. I happen to disagree. IMO, users are better served by a short biographical article that is supported by solid sources but does not yet include a comprehensive list of buildings, or by no article at all if solid sources have not been identified. There is no value in hurrying to create content if the hurry results in creation of poor-quality dreck.
What this means with respect to the topic at hand is that the scope of an article should be defined by the scope of what is (1) verified to be notable and (2) covered by reliable sources sufficient to create a coherent article (and please note that data dumps from NRIS do not constitute "reliable sources sufficient to create a coherent article"). Common sense has been lacking in some of the recent article creations. If a prominent 19th century architect founded an important firm, there is good information on that architect's life and work, and there is documentation that his firm still exists under the management of the architect's last partner's great-granddaughter, write a biographical article about the 19th century architect and mention the continuing existence of the firm, but don't pretend that the article is a comprehensive discussion of the architect, his work, the architect's partners and their work, the last partner's great-granddaughter, and everything in between. Let separate articles about those other topics get created when good information is available. --Orlady (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Architect vs. builder in the NRHP infobox generator

Since I've been criticized and accused of lying in several venues, I've updated the NRHP infobox generator to say "architect OR builder =" to display the name listed in the "architect" field in the NRIS database. I'm not happy about being forced to make this change, but at least it will FINALLY stop some criticism. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I know of which you speak and am truly sorry. The idiotic drama seems to never end and I'm sick of it. All of this BS can only hurt the project and diminish the enthusiasm that brought most of us here in the first place. I for one greatly appreciate all the effort that has gone into building, maintaining, and hosting the infobox generator and other National Register tools on your own site for the benefit of all. I most likely would not have been as gracious and would have either taken it down or made it a password site by now. Altairisfar (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well... it stops some criticism. Now you get to be criticized when the person listed isn't the Architect OR the builder (ie when they are the designer, or some other designation that the NRHP has lumped together under the word "architect"). And that is the real unfair thing here. The problem is that the flaw isn't with Elkman's generator... the flaw is with how the the NRHP database is set up. Elkman is being criticized for a problem he did not create.

It's a case of garbage in, garbage out. I really think the best solution is to deem the NRHP database to be "unreliable for this specific set of facts". (Note: That does not mean it is unreliable for other facts. A source can be reliable for most of what it says and yet considered unreliable when it comes to a specific fact). Since the NRHP database does not distinguish between an architect, a builder, a designer, or some other designation that indicates he played an important but unclear role in the construction, and instead lumps them all together under the catch all of "Architect" I don't see how it can be considered a reliable source for this sort of information. Really, all the database is telling us is that the person was involved in some way with constructing the building. Personally, I would prefer to have the information completely omitted from your generator... and make people have to find another (reliable) source for the relevant designation and enter it into the info-box by hand. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The accuracy really comes down to whoever submitted the original National Register nomination form. The form has one field saying "Architect/Builder", which doesn't differentiate between the two. Here's a site where you can download a form and fill it out. Also, here's a detailed guide of how Section 7, the description, should be filled out. Presumably, the person responsible for nominating a building or structure would write up a summary paragraph of who designed the building, followed by a detailed description of the interior and exterior appearance, any modifications since it was built, and so on. From the narrative description, it's usually possible to determine whether the people involved with the design were architects, builders, craftsmen, engineers, or landscape architects. Sometimes it may not be possible to determine this from the form, though. In any case, there should always be an architect or builder listed on the form, and hence in the database. It's just that the specifications for this form don't tell the writer to indicate who did what. As for what's in {{Infobox NRHP}}, I don't remember when or why we had to start listing the distinction between architects and builders. It sure has become an issue of contention, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well... how do we handle a situation like Flat Rock Camp, where two people are listed... neither of which was was a professional architect, craftsman, engineer, or landscape architect... one was the owner of the building (who did play a role in the over all design and in choosing materials)... the other was his neighbor, who acted more like a general contractor - supervising the carpenters and stonemasons who did the actual work. The NRHP database lists them both as "Architect"... at the moment the info-box lists one as "Built by" and the other as Designer (although for some reason that is not showing up in the box)... by the way... I know the details on this one because I am a descendant of the original owner and the house is still in my family... I don't have any RS for it. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to chime in here as someone who is greatly appreciative of the tools Elkman provides our Wiki community. I've been lurking in the background following some of the drama around here lately and have been worried that he would just throw up his hands in disgust and take down his query pages. Please don't, Elkman. My guess is that there are a heck of a lot more of us out here (the silent majority) who truly appreciate what you provide than there are who seem to prefer looking a gift horse in the mouth. For my part, I decided quite some time ago that I'm much happier avoiding the Wiki-drama and just quietly going about my business out here. Although I must confess to being a bit of a voyeur. Soap operas don't hold a candle to some of the stuff that happens around here. --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI... In case I was not clear... I agree. I may have questions and concerns with Elkman's generator, and may very much disagree with how a few editors misuse it (treating it as if it were a source)... but I do appreciate Elkman's generator and don't think we should abandon it... and (more importantly) I appreciate the all the other work Elkman does for this project. Blueboar (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as Flat Rock Camp goes, that is kind of a nebulous situation. I checked out a couple sources in that article, and you're right in saying that Augustus G. Paine wasn't a professional architect and Lyman Smith wasn't a professional builder. I think there are a couple ways to solve it: Either leave the "architect" and "builder" fields unpopulated in the infobox, and just mention Paine and Smith for their roles in the text; or leave the infobox as-is and indicate somehow that Paine wasn't a professional architect. I'm sure there are other cases, like Monticello, the residence of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wasn't an architect by trade, but the design of Monticello certainly attributes him as the architect. (In fact, he also did other designs; see Jeffersonian architecture.) Or, there's my favorite, Peavey–Haglin Experimental Concrete Grain Elevator, where the architecture is credited to Frank Peavey and Charles F. Haglin. Frank Peavey was a grain merchant, though, and I believe Charles F. Haglin was known more as a building contractor than an architect. Yet together, the two of them came up with the prototype reinforced concrete grain elevator that you see all over the place. So, to sum up: Fields in an infobox may give the reader some quick facts, but there are usually nuances, exceptions, or explanations that need to be credited in the actual text of the Wikipedia article. That's where we can tell the reader the details of the design and construction. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the only things I can see, are to capitilize "nrhp" in "Infobox nrhp" so as to avoid using the redirect and, I am not sure of this but, the categories "YEAR architecture" seem to be deprecated in favor of "Buildings and structures completed in YEAR", so that may need to be changed. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's only deprecated by one user, not by people in general. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It takes a lot of people to build a Wikipedia. The mostly good things usually should be credited to many persons: the system of recognizing fully illustrated lists, for example, and what's included in Elkman's generator, which reflects collected consideration of many people. The things you might not like, usually shouldn't be blamed on one person either. I don't happen to think it is right/good to blame Vegaswikian for the not-great status of the year information in NRHP articles, which I agree doesn't make sense often, but is not V's fault. It's not great, now, either, for Elkman to have implemented "Category: Buildings and structures completed in YEAR" into his generator. Editors should be aware that in many cases, that will provide incorrect information, because the YEAR that Elkman uses is not in fact a "completed year" field, and it is not even necessarily a "built year" field. It is just the first of up to four significant year-dates that the NRIS database provides for coding of info from the NRHP nomination documents. For some churches, it is the year of foun ding of a cemetery that far predates the construction of the NRHP-listed church building that a listing is named for. For many more, it is the first date in a construction date range, i.e. for a building built during 1892-1897 where NRIS has both dates entered, Elkman's system will now report "1892" as the "completed" date.

In particular on the date info, there is a significant dates field now available in the nrhp infobox, per Template talk:Infobox NRHP:Built dates, in which Vegaswikian and others did good work setting up something better. Any generated infobox should better put all 1, 2, 3, or 4 available significant dates from NRIS into one significant dates field labelled properly as what they are, and leave it to editors to split out a built date if that is confirmed. --do ncr am 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It may take a lot of people to build Wikipedia, but their work is only acceptable if it fits YOUR standards. Let's see: So far, you've accused me of lying about whether someone is a builder versus an architect, you've accused me of lying about the significant year of a structure, and you're accusing me of... oh, screw it. The NRHP infobox generator is down until Doncram will approve of it again. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please show diffs of any accusations of lying. Your repetition of such claims, which I think are false, are hurtful. Some other editors believe your claims. Again I am not aware of Elkman being deliberately deceitful, except perhaps in this aspect of making claims about being called lying.

About taking down your generator, you are free to do that. I suppose this will work for you to solicit sympathy, but it is your action, your choice. I do thank you for your past service, in your providing the infobox generator that did in fact implement many peoples' suggestions for many years, although it was always a bit quirky. If you will keep your generator down, then I am sure that others can replace its function. --do ncr am 15:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Doncram: Don't ever presume to thank me for anything I do on Wikipedia. Since the work I do is not up to your standards, and never will be up to your standards, any "thanks" coming from you is cheap, patronizing, and is designed only to make you look good. And if you consider my accusations of lying are hurtful, then maybe you deserve to have hurt feelings. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a specific example: At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#goals, you specifically accused me of lying about the build date of the Floyd B. Olson House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), suggesting that because of your experience with the database, the cited build date of 1922 was incorrect. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, it is not true that I accused you of lying there. The relevant passage, copy-pasted and smallified:

The National Register database has fields in it to indicate that a building has "significance" in one or more particular years. For example, the Floyd B. Olson House in Minneapolis has significant years of 1922 and 1936. The database doesn't indicate why 1936 was significant. There's another information source, the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, which indicates a period of significance from 1922 through 1936. I'm checking out another book, Larry Millett's AIA Guide to the Twin Cities, which states that the house was built in 1922 and Floyd B. Olson lived there until he died of cancer in 1936. But, the database itself (which is where Doncram is getting this information) doesn't explain why 1936 is a year of significance. My assumption is that the earliest date for "year of significance" is when the structure was built, so that's what I've been putting in the infobox. It takes more research than just looking in the database to determine other years of significance of a property. In fact, one of my frustrations is that Doncram is generating articles based only on the database, without consulting other research materials. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That Olson was created by Elkman in 2008. From what you say here, plus informed understanding of how the NRIS database works, it appears the "built=1922" assertion in the article is incorrect. Rather, the house was likely built earlier but is significant for its association during 1922-1936 with notable person Floyd B. Olson. If i were Elkman, I would rant on and on about how terrible it is that an erroneous assertion has been out there in Wikipedia since 2008. --doncram 17:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, it appears it is correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I also checked out the Hennepin County Property Information System. 1914 49th St. W. is listed as being built in 1922. It's also listed as lot 28 in the Harriet Heights Minneapolis addition, with a market value of $646,000. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, great, good. I thought Elkman was confessing to having relied upon imprecise information in a mainspace article, as the article then and now shows no other source for the built=1922 interpretation of NRIS, but I stand corrected. Or Elkman lucked out in this case that assuming the NRIS info meant built turns out to be the case (usually a pretty good bet). I thought the info he was providing here suggested a different reason why NRIS included a 1922 date, and the one other source he mentioned here could have been echoing that, but it sounds like the facts are it was built in 1922. Thanks. --doncram 22:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your accusing, then and since, that you had been called lying, is not true AFAIK. Show diffs, stop inflaming. --do ncr am 16:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you've ever explicitly said Elkman was "lying" (although you've accused me of that on multiple occasions) and I haven't gone back to dig up diffs, but I can supply instances of your accusations against Elkman in statements copied from WP:AN#Archive224. This one blames Elkman (not by name, but we all know who you are referring to) for supplying "false" information:

P.S. You're not properly seeing the merit of getting the articles created, and sorting out correct information. The problem can be viewed as being the fact we didn't start all these articles long ago, and get all the imprecise information sorted out by now. Consider the Elm Springs (Tennessee) article, which since 2007 has included infobox assertion that Nathan Vaught was the architect of that building. That assertion appears now to be false. I should be clear: that article and the articles generated by the main provider of draft NRHP articles, does not contain a text statement. The assertion is in the infobox description of the person as "architect", which is bad enough. In many articles, further, editors have stated the person was an architect based upon the infobox assertion. --doncram 17:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Then there's this excerpt from a Doncram post dated 13:59, 1 June 2011, attacking Elkman's for not meeting your personal wishes:

Please note this is better for the Wikipedia than an overly confident statement with no ambiguity based on the more minimalist article draft system provided by Elkman, and no other sources. It is far better for Williamson County readers to get to know something about the property, rather than nothing. Elkman can say that he prefers for more information to be provided upfront, which no one can argue with, more to a certain degree is certainly better. But I don't understand Elkman's preference that no information be provided, where some good information is available but not enough to answer all questions. I strongly believe that the amount of info provided in the John Pope House article is pretty darn good, way better than nothing at all. I also don't understand why Elkman prefers to give editors less information to start with than I have proven can be feasibly provided in a /draft system, based on the same NRIS database.

Elkman has plenty of justification for being sick and tired of being criticized by you. --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Does this fit under the NRHP project?

I just wrote an article on Henry Ford's village industries, including information on the 19 sites that nominally fit the definition of a Ford village industry. Of the 19 site, two are listed on the NRHP in their own right (the Ford Valve Plant and Schuyler Mill – Ford Soybean Plant Complex), and four more are part of a listed historic district (the Dundee Historic District, North Milford Village Historic District, Clarkston Village Historic District, and Cherry Hill Historic District). Six more have been recognized by the state of Michigan, but are not on the National list. So: historic article tangentially related to the NRHP. Does it get tagged with a NRHP Project banner? Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes! --do ncr am 03:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes... a Project banner is not intended to "categorize" an article or to establish project "ownership" over the article... it merely indicates that the article falls within the broad scope and interest of the project. Since some of these sites are on the NRHP, it is logical that the NRHP project would have an interest in the article. The banner is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

New NHLs

New NHLs in the latest Weekly list Einbierbitte (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that the long hot weekend is over, I have been able to take care of Woodlawn Cemetery (NYC now has two NHL cemeteries within it, Green-Wood Cemetery being the other one). As for the other ones:

National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, all. We need an article about those specific buildings unless they have some other names I don't know about.
Olson House, South Cushing, ME. No article
Grand Mound, no location given. Needs article.
Split Rock Lighthouse, Two Harbors, MN. Got it.
Arch Street Friends Meeting House, Philadelphia. Good

Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Also forgot:

Mountain Meadows Massacre site: That article itself may probably suffice, as it did when the Kent State shootings site was listed on the Register. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the Northwestern Branch, National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers Historic District is listed on the NRHP in Milwaukee. It is included on the 2011 list of America's Most Endangered Places.--Pubdog (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Grand Mound is 17 miles west of International Falls, Minnesota. It used to have a visitor center, as listed in this article from Minnesota Public Radio, but the visitor center has since been closed. I think it would be useful to have an article on it, but I've had to fight other fires. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I started the article on Olson House (Cushing, Maine). It's a very interesting property with lots of source material available. Any suggestions or assistance would be appreciated. Cbl62 (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

More in August

Yesterday two more were announced. I have done what I could with the Aubrey R. Watzek House in Portland, Oregon (and I am amazed that we don't have a picture yet!), but we still need an article for Schaeffer House in Schaefferstown, PA. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Au Revoir Cass Technical High School

Cass Technical High School, which was placed on the NRHP on March 29 of this year, has been demolished (demo will be complete on Monday). See the article her: "A final farewell to old Cass Tech." With 80,000+ listings, this probably isn't the shortest time between listing and demolition, but it's got to be close. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a type of "list to demolish" phenomena. Developers announce their plans, preservationists protest and start the listing process, courts might hold up demolition until the NRHP decides, then, within months a) listed, b) demolished. The Jewel Tea Company Building in Barrington, Lake County, Illinois seemed to worked this way in any case. I don't have dates but certainly it was demolished within a year of listing. Smallbones (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Another question comes to mind since delistings occur after a property was demolished, what's the quickest a property been listed and then delisted? Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

About -1 year. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that church is still listed on the NRHP. The shortest span I've seen is Blair Mountain, listed 4/23/2008, delisted 12/30/2009. Turns out there's coal under that mountain, and nothing's gonna stop big coal. Teemu08 (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I missed the "and then delisted". Yes, it's definitely still on the Register; I suspect it will be for many years yet, since it's been nearly 2/5 of a century since it was destroyed. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Caleb Blood Smith Historic Site in Indianapolis seems to have been listed in 1972, but it has a delisting date of 1972 according to NRIS and according to the Indiana SHPO's website. Nyttend (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Reassessment request

Could one of the project members please (re-) assess North Bank Depot Buildings? It was assessed as C-class last week (by someone from another WikiProject, who filled in all project templates with the rating), but was borderline B/C, and I've since added two more paragraphs. It's now been reaassessed as B-class for WikiProject Oregon, and I believe it now also meets B-class criteria for WikiProject NRHP. (FYI, the article has recently been approved for DYK and will be on the Main Page tomorrow [at noon Eastern Time].) Thanks. SJ Morg (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. In general, just remove the NRHP rating that you want reassessed and somebody will come along and assess it. No harm in asking here though as far as I can see. Smallbones (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Heckscher Museum of Art; HDCP to Heckscher Park?

An incredibly simple question; Should the Heckscher Museum of Art article be rewritten as a historic district contributing property to Heckscher Park (Huntington, New York)? ----DanTD (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't. The museum is notable as a currently operating institution with ongoing exhibitions, not as a historic site. And the park, while otherwise a nice little local park with a pond and amphitheater, is notable mostly for the museum. Station1 (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Station1's opinion. Altairisfar (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait--the addition of a few sentences to the Heckscher Museum of Art article noting that it's part of the larger Historic District, and the addition of an embedded "contributing property" section in the infobox, would enhance the article, I think. That's emphatically not "rewriting" the article to give precedence to the historic aspect, but the addition of some historical and/or architectural perspective, so long as it's not unduly weighty, seems like a good thing. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, adding a few sentences without undue weight is no problem. "Should the...article be rewritten..." sounded much more radical to me. Station1 (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding a Contributing Properties infobox and a few more sentences is pretty drastic as well. ----DanTD (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial

Anyone know if the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial will also be listed on the NRHP? Some National Memorials (please don't make me find examples) are not listed on the NRHP, and I haven't been able to find a reference number for this one.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Washington Navy Yard and related articles

The current article for the Washington Navy yard and the articles of many of the associate buildings are currently pretty short and some still haven't been created at all. I would like to recommend that we merge in (at least temporarily) the articles for Quarters A and B, Latrobe Gate and the Commandants office into the Navy yard article. I think this will not only greatly expand and improve the Navy yard article itself but will be more benficial to our readers as well having everything together. If in the future we have enough indformation to split these buildings off as their own articles then great but right now I just don't think the info is available to get them to any more than Start class. --Kumioko (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think folks in this project have a tendency to prefer separate articles, even if some of them are stubs. The Latrobe Gate article certainly looks like it can stand by itself. Summaries can be put in the main article of course, and the stubs may develop later. I do think there are some good sources on the Navy Yard. Try the HABS photo database at LOC, in particular the data pages that are attached. Just one of many [5] Smallbones (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

New fully-illustrated

Just wanted to let all of you know that Indianapolis is now fully illustrated: 222 different sites, including 8 NHLs. I'm still missing two delisted photos, but I'll be getting those soon, and anyway if I remember rightly we don't worry about delistings for fully-illustrated purposes. The Indiana SHPO has another site pending (PDF), but I've already photographed it as well. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Bravo! On Friday I also got the last pic in Manhattan. It looks like we're doing pretty well on completing cities. The following are all now complete, including in many cases the surrounding counties: Philly, Manhattan, Detroit, Denver, Indy, Pittsburg, Buffalo, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Syracuse and central Chicago (did I miss any?).

About a year from now there will be Wikimania in Washington, DC. I'd love to get the DC lists fully illustrated and red-link-free by then, as a present for all the visitors who will be coming. Anybody want to help in this? Smallbones (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've only gotten two of the surrounding seven counties for Indianapolis (Johnson and Hendricks) fully illustrated, and of the other five, only Hancock County is more than 50% illustrated. I was hoping to get photos for all sites in Shelby County, another one of the seven, on a trip today from Ohio to Indiana; however, photographing in Ohio took longer than I expected, so Shelby County is likely to keep its 8-1/3% illustrated status for quite a while. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Los Angeles is at about 197 out of 210. The 13 that are missing are new additions from 2010 forward, restricted access (e.g., Garbutt House, American Trona Building), or difficult to locate (e.g., the "Plaza Substation" which I've tried to find unsuccessfully). Cbl62 (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

After a little Googling, it appears that the Plaza Substation is here (the building with the stepped facade behind the flagpoles)--also see this birdseye view. Is it still there or has it been demolished? Andrew Jameson (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Washington project

Several of the above sections relate to the Washington-Wikimania project I've proposed (the project in short: get a fully-illustrated list for List of RHPs in DC and get the red-links out by Wikimania-in-Washington next August) And a half-dozen or more folks have expressed interest to me. So it looks like (knock on wood) that we've got plenty of folks and plenty of time and we'll get the project done. In any "article creation drive" the usual criticism is that a bunch of bad stubs will be created. It's inevitable that some stubs will be created (see immediately above), but I'll ask that most people working on this at least aim for a start-quality article most of the time. And if your aim is only to produce FA quality articles - please do one on an NRHP site in DC!

I've split up the listings a bit better than before - the old split had some major issues. The basic split is done, but it will take awhile to get it finalized. One issue is whether to include the non-NRHP NHLs (the White House, Capitol Building, and Supreme Court). I'd kinda like to include them, but Sanfranman advises against it. Any advice welcome.

I'd like to include something on this in the To-Do list. The problem with the To-Do list however is that there are lots of old things in there that clog up everything so nobody seems to look at it. Anybody mind if I clean up the To-Do list and put in "Create articles and take photos or Washington NRHPs"? In general, I'll suggest that we not put things in the To-Do list, unless they have some sort of expiration date. This one would expire by 8-12 if not before.

Finally, after folks have had their say in this section, it's probably best to discuss the project at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington, D.C.

Smallbones (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of only adding things to the to-do list that have an expiration date. I do like the reminders for infoboxes, dab pages, etc. that need clean up or other things that will always be needed, though, and wouldn't support removing them. I usually use the to-do list to track progress of rating importance of things.. right now I have a NHL-importance reminder and one about B-class, starts, and stubs. I plan to eventually get around to those items, but they each take an extended period of time. They do have a deadline, though. My main complaint is when a certain user adds questions there like "Which states have been done?" or "anything else?" I'm a stickler for public appearance, so I would love if the project came to a consensus to not include stuff like that.

As far as the DC stuff goes, that sounds good to me. I'm nowhere near that, so I won't be able to help out with the photography, but I support the idea. The number of fully illustrated large cities seems to be growing rapidly!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the to-do list a bit and added the DC collaboration to it. Please revert anything you disagree with. Smallbones (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused: to what do you want to add the non-NR-listed NHLs? I did a little work last night, writing Potomac Palisades Site. Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That's easy: All National Historic Landmarks in DC are listed at List of National Historic Landmarks in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, that list is marred by the inclusion of an essentially unrelated list of other historic sites in D.C. that are managed by the National Park Service. IMO, a third article about "monuments and memorials in Washington, DC" (not tied to the National Register, and not limited to sites managed by the Park Service) would be highly appropriate. --Orlady (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Orlady. The National Historic Landmark program and the National Register of Historic Places are separate (albeit related) programs. If a site has been designated an NHL but isn't in the NRHP database, it shouldn't be listed in our NRHP tables and vice versa. While it's perhaps surprising that the White House, Supreme Court and the US Capitol aren't in the NRHP database, including them in one of the DC NRHP list is inaccurate and a violation of WP:VERIFY. I think it would be appropriate to mention these buildings in the text of the article, pointing out that while they are not listed on the National Register, they are NHLs. I've emailed the contact listed on the weekly NPS announcements (Edson Beall) several times in the past to try and get an explanation for why these buildings aren't in the NRHP database, but have not received a response. My guess is that it has something to do with security. Maybe NHL documents are more protected than NRHP nomination documents?

I also agree with Orlady that the "monuments and memorials in Washington, DC" table doesn't belong on the DC NHL page. --sanfranman59 (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think NHL nominations are more protected — virtually all such nominations are on Focus, and for some states (e.g. Ohio), they're pretty much the only nominations on Focus. I remember seeing somewhere (can't remember if it were speculation on our part or a statement by the NPS) the idea that it was a separation-of-powers thing: that Congress didn't have the right to get rid of an executive residence or the offices of the court, so the White House and Supreme Court Building didn't need to be listed, and an executive organisation such as the NPS shouldn't be exercising authority over a legislative building, so the Capitol shouldn't be listed. Moreover, yes, NHLs that aren't on the NR shouldn't be included in the main part of the list, but I like Sanfranman's idea of mentioning them in the intro; this would likewise be a good thing to do with that statecoach or Pony Express station in Sacramento or San Francisco that's apparently the only other NHL not on the Register. Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that sites that aren't NHLs or have never been NHLs have a place in this list. The inclusion of these other sites has proven to be an issue when NHL lists have been taken for Featured list review: New York, failed at least in part due to the other sites; Alabama, promoted after their removal (and many other additional tweaks including color in the header bar of table); Indiana modeled on the Alabama list, failed for other reasons (refs, alt text), but later promoted. Altairisfar (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a point of order: All NHLs are included in the National Register. Carry on. IvoShandor (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Except, of course, when they're not. As a rule of thumb, nearly all NHLs are on the NRHP, but there are exceptions. Note that the the White House, US Capitol, Congressional Office Buildings, and the Supreme Court are all "legally exempted from listing in the National Register of Historic Places, according to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966" (per the linked pages). Section 107 of the National Historic Preservation Act explicitly states that the Act itself is not applicable to those structures. Andrew Jameson (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Turns out that Doncram added the Big Four House to National Register of Historic Places listings in Sacramento County, California several years ago, in the way that I'd advise that the White House etc. be added to the DC list — it's mentioned at the top, and a representative photo is included, but a note is also included that refers to the fact that the property isn't NR-listed. I'm curious enough about the Big Four House that I just sent a request for clarification to the nr_reference email address. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess that the Big 4 is actually an NRHP as well as an NHL, or it is a pure oversight by the NRHP.

The reason I wanted to put the White House, the Capitol, and the Supreme Court building in the Washington NRHP list is that every tourist in the world who looks at that list will look 1st for at least 2 of those buildings, and not find them on what's supposed to be the definitive list of historic buildings there. I'm extremely comfortable. however, putting them up top (maybe in a gallery) and saying "These are NHLs not NRHPs!" A year or so ago, I SPECULATED that the reason that congress put this special provision into law "The White House, U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Capitol, and related buildings and grounds are legally exempted from listing in the National Register of Historic Places, according to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966." is separation of powers. I'd still speculate that, but as far as I know there is no documentation for it. I certainly sympathize with the old inclusion of the 14 sites after the NHL list - the Washington Monument isn't a NHL or a NRHP! After working with the Washington lists for about a week, it's pretty clear that there are special rules for Washington, e.g. American Revolution Statuary and Civil War Statuary spread all over the place - but with only 2 listing. Ditto for Civil War forts (1 listing). And the L'Enfant Plan is essentially streets and parks (a few odd buildings only) and vistas. Well, let's just say it's a challenge. Smallbones (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay; you'll notice that I said that it might have been speculation on our part. On the Big Four House, I too strongly suspect a pure oversight by the NPS; I didn't send the email until after 7PM Eastern Time, so I would have been very surprised if I'd gotten an email by now, 7:45AM Eastern Time. I'll report whatever result I get for it. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a well-established precedent for including properties not listed on the NRHP in "NRHP listings in..." articles: to wit, delisted structures, which are included in a seperate table at the end of the article. Doing something similar for the White House, etc, in the DC article seems like a good compromise between the intellectual purity of limiting the NRHP list to actual NRHP properties and utility to the reader, who likely neither understands or cares about the technical difference between a NRHP property and a NHL. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Delisted structures are different, since they were once listed on the National Register — there's a significant difference between once-listed-but-since-removed and never-listed. If we mention these buildings in the intro but don't include them in the body of the article, it will demonstrate both that they're related to the topic of the list, thus satisfying the casual reader, without hiding the fact that they're not NR-listed, thus satisfying the person who wants details. Let's not sacrifice accuracy for the sake of a slight increase in comprehensiveness. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

On the Big Four House, I'll quote one sentence from the email I got from NPS today: "We have to sort our National Register database out." The staffer confirms that it's not individually listed, notes that it's part of the Old Sacramento HD, and remarks that part of the problem is that it was relocated some years ago and that delisting was considered but decided against. As well, s/he mentions a couple of possible solutions — the reference number associated with it is that of a building in a different city, so the staffer remarks that the reference number and Big Four House need to be dissociated, and mentions the possibility of creating a new listing for the Big Four House. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate Washington DC

I put together a list of all the unillustrated NRHP sites in DC. I added the geotemplate so we can see general distribution. If anyone wants to make a redlinks list, the very first version of the page has all the DC sites on it. Or a list to get updated photos, as some look to be HABS-type. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There's only 86 sites without photos, so it's definitely do-able, especially if we can dragoon other Wikipedians whilst there for Wikimania. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I work at the Navy Yard in DC and here are a couple of links to images for Quarters A and B if someone wants to upload them. Sorry for the bad attidude but I don't upload images anymmore because I got tired of them being deleted and wasting my time. I will try and get some updated ones if you want them. They (the Navy Yard) sorta frown (major understatement :-)) on folks snapping picks of the buildings in the Yard without permission. I also found out about a couple youtube videos of life in the foundry (Building 76) before it closed.

I have images of some of the other buildings as well but I noticed that these are the only ones you had listed. --Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I also have images of the Commandants office but there are lots of them so I wasn't sure if you wanted what it looked like back in teh 1800's, current or during its reconstruction. --Kumioko (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Good job - I've uploaded A and B. Let me know where to get the Commandant's Quarter photos (how about all 3) at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington, D.C. and I'll upload those as well. Since the videos were made by the US Navy, I feel like uploading those too, but have never uploaded a video before. Anybody know how? Smallbones (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't seem to find too many of Building 1 at the moment but here are some that might be useful.

Here is a link to some more photos of the Washington Navy yard. Also on the link are links that break down views of the navy yard into groups from 1900 to presentish (most are no more recent than the 1970's.).
Here is a link to some images of the Naval Gun Factory Naval Gun Factory
Here are some images and information about some of the dozens of cannons scattered throughout the yard cannons. These might e useful in either articles about the ships they came from, the cannons themselves or about the navy yard itself.
Here are some more of the yard itself more
Another image with Building 1 in it. Building 1 --Kumioko (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to pick some up thi weekend in the NE / SE side of town--Pubdog (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Texas listing sections

Howdy. The TEXAS NRHP listings are divided into 5 subsections: A-C, D-G, H-J, K-S, and T-Z. The K-S section is enormous, being bigger than any 2 other sections combined, and I am wanting to pare it down somehow. Would it be better to move portions of the K-S into the H-J and T-Z sections, holding onto only 5 total subsections, but having to rename 3 of them, or would it be better to divide the K-S section into 3 sections, with a total of 7 subsections for Texas? Pulling county sections out of K-S is not feasible, as all these are less than 20 listings, most being 5 or less. 25or6to4 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend making separate tables for McLennan and Nacogdoches first. I'd farm the rest between the three pages you mentioned. Conversely, you could make separate pages for the larger county listings that don't have such already, before distributing the K-S page. You might be able to consolidate what's left into even fewer pages. --Ebyabe (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

See my note above in "Georgia listings." I'd break out all the 5 or above counties into separate articles. What would be the problem with this? Smallbones (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Decided to go ahead and split off any counties in all 5 sections >10 listings. I have the first 2 sections done, and it cut about 40% off the byte total. Once they're all done, all revisit any adjustments, either keeping the original 5 subsections or possibly merging back to one. 25or6to4 (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. clariosophic (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Numbers in NRHP county lists

Hi, I've been adding new listings to county lists such as this one and I was wondering, what is the point of the numbers in the left column? They are time-consuming, and in my view, pointless. When an editor adds a new listing, they have to go through and edit each number. Also, I've noticed that the menial task of updating the numbers has occasionally discouraged me from editing the article, and it may stand un-updated for a while. Unless there is another way to edit the numbers that I don't know about, what would people think of removing the numbers and placing a sentence like "There are currently 54 NRHP listings in Fayette County" in the lead of the article? Theking 17825 04:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. They have a couple of disadvantages, and no advantage that I can see. Ntsimp (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be to help with listings that start with "The", to sort correctly alphabetically. Often, on the NRHP such listings are named like, "Ridge, The", but we create the article "The Ridge". I don't know how important that is, and there might be a way to code the tables so they do that without the numbers column. However, we also use that column for color coding, to differentiate regular listings from historic districts and NHLs and such. I concur that is a pain to do the renumbering, especially with the counties that have dozens of listings. If we came to a consensus to remove that column, it'd require reformatting all the listings tables across the board. That'll be a major project. --Ebyabe (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could color code the column with the property name? Theking 17825 18:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My first reaction to this was "Is the King ruining our current system?" (Please excuse first reactions) But actually I don't know what our current update system is. Doesn't User:SanFranMan take care of it? Or is it ...? I don't know the details, but somebody (who deserves multiple barnstars for this) has been updating very well. Whoever does this please let us all know. Assuming that the King is not messing up an already working system, the only thing I can see useful with the numbers is that they allow quick double checks - are the right number of rows in the county list? When a list is divided, were the right number of rows transferred? Double checking is very important, perhaps the ultimate secret of the universe. Otherwise, I also consider the numbers a pain. Smallbones (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I left a message on User:SanFranMan59's talk page, hopefully he will come here to comment about that. Theking 17825 20:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A few folks take care of updating the lists each week. Some take care of one state (I do Florida). I think SanFranMan does California, and any "unclaimed" states/territories, of which there are quite a few. The updating/re-numbering is completely manual. There's no way I've been able to figure to get around that. It is a good inventory system, Smallbones is right about that. If it should be decided to remove that column, coloring the property name box was what I was thinking, too. Plus it would be more prominent that way. I'm not sure how many people even notice the little slivers of blue and yellow and other colors. Carry on! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Just replying to Thekings's request for feedback, this isn't something I normally do in NRHP (when I actually am working with it). Typically, I create articles in the lists, and don't even touch the list. On a first glance, I think adding the numbers into something like this would be very tedious and annoying. I don't notice the little slivers of blues and yellow myself, and I don't really care a whole lot about the number. Coloring the property name box seems to work, in my opinion. Plus, when a creationist comes along to grab the picture or coordinates or date, we are probably already at the name of the article we are building, the number doesn't help a whole lot compared to how much time it takes to put it in. smithers - talk 17:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My primary editing activity for the past few years has been keeping the county lists up-to-date. As Ebyabe notes, several editors take on this task for specific states. If memory serves, in addition to Ebyabe diligently covering Florida, Texas has generally been covered by User:25or6to4 and Ohio and Indiana by User:Nyttend. I think several other states have also been covered periodically by other editors.

With regard to the row numbering, I find them to most helpful for keeping track of the number of listings in each table. The count is often mentioned in the introductory paragraph on the page and it's also in the county-by-county counts in each state's NRHP article. As someone mentioned, the row numbers are also useful for alphabetizing lists when there are site names that don't begin with an alphabetized key word (e.g. "The" or someone's name, where we alphabetize by last name, not first name). While I agree that renumbering the lists is a bit of a pain in the rear, I would be against changing this practice. I've got a method of doing the renumbering that involves copying the table text from the Wikipedia editor into a spreadsheet, manipulating it there and then pasting it back into the Wikipedia editor. It pays off over manually renumbering when more than about 20 rows need to be updated. I'm happy to do the renumbering for others if you notify me of a list that needs to be done. --sanfranman59 (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Assuming we can come up with another way of keeping track of the number of listings in a list, I see no reason to keep the numbering, but I wouldn't like the idea of using the name column instead for the color (I tried it, didn't like the result). I know someone mentioned adding the refnum to the lists (a meaningful number, instead of an arbitrary one) or we could possibly satify WP:ACCESS by putting the abbreviations of the designations in also (NRHP, NHL, etc.). Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 18:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

For me as an editor of the German WP NRHP project the numbering is helpful since it makes comparing the lists more easy when I am updating the lists in the German WP. However that is a relatively weak reason. But please bear in mind that when the column would be removed coloring the name column is inacceptable because it might make reading those lists for people with red/green disorder ("color blinds"., don't know how it is called in English) more difficult maybe impossible. So please do not so. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the first question to ask is "is it possible"? I would love to see the numbers removed, but I'm not sure that a table can be programed to sort by name in the context we will be using it in. I know that lists can sort by Last, First, but I'm not sure it can do Last, First, [Rest of Entry] (i.e. John Smith House being sorted as Smith). Does anyone know if we can do this? Teemu08 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It can be done with {{Sort}}. We already do something similar using {{Dts}} to sort the list dates correctly. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 20:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't use these numbers, so {{Sort}} works for me. However, I'm not opposed to numbers so long our most venerable wikignomes don't mind keeping them straight. Rklawton (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see two uses for the numbers: 1) to judge how long it might take to complete stubs for any given county and 2) to verify the introduction. Currently working on West Virginia and at Ohio County. With the numbers, I can see at a glance that there are 48 and that can verify that the introductory text ("There are 48 properties and districts listed on the National Register in the county, two of which are National Historic Landmarks.") is correct. I've done some renumbering and understand how tedious it can be, but I believe there are some additional benefits. Am I missing something? On another note, I wonder from above whether I am also expected to review the weekly lists to see whether new NRHP entries have been added for the states I've "adopted" (i.e. Maryland, New York, and West Virginia). I've not been doing that, but rely on the excellent work by User:sanfranman59 and others to keep an eye out for them. I'm happy to do the stubs after they've done the list entry.--Pubdog (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're creating stubs/articles, and like that, keep doing that. I update the Florida lists because that's what I like. We all have our niches. :) It does make me think, though, that maybe we should have a list of who's doing what maintenance tasks? Not to require anyone to do anything. More if someone's gone for a few days, the tasks will be covered. I've been on extended photo trips, and others have updated the Florida county lists whilst I'm away. Just a thought. --Ebyabe (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added new listings here and there to NRHP lists especially when I create the article and no one else has done so. It is tedious to change the numbers, but I see it as part of the job of creating the article. I've seen duplicate articles created when the creator of the first didn't make sure the the NRHP list linked correctly to it. Also I have tablezied many NRHP lists and split cities out from their county lists and found as others have that the numbers were necessary to avoid losing listings in the process. I recently did some clean up work (adding new images, etc., checking links, and generally checking for articles that needed tweaking or expansion) on the list for my hometown which I created in 2007 and decided to create a new category for its 180 plus listings. The numbers helped me to make sure the new cat was complete. My conclusion is that the numbers are vital and should be kept. clariosophic (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that we have established a use for the numbers, and decided that we should keep the numbers and just deal with the renumbering the way it is. I'll close the RfC, thanks to everyone for the discussion. Theking 17825 18:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't have time to comment until now. I like the numbers so that I can keep track of what I've photographed in a county. I print out the county listings and sometimes draw a rough map using those numbers. It's also nice to keep track of how many there are. I know that it's a pain to renumber when there's a change. Royal broil 02:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am late to the party - I sometimes add images to the county lists and consult them to see if a place in a county is listed or if it has an article here. I agree that the numbers are useful for a quick way to do the count. I wonder if the numers could be automated by coding some way? Kind of like the way the number sign "#" can be used to make a numbered list. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Who does what?

In the discussion above about the numbers in county lists, Ebyabe mentioned something about maintaining a list about who maintains what states. I think we should start this so I'm creating a list at WP:NRHP/State list maintenance. I placed a link to the list in the "miscellaneous links" section of the project page, if it's needed once this talk page is archived. I've added a few names to some of the states from what I read in the discussion above, but if I've made a mistake, please change it. Also, if you maintain a state, feel free to add yourself. I've added myself to Minnesota and New Jersey, but if someone else normally maintains those states, please tell me and I'll change it, or better yet, just change it yourself! Thanks, Theking 17825 16:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I can do Illinois, but it seems like we're losing NRHP sites faster than we're gaining them. Teemu08 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been doing South Carolina when I can. I signed up. It would also be nice if that editor would also look at the corresponding bridge list, e.g. List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in South Carolina. I have tried to update and keep all the state lists current, but another pair of eyes always helps. I have noted inconsistencies and the bridge lists might be missing some. KudzuVine (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Should the list of bridges be one of the duties for everyone? Like, since I take care of Minnesota and New Jersey, should I have to take care of the bridges list too? What do you guys think? Theking 17825 17:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about "have to", but it would probably be helpful. I was only thinking about the county lists, but your point does make me wonder how well the ancillary lists (like bridges) are being maintained. I noticed that the Nebraska, North Carolina and Wisconsin lists don't seem to have been updated since August 12th, and Virginia, Washington and West Virginia since August 19th. I'm going to see what I can do with the older ones. Glad I came up with a good idea for once. You know what they say about a clock being right at least twice a day. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a sentence in the header about trying to maintain the bridge list. Does it look good? Theking 17825 18:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks KudzuVine (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, does this require us to scan the weekly lists and add as appropriate? At what date is this proposed to take effect? Are there some tips and pointers for doing this, esp in re: adding coordinates? Please advise. Always willing to help out!--Pubdog (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Required? Goodness no! We're all volunteers here, we can't make anyone do anything. The tasks are being done. I just suggested we put together a list of who is doing what. In case somebody's on vacation for a while, that way others can jump in so lists don't fall behind. Any additional help on the tedious accounting-type tasks is appreciated, though. Perhaps folks might consider "adopting a state". That is, pick one state and update it weekly. But only if you want to. If it's a minimally active state, consider adopting another. I do Florida, but there's usually only a couple of new listings a month, so I'm thinking of maintaining another. Again, no coercion or arm-twisting, just encouraging folks to help as they're able. Some like creating articles, some the maintenance tasks, some other activities. It all works out. A testament to y'all, folks. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not extend this to a who does what list of everything in the project? I usually go through and check to make sure all new articles that could be under the scope of the project are properly tagged, rated, and assessed, and I have been slowly working through assessing the importance of all of our articles. I also monitor just about everything to do with {{Infobox NRHP}}. User:Doncram, currently blocked, works with dab pages and correspondence with the NPS about NRIS information issues. etc etc etc.. If any newcomers have any questions, a list like that would be a good place to point them.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good thought, actually. Like article assessment. It seems like we're mostly caught up on quality ratings, but is there anyone specifically doing it? The project has gotten large enough (member-wise and with what we're trying to accomplish, long-term) that such a list is probably overdue. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I keep tabs on assessing new articles. Usually I'll get to a new article (if it's tagged) within at most a week, and usually within a day or two. I'm slowly working on importance (currently a little less than 1/3 of all pages have a valid importance).. right now I'm going through the state lists of NHLs. I've already assessed the importance of FAs, GAs, C-Class, and Lists. After NHLs, I'll do B-Class, then I planned on seeing if everyone would pick a state and rate the start/stub-class articles, which come in at about 25k articles.. too many for one person to realistically handle. I'll wait for other people to comment, but if this idea sounds good, we can just move the page The King created to a new name and expand it.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I take pictures. Rklawton (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this healthy discussion. I'm reluctant to be designated "User" for Maryland, New York, and West Virginia on WP:NRHP/State list maintenance, only because I'm afraid I might miss a week or forget to be on top of it. I don't want to sound difficult, but I really like being able to work on stubs at my own pace (and do pictures like Rklawton) and not feel like I need to have a deadline. Work in a very stressful environment and want to continue to enjoy being productive (and creative, as much as this forum allows) with stubbing (which seems to be going OK, with few complaints) without the added distraction. Sorry folks ... --Pubdog (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Support - low stress, recreational editing. Rklawton (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I update NY when there is updating to do, and northern and central NJ. Also areas of PA and CT adjacent to where I live. Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Pubdog for adding you, I read that you adopted them. Feel free to remove yourself if you haven't. I don't mean to be pushy, and of course, nobody is required to do anything. This is all only if you want to. Also, I agree what we should add more to the list. Theking 17825 02:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, just a quick note, I'm adding my name to D.C.. Again, if you have adopted it, just let me know. Thanks :) Theking 17825 03:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this project anymore, but I used to keep the Oregon lists updated. I'd be willing to do so again. I'll go ahead and sign up and if there's a problem feel free to remove me (but drop me a note if you do). Valfontis (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I can do Idaho and Washington too, unless someone else is interested--just replace my name with yours if so. I'm with WikiProject Oregon and we've been joking about taking over the entire Oregon Territory anyway (both those state's WikiProjects are now under the wing of WikiProject U.S.). Valfontis (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I usually keep Pennsylvania updated, but I also do the several U.S. territorys, federated states, and minor outlying islands in the Pacific. If someone wants a low stress job, there is always the Morocco list ;-) Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 15:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What other things should I/we add to the list? Do we want to designate a couple people to be in charge of assessment? Maybe some other things... Theking 17825 18:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Weekly update for Sept 2

Wow, just checked and it's up a day early. Probably due to the Labor Day weekend. This is the link. A bunch of New York, I noticed. Oh, there's a Florida one. Gotta get that sorted first, then I'll start the August 12th ones. Cheers! --Ebyabe (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Recently, I've only been updating the lists, but I'm thinking about creating articles for NRHP properties. Does being on the Register automatically constitute notability, or are only some properties notable enough to have an article? Theking 17825 18:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK the general consensus has been that any Register listed property is considered notable for our purposes. This, of course, can change. I'm sure someone will be along shortly with a similar answer consisting of 1000s more words.IvoShandor (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What Ivo said. Sorry, couldn't resist. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I was only but having a bit of a lark.IvoShandor (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There was actually some discussion of this here a few months ago (now archived). Consensus was, I think, that all or nearly all listed properties are inherently notable (with disagreements only about how close to 100% "nearly all" is). Certainly any property about which you can find enough information to develop an article of greater than stub size will be notable. Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks everyone. :) Theking 17825 06:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Georgia listings

I've been breaking out counties with larger listings to their own pages. Currently, the ones with more than 20 listings have been done. Do y'all think it's a good idea to continue, and if so, how far down the list? Also, if anyone wants to check if I missed something in the process, please do. I noticed I hadn't fixed all the linkage for National Register of Historic Places listings in Bibb County, Georgia. Cheers! --Ebyabe (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How much work do you want to do? I'll suggest going down until all the counties with 10 or more sites have separate lists. I don't really see the advantage of having state lists with lots of counties of 10 or more sites. I might even go down to counties with 5 or more sites. What would be the problem? The multiple pages with alphabetical lists of counties, as in Georgia, seem like too much overhead to me. Smallbones (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I could do a separate one for every county, like I did for Florida. I think I'll do more of the counties with listings in the high teens, and see how it goes. --Ebyabe (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done all the counties down to 11 listings. That enabled me to consolidate the C and D counties into National Register of Historic Places listings in Georgia, counties C–D. That's enough of that. --Ebyabe (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm going to do a page for each county after all. It helps when you want to look for specific listings. It's the difference between this and this. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Finished National Register of Historic Places listings in Georgia. Changed all the redirects, I believe. If anyone wants to give a look-see to make sure I didn't miss nothin', be my guest. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Did the same for North Carolina. Need to get away some from the computer. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Kentucky and West Virginia all split up. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene

There might be plenty of NRHP entries damaged or destroyed, f. ex. the Markham-Albertson-Stinson Cottage (NRIS 05001544) is gone. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There are reports that some covered bridges in Vermont were washed away as well. I can't find any specifics, but I didn't look very hard. IvoShandor (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The msnbc.com web page had video of the Bartonsville Covered Bridge being washed away earlier today, can't find it now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The info was added to the Bartonsville article, but needed a reference, which I added. Sad at all the destruction. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Also Old Blenheim Bridge.--Pubdog (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the photographic proof. We lost an NHL. The only other NHL bridge in the state besides Brooklyn. Damn. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the listings for places in the path of Schoharie Creek, or wherever severe flooding was reported, especially that I know to be within the flood plain from my many hiking trips up that way:

Windham: Centre Presbyterian Church and Methodist Episcopal Church of Windham Center are both on Main Street (NY 23, on which some severe flooding was shown. But in the pictures I saw both were still standing, even as washed-away buildings were drifting along the Batavia Kill (a tributary of the Schoharie which drains the steep, high peaks of the Blackhead Range) behind them.
Ashland: Trinity Episcopal Church would also have been at risk. I don't know how that turned out.
Red Falls: The Morss Homestead/Federal City Homestead is also near the Batavia Kill.
Lexington: St. Francis DeSales Church and Lexington House (the latter especially) are very close to the Schoharie. I am not optimistic.
Prattsville: As you've probably read, the small Main Street of this little town is all but destroyed. That would by extension include three listed buildings: Prattsville Commercial Building, Zadock Pratt House and Prattsville Reformed Dutch Church. Let's hope it's not so and they can be rebuilt. Pratt Rocks Park, probably the most important listing there, is fortunately enough high up on the hillside above town.

In Schoharie County, I have never actually been up that way but in addition to the bridge I would worry about the nearby Lansing Manor House and properties in the North Blenheim Historic District. All the properties in Middleburgh and Schoharie may have taken serious flood damage, too. North of there the George Westinghouse, Jr., Birthplace and Boyhood Home in Central Bridge may also have been at risk.

In Ulster County, very few properties were listed in the Esopus Creek flood plain. The one that was, the Phoenicia Railroad Station, took heavy damage but is still there and expects to rebuild and repair.

In Delaware County, flooding in Fleischmanns and Margaretville may have damaged properties there. I have an in on Galli-Curci Theatre; I will check with the owner. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In Montgomery County, the Times reports that Guy Park in Amsterdam was damaged beyond repair. Daniel Case (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Significant damage to

the Roxbury Fish Hatchery, Roxbury VT, Washington County. [6],
Wells Memorial Library, Jay NY, Essex County. (link was blocked, sorry),
North Brookfield Town House, Worcester Co MA, [7],
Whitman Park, Whitman, MA, [8],
Sherman Building at U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home (earthquake damage) [9], 25or6to4 (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Importance ratings

Just a progress update: Since the January implementation of importance into {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places}}, we have now assessed the importance of 1/3 of all the articles under the scope of this project. All FA, GA, and C-Class articles have been assessed, as well as our more than 2600 lists. Out of a total 41,141 articles/dabs/lists/etc., we have assessed 27,155. I'm currently working on assessing all NHLs as high importance, and it appears as if User:Ebyabe is assessing B-Class articles. After that, we will move on to start- and stub-class articles. I think the best way to assess their importance is for users (preferably with local knowledge) to go through state lists and mark the most significant NRHP listings as mid importance and mark the rest low importance. Any contributing properties or delisted properties should be marked as related importance. Any help would be appreciated! For information about how to assess the importance of articles, see our Importance scale. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note as people are going through, that a number of articles don't have NRHP infoboxes. If you want to keep assessing, just add "|infobox-needed=yes" to the NRHP project banner, so they can be tracked and added later. Thanks! --Ebyabe (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That should be "|needs-infobox=yes". Ntsimp (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for the correction. :) I've done most of the B-class articles. I'm not sure what rating to give the rest, so if someone else could have a look, it'd be appreciated. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Broken 86,000

United States National Register of Historic Places listings. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Another NRHP casualty

The Siegrist's Mill Covered Bridge in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania got swept away by flooding from the remnants of Tropical Storm Lee [10]. Could be more depending on the Susquehanna River. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 02:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Damn, another one! First Vermont, now Pennsylvania. This might be one of the few times I'd appreciate driving on the Millard E. Tydings Memorial Bridge. One question for those on Long Island, is this fine structure still in good shape? ----DanTD (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the Lancaster County Commissioners, the Landis Mill Covered Bridge had its approaches washed away (but bridge is presumably still intact), while the Pinetown Bushong's Mill Covered Bridge is damaged and closed. It's probably worth keeping an eye on Columbia County as well. Rupert Covered Bridge No. 56 seems to have survived water halfway up the portal. Choess (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Good news, it looks like Siegrist's Mill is able to be repaired/rebuilt.[11] Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 21:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Two more possible casualties

An IP has just added that two of the three covered bridges in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania were destroyed in the flooding from TS Lee remnants. The IP added that the Sonestown Covered Bridge was destroyed on September 7 diff. The same IP added that Hillsgrove Covered Bridge was hit by a house diff and is so badly damaged it may fall into the Loyalsock Creek.

I fear these are both true, but have no confirmation. The damage from the flooding along both creeks downstream of these bridges has been horrendous and there has been almost no news that I have seen from Sullivan County - both Pennsylvania Route 187 and US Route 220 are closed so access to the bridges is impossible. I saw a few pictures of the Sonestown Bridge on the internet before the flooding got horrible - the water was already to the bottom of the bridge and the siding had been damaged in several places. The entire village of Sonestown had to be evacuated according to this news story. The Loyalsock Creek had its highest recorded flood ever and destroyed one concrete highway bridge and severely damaged a railroad bridge in Lycoming County (neither was NRHP listed) news story. If anyone knows of other sources, that would be helpful, but I fear the worst. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

According the National Society for the Preservation of Covered Bridges as of September 9, the only confirmed destruction in Pennsylvania is Siegrist's Mill [12]. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 14:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - I hope the IP is making things up, but having seen a bit of the destruction yesterday in Montoursville (see File:LVRR Loyalsock Creek Bridge Damage.jpg) I fear the worst. It does seem odd that no news on the loss of two covered bridges has been published - while Sullivan County is a disaster area, so was much of Vermont and the news got out there - see this New York Times article. I will hope for best, but fear the worst. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A different IP has changed Sonestown CB to heavily damaged (not destroyed), which to me seems more reasonable - still standing. It was damaged in 1996 and this flood was worse. On the Hillsgrove CB page the IP said it was also still standing though badly damaged. I thought the bridge would be OK as it is pretty high above the water, but it is hard to avoid damage if a house hits. So it looks like both bridges were badly damaged, but are still standing (and hopefully be repaired). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorting Roman numerals and Arabic numbers in the same column?

Ultimately this may not be very important, but looks like something I should try. At Cape May Historic District, a National Landmark, one of the main sources gives 2 sub-lists of buildings, 30 more important buildings listed chronologically I-XXX, and 70 less important buildings listed chronologically 1-70. There is no NRHP inventory for the district, but they do refer to HABS which had 22 buildings then, but 88 now, in Cape May (city), some now outside the district. I want to include both sources in the table itself: HABS sorts beautifully, but there's not much point to it since their numbers order by the date they photographed the buildings. Jack Boucher's HABS photos include many newer (1910ish) buildings not on the other list. I'd like the other list, from well known architectural historians George Thomas and Carl Doebling, to sort I-XXX and then 1-70, the main point to distinguish between the 2 sublists. Is it possible? desirable? Smallbones (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

After reading your paragraph and looking at the list, I'm not quite sure what you're proposing. Are you proposing that we add every building's HABS listing number in the "HABS reference" column and the T&D reference number in the "T&D reference" column? Two comments: (1) Without looking at the citations, I can't figure out what T&D is; you may want to add a short bit about Thomas and Doebley into the intro. (2) If you're talking about having I sort before II and X sorting before LX, you can use the {{sort}} template to sort it however you want; I've employed it in Vinegar Hill Historic District to make the addresses display the normal way but sort a more convenient way: house number/streetname but streetname/house number respectively. I'm quite confident that {{sort|61|LXI}} and similar coding for the other numbers would work perfectly. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Haven't tried it, but does using {{sort}} work with negative numbers? If so, you may want to use numbers from -30 to 0 to sort the roman numerals so that they show up before the regularly numbered less important buildings.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

With a bit of experimenting the 2 above comments should take care of this. Nyttend has the basic idea of what I want to do, and his example shows somebody else is playing around with HD table formatting as well. I don't see a case for strict uniformity in these, but will try some of his formatting (maybe leaving out the colors). Thanks. Smallbones (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Works well, but negative numbers don't work. Instead, I used decimals, i.e. .09, .10, and .11 for IX, X, and XI. Smallbones (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Stubs done for West Virginia

Hi all... thought y'all might like to know that stubs are done for West Virginia, where the nomination form is available at West Virginia Division of Culture and History. Probably, fewer than 20 in WV without a stub. Cheers!--Pubdog (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I normally cringe nowadays when someone announces the creation of large numbers of stubs, but I've looked at some of these and they're...OK. Stubby, yes, but each seems to provide a decent, if terse, summary of the historic place. Good job! Choess (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks User:Choess. I know what you mean, but I think you can be assured that in each case the NRHP nomination has been referenced and reviewed to provide relevant info and links in each stub. Cheers.--Pubdog (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

NRHP topnav or not

Hi folks --- I recently readded to the NY County lists a resurrected template New York NRHP topnav. I found while working on WV that the West Virginia NRHP topnav box on each list was very helpful. In both states, there is also a template for U.S. National Register of Historic Places in West Virginia and U.S. National Register of Historic Places in New York near the bottom of each county list. Same situation exists in Maryland, ref National Register of Historic Places listings in Prince George's County, Maryland

ISSUE: Should both a topnav and state template be included on county lists or should the topnav templates be removed? Compare National Register of Historic Places listings in Albany, New York to National Register of Historic Places listings in Erie County, New York to see the difference. Don't much care either way, but I think a policy should exist in such circumstances. Hope this makes sense. I need to move back to stubs. Cheers ... --Pubdog (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The template at the bottom might be able to hold more information (e.g. NHLs, bridges, covered bridges, city districts), but overall if I had to choose, the topnav is more accessible. Maybe both? Smallbones (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there's room for both, 'cause they serve different purposes. The topnav one is more immediately useful, though. --Ebyabe (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a fan of this idea — with no personal offense meant towards Pubdog; this is obviously a good faith effort that we disagree on. My issue here is that the top-nav box is 100% redundant to the bottom-nav boxes, which hold exactly the same information, plus more. The bottom-nav boxes also follow the unwritten pattern of using navboxes at the bottom of an article and they use the same template setups as other bottom-nav boxes. I guess you need to look at it this way: in National Register of Historic Places listings in Albany, New York, you have literally no use for the top-nav box. I'm looking at this at a city level. I don't care about, say, Monroe County. Maybe this could be acceptable in county-level listings, and more likely, in National Register of Historic Places listings in New York, where somebody may actually be looking for a quick link to a county-level entry. But even at the county level, you probably don't care much about the other counties. I've made it to Rensselaer County, why do I care about what's in Franklin County at that point? A small percentage might; few will I suspect. And for those few, there's already a nav box on the bottom, holding literally the same information. Frankly, I think the top-nav box is a space-waster in municipal-level (county and lower) NRHP list articles. I could only support use of this in the state-level articles. upstate NYer 03:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio Revert on Circular Congregational Church and Parish House

I had to do a substantial revert on Circular Congregational Church and Parish House because most of the text was copied from the congregation's website. Unfortunately I do not have the time to do a proper rewrite myself. Mangoe (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I did some basic corrections and cleanup, but it could still stand expansion. Station1 (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Color designations in Infobox NRHP

Has anyone else noted that color designations for state and local designations are no longer displaying within Infobox NRHP? I noticed with Mississippi Landmarks and Alabama Register sites that use Infobox NRHP. Examples: House on Ellicott's Hill and Mount Sinai School. The colors are still intact when used within Infobox historic site and Infobox bridge. Examples: Belvoir and Bankhead Tunnel. Changes were made to both Template:Designation and Template:Infobox NRHP today, so I'm not sure which one contains the error. Altairisfar (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have been corrected. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was fixed a few hours after this post. Altairisfar (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Address Restricted image consensus?

Was there a consensus reached here to use the Address Restricted image in the lists? I thought there was, but I'd like to confirm that. Several times now, User:Nyttend has removed that image after I've added it (usually including some kind of snarky, passive-aggressive remark in his edit summary ... e.g., "Most likely, the site doesn't look like the words "Address Restricted""). I don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other about it. I'd just like to know whether or not I should be using it when I work on the lists. --sanfranman59 (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I just hate it when major contributors to the project take each other on. I'll suggest the two of you hash it out together. You're both adults and have the interests of the project at heart. As far as the consensus, my reading was that putting the "Address Restricted" pic in was a good idea if anybody thought that it's actually a site that might be potentially damaged by having a photo inserted, but that somebody else might put in a photo if it was clear to him that the site wouldn't be damaged. In case of disagreement please just work it out between the two of you. If I may add something to the consensus, I'll suggest waiting until there is an actual photo, so that there is an actual conflict rather than a potential one, before taking up arms. Smallbones (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was about what yours is, Smallbones. When I was breaking out some of the state lists recently, I was adding the AR graphic all over the place. I've not noticed any issues. I'm sure this can be reasonably resolved. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow ... and I thought all I was doing was coming out here to the project talk page to try and get some guidance about consensus. My intention was to try and get the lay of the land on this issue and then to hash it out with Nyttend. I didn't realize that doing so would identify me as someone who's not behaving as an adult. Pardon me. Now I'm remembering why I don't spend as much time as I once did posting messages here. I'll go back into my cave now. --sanfranman59 (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I over-reacted. At least we have the consensus pretty well described. Smallbones (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just re-read our old discussion of the use of the AR graphic. It looks as though we reached consensus on the general question of using the graphic, but still haven't resolved how extensively and under what circumstances it can/should be used.

On one end of the continuum, there's the position that the graphic should be used for all AR sites. It sounds like that's what Ebyabe would advocate, given "adding the AR graphic all over the place". On the other, there's the view that the graphic should only be applied by editors who've investigated the location, and made at least some attempt to seek suitable illustrations.

I'd like to push for the latter position. I don't think that any harm aesthetic or informational is done by leaving a white space; and I'm afraid that the AR graphic might tend to steer away editors who might otherwise be able to find suitable images.

As an example from very recent experience, I'd like to offer the Sewee Shell Mound in Charleston County, South Carolina, where I'm visiting. The mound is an archaeoogical site, and was very much AR when it was listed: so exactly the sort of thing that seems to call for the AR graphic. However, a Google search for the phrase reveals that there's now a Forest Service interpretive trail at the site. Had I seen the AR graphic, I might never have done the Google search, might never have found out about the trail, and might never have photographed the site.

--Ammodramus (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I sometimes get a tad hyperbolic. :) I wouldn't have thought the AR graphic would discourage people from taking pictures of sites. Worth discussing. --Ebyabe (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am guilty too of adding the generic AR graphic. Like User:Ebyabe I sincerely hope its presence does not deter anyone from replacing it with an appropriate photo.--Pubdog (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use the AR placeholder image except when a photo is found to be viable without giving away the reason for the Address Restriction. Sometimes it does make sense to have an image for an AR but it general it doesn't. For example, the Pilot Island NW Site is AR listing but a sign was installed in the general direction (as seen on this image). Another except that I have encountered is that there are a few AR where it's public knowledge where it can be found on public property so there's no real reason for the AR. Anyone with the internet can figure it out the location in a few minutes. There are many AR listings in my area for shipwrecks on the Great Lakes and native American mounds. Most of these should not be researched by us to give their locations away. Royal broil 02:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There are 3 things we can do with the photo space of an AR site in the list: 1) put in the A/R graphic, 2) don't put in anything, and 3) put in a photo. 1) The AR graphic is appropriate if you have any reason to believe that the site could be damaged by a photo that might reveal its location. When in doubt this is the option to choose, but just being listed as AR by the NRHP isn't enough since they have made so many mistakes and have no way of updating this info when reason for the original restriction becomes obsolete. 2) do nothing when you don't have any good info. 3) If you have a photo that doesn't reveal location, or you have a photo that you've taken yourself - and having visited the location you know that the site is now publicly known (perhaps with signs, etc.), please add the photo.

One reason I'd like to have a clear rule on this is to know when to quit looking for a site to make a list fully illustrated. I figure if I go looking for a site listed as AR and after a couple of hours searching on the web and on the ground I still can't find it, then somebody is keeping the location secret for a reason and I should put in the AR graphic. If I do find it, but it looks like there is nothing public about the site, then I'd add the AR graphic, or perhaps take a "general location" -type shot. Many of these sites are in the middle of empty fields or swamps and a picture of something nearby without landmarks on it might be useful without being harmful. And of course if you find the site with a state historical marker right next to it - take the photo! Smallbones (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the AR picture is totally unneeded. If there's no picture there is no picture. Everyone sees that. What's the point in adding the picture? Do you believe that the readers are that stupid? The reason, why there's no picture doesn't matter: he just won't see anything – there's no picture of the site. So the AR picture does not transport any new information. Thus: remove them all. --Matthiasb (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is that when you see no picture, you don't know whether that's because no one has gotten around to taking a picture yet, or whether the site can't be depicted for some intrinsic reason. Choess (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi --- I used the AR on National Register of Historic Places listings in Erie County, New York for the Eaton Site so the list could be claimed as fully illustrated. I hope that's OK?--Pubdog (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Matthiasb is right in that the AR graphic doesn't convey any useful information to the general WP reader. However, if used as Smallbones suggests, it could be helpful to WP illustrators. I'd like to see it applied only by editors who've made a serious effort to obtain an image for the site. In that case, the presence of the graphic indicates that someone's already tried to illustrate the site, and a further attempt might be wasted; a blank space suggests that a search for an illustration might not be altogether futile. Ammodramus (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering earlier, had pretty much to do with the typhoon season article over there in DE:WP. Do you actually believe, that editors are watching those list and look wether each listing has an image included? Maybe, but won't it be more effective to put those articles in which the NHRP infobox is lacking a picture into a hidden category, which with the using Template:GeoGroupTemplate even would produce a specific map for which sites pictures are needed… so you could plan your next photo taking trip ;-) Besides even when the NRIS does not provide coordinates it still coul be possible that we have images. I agree that the placeholder image prevents illustrators from loosing time in efforts for looking for prictures that don't exist but… still illustrators won't know if for one site really does not exist a picture (in the article, on commons, somewhere on a *.gov website, maybe in the LoC collections) or the location really isn't known and rather won't look because of the AR image is there. So using it has advantages and disadvantages. It's a pity that AFAIK there's no possibility within the MediaWiki software to replace the tag image goes here which we have in the list by a template to create a list where a picture is missing, so going the way through the infobox might be a more customized approach to get users involved in making pictures by themselves. However Ammodramus makes a valid point in saying that the placeholder image makes sense if the presence of the graphic indicates that someone's already tried to illustrate the site. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

PS: Needless to remind that the approach through infoboxes would work only for existing articles. ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My main activity on this WikiProject is adding photos to the lists in Utah. I don't care which way the consensus goes on this little point, as long as we still get to count the lists as 100% illustrated with or without the ARs. Ntsimp (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP NRHP in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject National Register of Historic Places for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Site merged into NHP

A battlefield site in Texas was merged into another local, yet separate, National Historic Park back in 2009. Should the articles and/or their listings in the tables be merged? See Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park and Resaca De La Palma Battlefield. 25or6to4 (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I'd keep them separate, as they are separated geographically (as I understand it) and the NRHP hasn't changed the listing. An alternative might be to merge and use two infoboxes, but even that's not strictly necessary. In short, your judgement will probably be ok with everybody here, but a conservative approach is to keep them separate as long as the NRHP does. Smallbones (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

MPS and TR categories

Question: If a category is created for a multiple property submission or thematic resource, should the category name use the MPS/TR abbreviation as the NRHP lists it or should it be spelled out? I created a few several years ago and am guilty of doing it both ways. There should be consistency, but right now there isn't. There is an ongoing Cfd discussion on one that I did here. Thanks. Altairisfar (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think they should be spelled out. Everyone doesn't know that MPS or TR stands for (I'd expect several people even in this project don't know what they are). Same thing with NRHP if it ever shows up. Spell it all out.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It may not matter though, the nominator feels that all MPS and TR categories should be deleted and I don't feel strongly about it either way. Altairisfar (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think making lists instead of categories is better, but maybe that's just me. It can also be a way not to make stubs for every "House at" or "Building at" listing, if they're in an MPS. See some examplification at National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submissions in Florida. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 22:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice way of doing it, thanks for the example. I had created two lists a good while back, but they aren't set up in nice tables like that. Altairisfar (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to NRHP

I created a project-specific welcome, {{NRHPwelcome}}. If I see new folks editing a bunch of NRHP articles (adding text or photos), I try to drop a line welcoming them and telling them about our project. I decided to make this template to have more info. It's really basic, so if others want to add to it or fancify it, that'd be great. Cheers! --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 16:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. If the editors are new to Wikipedia, I'd probably just add a regular Welcome template above this one. Smallbones (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

We're 5 years old today, and that's the truth. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 16:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! Possibly more relevant link. It looks like 5 of the 6 members from the first day are all around. Special thanks to all of them. Smallbones (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, who'da thunk? :) You know who else we share a birthday with? IMDB. They're 21 years old today. Which means they're legal to drink in any state. I guess we'll have to settle for fruit punch and ice cream. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 22:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Gratz on the nice writeup in the Signpost! I'm available to help with copyediting for FAC as needed. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

NRHP Photo Contest started

The Fall 2011 NRHP photo contest has started and will run until December 4. User:Visitor7 has gotten us off to a great start with 42 photos in Eugene, Oregon. All are welcome to join in. Smallbones (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Great Northern Depot (Princeton, Minnesota)

After I translated the article into the German WP, I requested for the nom form from the NPS and did some further ammendments overthere. If some fellow here wants to expand the article, I would be happy fo forward the PDF. Just send me wikimail (and keep a bit patient because of I'm not looking into my dedicated Wiki-Mail account every day). Greetings. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

PS ... also available... Paducah Freight House and Deansboro Railroad Station --Matthiasb (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Time for a Photo Contest?

Given that the above, by my calculations, should run in two weeks (say October 18), I think it offers a good opportunity to run a NRHP Photo contest. Note that Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments is completing a photo contest where it says it got 165,000 pix from 5,000 (80% new) editors. I have followed them at a distance and wouldn't want to do anything as big and complicated as all that, but I think we can do something quite simple and easy along the following lines.

I do hope that folks won't offer alternatives to this that involve lots of planning, big efforts by multiple project members, etc. Rather, I'll ask: can we do something simple and quick along these lines?

For Oct. 21 - Dec. 4 A photo contest where different editors or projects (the sponsors) offer prizes (e.g. barnstars) to the photographer(s) who satisfy specific criteria selected by that editor or project listed on a special page, say Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest.

Editors who want to compete for the prizes (contestants) must self-report on the contest page and the sponsors must also be the judges for their prize, i.e. check the claims of the top contenders for the prize.

For example

I might offer a barnstar on the page for the photographer who fills in the most empty photo boxes on the county lists, provided that they upload the photos to Commons during the contest period, put a specific category on them (say Category:NRHP Fall 2011 contest), and provide the diffs of the additions to the county lists.

On Dec. 5, I'd check the diffs on the top 2 or three contestants, and award the barnstar.

Project WP:Chicago might want to do the same except for the Chicago and Cook County lists.

Somebody else might want to do something similar for the state of Florida.

Others might offer prizes for NHLs, the DC lists, etc.

So in other words, if you want to participate as a sponsor, it's up to you. We'd probably have to do some notifications to other projects, and to editors in general, and perhaps get some clearance from Commons.

Any comments appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not fair to grad students who have more schoolwork during the second half of the semester :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And some of us have photographed just about everything within driving distance. :) Not a bad idea. Perhaps we could even do it two or three times each year, so there's regular encouragement. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 22:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Conversely, it might be a good inducement to get Ebyabe to learn SCUBA diving so that he can photograph those unphotographed shipwrecks and get out to the isolated fish cabins :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I about fell out of my chair with that comment. :) If anything, I'll hit more of southern Georgia. I hope this photo idea works out, though. I can't recommend NRHP roadtrips enough. They say travel broadens the mind, which is why I can't sit up straight, since my head's so big. OK, I need to go to bed. 'Nite all. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 03:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking the contest would be aimed more at photographers new to the project, as a way to give them encouragement and an introduction to the project. Of course anybody could "compete." But I'd think Users Nyttend and Ebyabe or myself don't especially need more encouragement. I mean once you're sponge boat photographer champion of the world, what other encouragement do you need? But I'll repeat, anybody could participate.

What we really need from current regular NRHP photographers is sponsors/judges, somebody to come up with interesting challenges to bring in new photographers, and who will commit to taking the time to count the diffs, and otherwise judge who the winners are. For example Nyttend might want to put up a challenge for the most new photos of NRHP sites in Kansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Ebyabe might want to sponsor a contest for most photos of ~~fish cabins~~ most new photos in Georgia.

With the least bit of encouragement (i.e. one supporter below), I'll start up the page Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest and if most folks think that it is clearly explained and do-able then we can go with it. I'd hope we could get at least 10 new photographers covering at least 200 sites. If so, that would be a successful venture for the project. And if this is successful, we could do it 2 or 3 times a year (e.g. springtime and late June-early July). Smallbones (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be your one supporter. I like this idea, and could use a little more encouragement. I haven't got any new photos since July. Ntsimp (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I support as well. Although I'll still be adding my photos whether or not this gets off the ground. :) upstate NYer 21:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great. I've put in a draft of the rules at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest. It's quite important that the rules be clear and that the contest is workable, so all comments about that page (put here to start out) would be greatly appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we're all set to go. I'll contact various other project to see if they want to post a challenge, and I hope some folks here will post some interesting challenges as well. Smallbones (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2012

Big chance that Wiki Loves Monuments is also going to happen in 2012. You might want to consider joining that contest too. The approach is federative, so each country is responsible for their part, but we all use the same name, logo, rules, time period (etc) to make it a single big contest. multichill (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

+1 I'd love to be involved or help put together a Wiki Loves Monuments for the US! SarahStierch (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Multi and Sarah! We spent some time together at the Association Residence Nursing Home in NYC. See pic.

Actually it is now the hostel where we stayed during the NYC WP:GLAM camp. BTW, I see lots of potential for cooperation between GLAM and this project. After all many of the properties listed here were originally used as Galleries, Libraries, Archives, or Museums. And many have become museums, if only as the Joe Blow House Museum. That said, I still haven't figured out where to start this potential cooperation.

Back to the main point.

A) what's the time frame? How much time to prepare?

B) Don't let anything I say below discourage you

Multichill dropped by this page this spring with a proposal for WLM 2011, and got a fairly Chilly reception. I know we can get farther this time - that might have been an especially bad time to address a major undertaking with this project - but there are probably several issues that should be addressed. Just for starters, I thought we'd be forced to shoe-horn this project's extensive tables/database into a different format just to get started with WLM. For example, registration or ID numbers were required for your database. These don't fit well or belong in our tables IMHO. (long lunch)

I think starting small is a good approach for this project. Folks here have their own way of doing things. But if the small photo contest here works well (in a very different format), why not aim for something bigger next year? But do be prepared for a lot of feedback, "we don't do it that way", etc.

All the best, see you in DC for Wikimania (with a fully illustrated DC list, with no red-links!) Smallbones (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Smallbones, New York was great. Enjoyed my time there. If Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 is going to happen (I think it will), it will run in the September 2012. That would give us plenty of time to prepare and yes, it would be good to do something small first. As for the templates: The id can just be hidden to not bother a regular user (and you) with it. Doing it like this is a bit of effort, but you get a lot of things in return. See you in DC! multichill (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

the template MC is talking about is {{NRHP|78002576}} for use on Commons, where the number is the NRHP reference or registration number. As far as I know the only place for us to get this is from Elkman's infobox tool, so I may be lax in putting some of these in. BTW multichill is a database guy, maybe one of the database folks here could communicate with him - I don't always understand the requirements of databases. Smallbones (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually talking about {{NRHP header}}, {{NRHP row}} and {{tl|NRHP}}.

I changed the template based on the feedback I got:

I added a field for the position in the list. The refnum is now completely hidden for the user
I made the layout completely the same as the current system
I did some minor tweaks

This means that the "old" and the new system are interchangeable, see National Register of Historic Places listings in Adair County, Missouri for an example.

The advantages of the system:

Make detailed progress statistics (example)
Automatically suggest images to be added to the lists. See for example nl:Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Erfgoed/Belgische Erfgoed Inventarisatie/Vlaanderen/Ongebruikte foto's
Plot items on the map: All monuments, just monuments in a certain region, monuments lacking an image (great for photo expeditions). (example 1 and example 2)
Automatically categorize images at Commons (example).
Automatically add coordinates to images at Commons (example).
It's easier for the user to update an entry or find incorrect entries.

A lot of countries/languages preceded you. I now added the US to the system so if you convert an item to use the template it will show up the next day (update run is every night). multichill (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm intrigued now. I'd be willing to try this. Would it be alright to make the coordinates appear in DMS format, or is their a reason for it to be in decimal form? The only hard part in a full-scale conversion would be added the refnum to every listing. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 16:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the DMS thing too and already changed the template. The NRHP has some excellent data dumps we can use to find the reference numbers. We could probably make some suggestion tool based on that. I'm thinking out loud here. We load the data into a table at the toolserver. We make a tool to give an coordinate and give the nearest n nrhp sites. We change {{NRHP row}} to link to this tool if the refnum is missing. This makes it easy for users to find the correct reference number for an item. multichill (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to understand that I didn't understand much about this. It looks a lot better than I thought, e.g. there is no "shoehorn" needed here. Still, I'm out of my depth and it would be better if our data downloaders, formatters, etc. got involved. I do worry about making a big conversion. I'd be extremely happy if we could get statistics such as "What percentage of sites have photos in Missouri?" or maybe "What percentage of sites in the seven Philadelphia lists have articles?" Is this possible? Just to throw in a curve ball - our current tables don't keep track of contributing properties in historic districts - and they probably shouldn't since there can be a few hundred contributing properties (without registration numbers) in some historic districts (and there are separately listed NRHP sites that are contributing properties in HDs). Is there any way that the "new" system could handle these? Finally, if this system actually does turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread, how would WP:NRHP decide to implement it? This is not a nominal question. Sometimes I am completely baffled on how things are decided (or not) here - they've always just seemed to get done in a way that has been ok with me! Smallbones (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Percentage/number of photos or articles shouldn't be a problem. Might need a bit of customization, but the data is there.

No sure how to handle the historic districts differently. Every item which has a refnum should probably be in the list. The article about the historic distric should probably reference other contributing properties. I'm not sure if anything special is needed/wanted for this.

How to implement it? Part automagicly with bots, some manual checking and fixing up issues/bugs. Probably first need to tag all current lists so we know what pages still need some attention. Not sure how long the actual process will take. Depends on how the same the current lists are. For example in Portugal it took me just two evenings to convert everything and I don't even speak the language ;-) multichill (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Felt like coding something today. I wrote a bot to convert the current lists to the new format. It takes all current information and puts in the templates. Besides that if tries to extract the refnum if an article about the listing exists. I did a few tests: 1, 2 & 3. And now with statistics (us.wikipedia.org bug will be fixed). Feedback would be nice! multichill (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the field with the construction date is missing; also the color coding in the first field is unclear. If the lists are county-wise, then a two-level structure is needed (state -> county), similar to what I have made for Russia Commons:Lists_of_European_Monuments/Russia, but this is a matter of half an hour work.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The construction date is not always relevant that's probably why it isn't included in the lists right now. The coding of the first field is explained at Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend. The structure is already there. I'm not changing anything about that. I'm just putting it in a different format. Any remarks from the regulars here? multichill (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why you invited me to this discussion if you are not interested in my opinion but you may be sure I will not bother you with my remarks anymore. Do not waste your time. .--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, it was just a bit besides the point. I'm asking for feedback from the regulars because they have been maintaining this for over 5 years so they probably have the most complete view on this. multichill (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This is awesome, it would be great for the US to join in for 2012.--Pharos (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I like it a lot, especially that the changes are essentially invisible to the casual viewer. I've long wanted to be able to track which sites need photos, but couldn't think of a way other than having articles for all 85,000+ listings and reqphotos on talk pages. One downside I can see is it could be more difficult to add new listings. But that could be just a matter of readjusting to the new system. What say, fellow updaters? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 15:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I did a test tweak on this list. This format would make it easier for updating purposes, imho. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 15:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for anything that makes it easier to identify which listings are missing photographs and I also agree with Ebyabe that the more vertically oriented format is easier for updating purposes. The method I use to streamline updating row numbering in large tables is built for that type of vertical format. I'm sure that I could tweak my method so that it works with the more horizontal format, but I prefer the vertical format. That format also makes it easier to find each parameter. --sanfranman59 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I added the line breaks. See National Register of Historic Places listings in Jasper County, Missouri for an example.

I will start a bot request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BotMultichill 8 for the conversion of the lists. multichill (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

With SanFranMan and Ebyabe on-board (as well as the vertical format) it looks like this will be a go. Just in case, I'll notify all the updaters at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/State list maintenance to see what they have to add. I'll just add that it's clear to me that most folks in the project really like the current table format, so this will be a big (and probably needed) change even if it looks the same. We have occasionally debated the minutia of the format (e.g. the numbers in the left-hand column at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_50#Numbers_in_NRHP_county_lists, and I expect that these serious discussions will continue. They might even increase since, as I understand it, the output from the template can be fairly easily changed. But any such discussion shouldn't mask the basic usefulness of the proposed new format. Smallbones (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it necessary to enter geocode coords in decimal format with the new template? I prefer to enter DMS coords since that's what shows in Google Earth. There was mention of this above and Multichill says he(?) changed the template, but the Jasper County example has the coordinates entered in decimal format (although it displays in DMS). --sanfranman59 (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The dms format is very difficult to parse so I converted it to decimal format and use a template to show it in dms to the user (that's the template part I changed). Converting to decimal format can be done in different ways. If it's just a single entry I just click the geohack link. Another option would be that you just add {{coord}} in the address field and a bot converts this to decimal format every once in a while. multichill (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Just so I'm completely clear ... I have two options: (1) enter the coords in DMS format using the coord template, preview the edit, click the link for the coords I entered to open GeoHack, copy the decimal values, remove the coord template from the draft edit and paste the decimal values in (that's more work, but certainly do-able) or (2) leave the coordinates in DMS in the address= field with the coord template and eventually a bot will come around and populate the lat= and lon= parameters? If so, will it also remove the coord template from the address= field (including the </br> and the <s> </s> markups) or does that need to be done manually? --sanfranman59 (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct
Correct. Yes it will also eat the markup and put the result in the lat and lon fields. I already have code snippets to do this (in the conversion bot). Just have to write a different one to do this job.

multichill (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Thanks for all your work on this Multichill and for your prompt responsiveness here in the discussion. There are quite a few regular editors who have not joined in the discussion here. Nyttend, PubDog, Jim.Henderson, Acroterion, Altairisfar, Daniel Case, Dudemanfellabra, 25or6to4, Teemu08, Ntsimp, KudzuVine, Andrew Jameson are a few that come immediately to mind. Then there's doncram, who's currently blocked from editing, but his latest (3-month) block expires this week. I'm concerned that there will be a huge hubbub unless we at least try to get more folks on board. --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that there hasn't been the required buy in/feedback/discussion. Part of it is the format of this discussion, starting with 2 other subjects. I'm also concenred that the project doesn't know exactly what it might be getting into, and Multichill might not know all our requirements, questions and quirks. I'll start a new discussion at the end of the page and ask all those mentioned by Sanfranman to join in the discussion. Smallbones (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Historic Huntington, New York Site in dispute

As some of you know(especially those who are familiar with Long Island), Downtown Huntington (CDP), New York is loaded with historic sites, including those listed on the National Register of Historic Places. However, one in particular claims to be on NRHP both on a historic plaque, and on the official Huntington Historical Socitey website. It's the Sewing and Trade School that I'm about to show you right here:

The trouble is, when you look on the actual register, this building is nowhere to be found. Maybe a contributing property to the Old Town Hall and Old Town Green Historic Districts, but not an individual NRHP listing. The same is true for the Dr. Daniel Kissam House. So what's the story with these two? ----DanTD (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Many of the buildings in downtown Meridian, Mississippi claim to be on the NRHP but are actually just contributing properties. I don't have pictures of the plaques, but that is the likely scenario here. You could obtain the nomination documents for these districts; they would tell you if the buildings in question are contributing or even if they are listed individually (provided they were listed before the district itself).--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Similar plaques are on many buildings in the New Harmony Historic District; it has a few individual listed properties, but many properties with this plaque aren't individually listed. I've seen this in many other historic districts as well; it's sufficiently common in Indiana and Ohio that I don't bat an eye at it anymore. In general, you should assume that properties with these plaques are CPs if they're in HDs without individual listings. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to echo what the others are saying. I just came across this situation last week with a new user who took pictures of buildings in Tarrant County, Texas that had plaques but turned out to be historic district contributing properties. Understandably, he assumed the plaque meant they were individually listed and added them to the county list. I corresponded with the Texas Historic Preservation Office and confirmed that the sites aren't individually listed. --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

They're right. I remember first encountering that situation in downtown Plant City, Florida and being similarly perplexed. It wasn't until I saw this plaque that I even knew there were ones for contributing properties. It's like when a regular NRHP site is called a National Historic Landmark locally. They mean it's on the National Register, and is a landmark. We're just so technical, ain't we? :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 14:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Elsewhere in NY, some of the houses in the Village of Monroe Historic District have plaques on them that would lead you to believe that they had been listed individually, when in fact they're just CPs. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Daniel, speaking of the Village of Monroe Historic District, I see that you created a district map for that article. Would you be willing to whip some up for the Old Town Green and Old Town Hall HD's in Huntington? ----DanTD (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It would help if I were more personally familiar with it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Manis Mastodon Site

Hey folks, so, I did this article years ago, an just this afternoon heard a story on NPR talking about a bunch of scientists finally figuring out that the theory of the original archaeologist of this site were right. The findings were published in the journal Science (here if you have a membership or whatever), and its getting tons of press (here and here], since it kind of threw the whole Clovis first theory out on its head decades ago, but people ignored it. Anyway, this seems like a really good opportunity to get a scientifically important NRHP article up to good or featured status. And yeah, I know, SODOIT and all that, but I just don't have the time to delve back in to wikiland. So, just consider this a friendly prod! Murderbike (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hyde Park-Kenwood Historic District

Doncram (talk · contribs) use to help me find the application documents for NRHPs. I was wondering if anyone can help me find the documents that say what the primary contributing properties are for the Hyde Park-Kenwood Historic District.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination form. Note that there have been two boundary increases since then, which aren't covered in this document. Teemu08 (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. This seems to include the first increase, BTW.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

New NRHP Commons categories

This morning I created categories for "National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania by city" and "National Register of Historic Places in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania." Both categories should be populated. In the meantime, the category NRHP in Wayne County, Michigan is so packed, that there ought to be a new commons category called "NRHP in Detroit, Michigan." ----DanTD (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK views on a contributing property

I was notified by one of the DYK regulars that an article/hook I cooked up on a NRHP contributing property, Eternal Silence (sculpture) received over 71,000 views during its time on the front page on Halloween. This is the second most views for a hook with photograph since whoever started keeping track of that stuff started keeping track of that stuff, a few years back. I was rather pleased. Just thought I would point it out here because it put a smile on my face this morning. IvoShandor (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That thing WAS creepy. Good work! Teemu08 (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Could someone please help pretty-fy the article Carriage House Historic District? I added pictures and they are screwing up the way the text flows. Since I expect to expand more of these district articles in Montana I would really appreciate a cheat sheet. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, though there is still a spacing issue in one of the sections, at least on my end. IvoShandor (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It looks way better. --Tbennert (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Assistance needed 2

Hi guys ...please take a look at Mishler Theatre. Embeded NRHP template into theatre template. I don't understand why NRHP template is repeating twice. Please help! Yes, I have moved onto PA ... after Maryland, New York, and West Virginia, I thought why not despite the CRGIS difficulties. Thanks in advance.--Pubdog (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Because the website parameter in infobox theatre is displayed twice (once as the link and once as the text), the nrhp infobox was showing up twice. I moved the nrhp infobox to the built parameter, and it displays correctly now, although the website is now below the nrhp infobox.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks User:Dudemanfellabra you're the best!--Pubdog (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Changed your header because it's not good to have two sections with the same title. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Stealth JFK assassination MPS?

I notice on today's announcement of new listings that Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas has made it. Based on reading the article we already have, I can only assume it's there because of its relevance to the JFK assassination ... apparently not only Kennedy and Oswald but Jack Ruby died there as well.

Since Dealey Plaza is an NHL (I've always wondered ... could the grassy knoll be considered a contributing property?) and Texas Theatre (first movie theater in Dallas in addition to being where Oswald got picked up) are listed, and we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the assassination, I wonder if Dallas should just be more overt about this and submit an MPS with other properties of relevance to that tragic event:

The house Oswald rented (can't remember the address or if it's even still standing)
Edwin Walker's house, where Oswald took the potshot at him.
The building used as Dallas police headquarters at the time, where Ruby shot Oswald (I don't know if it's still there, or what its current use is). Should be easy to tour, since you can just walk in whenever you want :-).

But I don't think Ruby's strip club is truly relevant. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Per the NHL nomination form, the "pergolas" on the site (including one on the Grassy Knoll) are contributing structures, but the knoll somehow physically collapsed in the 1970s and 1990, so it's probably been modified too much for CP status. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What to do...

I've been cleaning out some of the articles requiring infobox and am stumped with what to do with Aitkin County MRA. Personally, this I'd say delete (but, it was already speedy-declined once). Redirecting either to the county or the county list could work also. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 18:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've always been torn on whether or not the MPS' and such need their own articles, on one hand they can be great background articles on a set a properties and their relationship to each other, on the other hand much of that information can be contained within articles on the individual properties, albeit more separated and less likely to show relationships to other properties within an MPS. Nonetheless, I have done a few of these for Illinois in the past. You can look at Illinois Carnegie Libraries Multiple Property Submission, for example, if you'd like to see what I did with the infobox. IvoShandor (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy shouldn't have been declined, since Doncram had requested it and he was the only significant author, but it's too late now. I've never been a fan of MRA pages, since the nominations rarely get significant coverage by themselves. When the nominations are not simply a group of geographically close buildings but a well-known thematic group, they're more likely to get enough coverage to make a decent article, such as the Illinois round barns that are important because of the University of Illinois association, or the Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches, which is well known throughout Ohio. However, this MRA seems to me to be purely a group of geographically close old buildings, so I support Niagara's action. Nyttend (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I once thought MRAs were automatically valid topics, but evolved along to want articles about coherent themes that are covered in MRAs. And to avoid articles that seem to be about a document. For example, "Carnegie libraries of Illinois" and "Round barns in Illinois" seem to me to be valid topics, supported by the existence of MRA documents, while "Illinois Carnegie Libraries Multiple Property Submission" and "Round Barns in Illinois Thematic Resources" are just the titles of studies. There are probably books and other sources about these topics, and we don't want articles about each individual document. Should those two be moved/renamed? I'd avoid separate articles for MRAs that are surveys of historic resources whose only common theme is that they are located in the same county. --do ncr am 01:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. We would also avoid confusing people with putting "TR" or "MPS in the article title and unnecessarily long titles by needing to spell out the abbreivations. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 16:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to merge the Illinois round barns TR as a section in round barn proper, since what it really amounts to is "there is a significant group of round barns in Illinois" which fleshes out the history of the design well. The same thing could be done with the Illinois libraries and Carnegie library itself. In both cases a great deal of the NRHP article simply rehashes the parent article in order to given some context for the nomination, suggesting that these thematic submissions amount to a way of enumerating a list of examples of the theme. Mangoe (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Relocated listing

I have received word that the listing for a locomotive in Texas has been relocated to a nother county in Texas. I remember previously that this has happened elsewhere, but cannot remember what the outcome was. Should this be in the original listing county, or the current county? Thanks. 25or6to4 (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This happened with D&RGW 223, which was moved from Salt Lake City to Ogden, Utah. On Wikipedia it got moved to National Register of Historic Places listings in Weber County, Utah, although the NRHP's info has never been updated. Ntsimp (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I've been been able to get my own photos of everything at Marion County, Indiana and Center Township, Marion County, Indiana is that we've reflected the real-life move of Nickel Plate 587 to Hamilton County, Indiana. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox systematically making the wrong links

To my surprise, the infobox at Day Covered Bridge in Washington County, Pennsylvania tells me that the bridge is on Northern Ireland's Register of Parks, Gardens and Demesnes of Special Historic Interest, even though the infobox's designated_other1 parameter links to Washington County History & Landmarks Foundation. The same is true of Byrnes & Kiefer Building, which links to List of Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks, and the link also appears on the sample template at Template:Infobox NRHP. This version of the template from late September displays the same link, and I know that this problem wasn't happening a month and a half ago. Any idea what's happened? I'm not sufficiently familiar with this template's subtemplates to identify the one causing the problem. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. It was a matter of extra pipe being in the wrong place at {{Designation/text}} when the designation was added earlier today. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 04:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo Contest

Just a reminder - Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest goes until December 4.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest Best Photo needs a few more entries before it gets interesting.

With 123 total sites photographed User: Visitor7 has gotten off to a very good start, but might still be caught.

User:Slowking4 and User: Farragutful have been very successful in getting pix in Washington, DC, with only about 14 sites left unillustrated.

The "most unusual" category has drawn a lot of participation and is clearly our most unusual category.

For longest roadtrip we have 2 categories:

Overall - with Pubdog leading at 208 miles, and
Within one state - with Ammodramus leading at 458 miles (go figure)

Several categories still need more than a few entries. Remember this is the photo contest that anybody can ~~edit~~ ~~win~~ have fun with.

Smallbones (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we allowed to nominate someone else? A new user has been adding some good photos, and I would like to get him some recognition. 25or6to4 (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd just ask him if he wants to participate, then give him any help needed to get him on the contest page. Smallbones (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, I have very little chance of participating. Most of Florida near me has been covered, and everything I wanted to take from New York I'm going to have to wait until my next long distance road trip. ----DanTD (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries - we can always do this again if folks like the idea. Smallbones (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys: Just wanted to be sure my roadtrip submission was OK. I was in Bethehem, then a couple weeks later to a crab feast near Deale, Maryland. These were two separate trips. Does this still count for the longest roadtrip category or was the intent that they be collected on the same trip? Please advise.--Pubdog (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Life is all one long strange trip to me. BTW, I love your Bethlehem pix. We almost crossed paths, I was in Allentown about 3 days before your 1st pic in Bethlehem. Smallbones (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Guideline for creating HD articles

Hi all. I received the following question from User:Choess: "Is there a particular reason why Lemont Historic District, say, is separate from Lemont, Pennsylvania? It seems to me that once the article is expanded, there won't be much about the history of Lemont that isn't covered by the historic district. I can understand the separation for larger municipalities, but other than the difficulty of fusing the infoboxes, is there any particular rationale to separate them for small towns of that sort?"

I've been creating separate articles for all HDs. I seem to recall some (contentious) discussion on this topic in re: New England. Can someone point to the guideline for when to create HD articles? Thanks in advance.--Pubdog (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There was an RFC on this topic (really a more specific one on HDs in Connecticut) located here on the NRHP in Connecticut talk page archive. To be honest, though, reading through that makes my head hurt, and I think some personality clashes prevented a clear concensus from emerging. So let me offer my own rule of thumb for discussion:

If a historic district's boundaries are substantially similar to that of a specific town/village/neighborhood, and if the historical and/or architectural context defining the historical district is also a defining feature of the town/village/neighborhood, then the HD information could (and probably should) be included in the town/village/neighborhood, and no seperate article is necessary.

Put another way, if the HD and the town/village/neighborhood are geographically different, the HD should have a seperate article. Similarly, if writing about the HD within the article will give the historical context undue weight, the HD should have a seperate article.

By way of an example with which I'm familiar, look at Calumet, Michigan and Calumet Historic District, compared to nearby Laurium, Michigan. In the case of the latter (Laurium), the HD includes nearly the entire village (save two smaller additions), and the historical discussion fits nicely within the overall article. In the former case (Calumet), the HD includes a substantial swath of Calumet, but much of the village is excluded (and a few pieces outside village are picked up by the HD). In addition, although the historic context of Calumet is important to the village (ie, the historical context really is a defining feature of the village), the Calumet Historic District is a Landmark District, and the amount of coverage it deserves would likely overwhelm the Calumet article (imagine merging the two articles now--I think the historic aspect would be clearly given undue weight in the village article). Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just want to say that Andrew J gives an excellent example of how to handle an HD article with Calumet Historic District - just beautiful. I'll just add in a couple of my own Cape May Historic District vs. Cape May, New Jersey, and Colonial Germantown Historic District vs. Germantown (Philadelphia). I don't see anyway to standardize HD articles - they seem to need slightly different formats. They do lend themselves to extensive photography, however, which may overwhelm the article about the populated place. As far as the more limited question of when to separate the HD article from the PP article, if all there would be for the HD article is one photo and a paragraph or two stub, I don't see any reason for separate articles (yet), but almost any HD could eventually be separate. In general, any NHL HD might as well start as a separate article. Smallbones (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Time to take a dinner break?

Time to snap some pix?

What ever time it is, enjoy. And thanks for the help and support you've all given me. Smallbones (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Kameny House

A nice new article on the Dr. Franklin E. Kameny House (NRHP listed earlier this month) was recently created and nominated for DYK by Doncram. He has noted that additional input is welcome, so please feel free to chip in with any sources you all may have. The DYK nomination can be found here: Template:Did you know nominations/Dr. Franklin E. Kameny House. Cbl62 (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge - please comment

Please comment on a merge proposal at Talk:New Kent High School and George W. Watkins High School D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

threat to disallow use of NPS webpages as public domain (PD) material

Editor SarekOfVulcan has raised a copyvio allegation against me for my explicit quoting of an NPS webpage, which I believe is in the public domain. He has obtained some support, a tentative judgment by one wikipedia editor that "we can't risk this". Many NRHP editors have, over the years, relied upon NPS webpages as PD, and I am concerned that a change in wikipedia policy should not be made lightly. Please consider sharing your knowledge at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 November 25.

This is about summaries by the NPS of their reasons for weekly featured NRHP listings and for NHL designations and so on, on pages of theirs that many of us have relied upon. This is NOT about the use of detailed NRHP nomination documents themselves, which have consistently been viewed by us as having copyright owned by submitter (usually not a Federal employee/agency, hence usually not PD). --do ncr am 01:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Doncram isn't mentioning that that NPS webpage quotes word-for-word from a copyrighted nomination document. He also doesn't mention that "one wikipedia editor" is User:Moonriddengirl. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am offended by the edit summary "misrepresentation". Tone it down please, Sarek. --do ncr am 01:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge Old Orlando Railroad Depot into Church Street Station (Orlando)

Last month I called for the merger of Old Orlando Railroad Depot into Church Street Station (Orlando). Both article are for the same building, although the Church Street Station article focuses a lot on post railroad station development. So far I've received no reply. I also posted this message in the Trains project. ----DanTD (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have been taken care of in the last few days. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Because I took care of it myself. Sorry Ebyabe, but it had to be done. ----DanTD (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Main NRHP template

It seems like we may have discussed this before, but I can't find the discussion if there has been one. When a county or state level NRHP template is used at the bottom of an article, should the main NRHP one be removed? I've always added the most specific one first (county NRHP template (such as Template:NRHP in Clarke County, Alabama) on individual property articles, the state NRHP template (Template:National Register of Historic Places in Alabama on county listing pages, and have always added the main NRHP template (Template:National Register of Historic Places) below the county/state one. An editor just began removing the main template when a state or county NRHP template is present (Examples: Scottish Rite Temple (Mobile, Alabama) and Gainestown Schoolhouse, although I added both back). Is this what we want? I've looked at a few in other states and they all seem to be following the same practice as myself. Or should the most specific be the only one, even though they don't contain the national info that the main template does? Thanks! Altairisfar (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. It looks like all your templates collapse down to 1 line each. If so, I'd say keep them all in (3 if you think they are needed). I've always just used the Pennsylvania NRHP template alone (in PA) or the US NRHP template alone, but your templates look fine. I dropped a note at User talk:Vegaswikian - I've always thought he knew what he was doing and probably has a reason for it - but who knows? Smallbones (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yea, template pollution. Navboxes should really only be used when the page is referenced in the template. In the case of the NRHP template, if there are no others, then use it! But once you have other templates that are local and include the article, then there is no need for an umbrella template. I think the worst article is at about 50 templates! No reason to encourage working in that direction. As you add templates, you encourage the editors that want to collapse all of them in a shell. That defeats the purpose of these templates. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves correctly (it has been a few years though), I was originally replacing the US NRHP template with the localized ones as I created them. A concern was expressed by someone that the national one should be there too. I'm perfectly happy with having just the one if it doesn't raise any objections. Altairisfar (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

One point to consider, that these templates are not used in isolation. We have some city templates being added to every article about anything having to do with a city. If a building is a skyscraper, then you can also have 2 or 3 templates for that. So it all adds up. I really believe that if the article is not mentioned, consideration to not using the template should be at the top of everyone's list. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As User:Smallbones indicates the Template:National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania is a good example that combines some of the fundamental information included in the general NRHP Template:National Register of Historic Places and should be a model for other states.--Pubdog (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

{{NRHP}} is not a navigational template: it's meant to provide information about basic National Register topics for any article. It's not meant solely for the purpose of going from one linked article to another in the way that a county template, e.g. Clarke County, is meant to do. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fall 2011 NHL noms

I had forgotten to check. It seems like a month or so ago, the latest batch of NHL noms were posted on the NPS site. Hopefully they will be going back to having two sets a year again, as it looks like.

This batch is heavier on the western states, perhaps because there are four representing Latin history (no doubt because our current Secretary of the Interior is a Mexican American whose roots go all the way back to New Spain).

There are 18 applications total — 16 new ones, and two for modifications and additions to existing listings. Most of them include a short executive summary (some of which have some nice pictures I'd like to see if we could snarf) in addition to the nomination, very helpful in getting the short skinny on why this deserves NHL status.

As usual, I have gone through to see what we have for when they get designated.

SS Badger, Ludington, Michigan (nomination) Last car ferry, and last coal-fired passenger vessel, on the Great Lakes. We have an article and a nice pic.
Central Branch, National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, Dayton, Ohio (nomination and executive summary) Part of a series of these NHDVS noms, this one, also known as Dayton Veterans' Administration Homes, was listed on the Register in 2004. It marked a change in care of disabled veterans after World War I. We have a HABS pic of one of the houses at National Register of Historic Places listings in Dayton, Ohio but no article yet.
Central Congregational Church, Boston (nomination, executive summary). First church built in the Back Bay when that area was drained in the mid-19th century, from a design by Richard M. Upjohn. Not listed individually, but as a contributing property to the Back Bay Historic District. We have an article and photo under Church of the Covenant, its more common name.
Davis Oriole Lodge Site, Mills County, Iowa (nomination, executive summary). Outstanding Plains Indian village site. Listed as "Address restricted" but apparently within Pony Creek Park, listed in 1971 and for which we already have an article but no photo (the one in the E.S. does seem to be a little revealing as to where).
Drakes Bay Historic and Archeological District, Point Reyes National Seashore, Marin County, California (nomination, executive summary). Address-restricted listing believed to be the site where Francis Drake stopped on his voyage around the globe in the late 16th century, the first English contact with territory one day to be part of the U.S. A totally new listing, although it seems to me that the Drakes Bay article could be expanded to handle this (nice panorama there, too).
Greendale Historic District, Greendale, Wisconsin (nomination, executive summary). One of three planned communities along Garden City principles built with federal money during the New Deal. Listed in 2005; we have no article, only the photo at National Register of Historic Places listings in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.
McKeen Motor Car #70, also Virginia & Truckee Railway Motor Car # 22, Carson City, Nevada (nomination, executive summary. Only survivor of first generation of self-propelled railcars. No separate article or pic here yet but this one is in the collection of the Nevada State Railroad Museum and discussed at McKeen Motor Car Company#Surviving McKeen products.
Murray Springs Clovis Site, Cochise County, Arizona (nomination, executive summary). One of North America's richest Clovis sites. No specific article yet, hardly surprising, but it is within the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. Interestingly enough, this is not going to be an address-restricted listing as the BLM is building an interpretive trail through the site.
Nantucket Historic District, entire island/county/town of that name off the coast of Massachusetts (nomination (LARGE!), executive summary). Already listed a long time ago, this additional documentation is very additional, clarifying that the largest conventional NHLD in the entire country includes the two small islands off the western tip of the island, enumerates its 13,000+ contributing resources (the most of any historic district in the country, I think we can safely say ... see separate survey sheet) and goes into detail about exactly why Nantucket is so important, as an early colonial site, whaling center and early seaside resort.
Nuestra Señora Reina de la Paz, Keene, California (Nomination, executive summary). Just listed a couple of months ago (so we have no article or picture), this was where Cesar Chavez holed up for the later years of his career heading up the UFW.
Poston Elementary School, Unit 1, Colorado River Relocation Center, Parker, Arizona (nomination, executive summary). Only aboveground school building at a Japanese internment camp. Not previously listed, so no article or picture on our part. Would go on the La Paz County list.
The Republic, Columbus, Indiana (nomination, executive summary). Significant modernist newspaper office designed by Myron Goldmsith, in a town with more than a few similar modernist NHLs. No article yet, or photo, because it hasn't otherwise been listed. Would go in National Register of Historic Places listings in Bartholomew County, Indiana.
San José de los Jémez Mission and Gíusewa Pueblo Site, Jemez Springs, New Mexico (nomination, executive summary). Best preserved Spanish missionary church ruin marking major push from New Spain into what is now Southwest. We have articles and photos at Jemez State Monument as it's been listed since 1973.
Stepping Stones (Bill and Lois Wilson House), Katonah, New York (nomination, executive summary). Home of co-founders of Alcoholics Anonymous and Al-Anon respectively. What would a new group of NHLs or noms be without a couple from New York so we can keep our huge lead over the other states? It's been listed for a few years, and so we have an article and picture that I took two years ago, sort of knowing this was the sort of place that would be an NHL at some point (and, this is a rare NY nomination that is totally owner-driven, with no involvement from the state).
Trujillo Homestead, Hooper, Colorado vicinity (nomination, executive summary). Large ranch marks push by Latin settlers into northern reaches of Southwest in mid- and late 19th century. Listed in 2004 but we have neither article nor photo.
United Congregational Church, Newport, Rhode Island (nomination executive summary). Recognized not so much for the outside as the extensive John LaFarge interior. Listed forty years ago; we have an article with an exterior picture.
University Heights Campus, Bronx Community College of The City University of New York, The Bronx (nomination, executive summary). Stanford White-designed campus features Hall of Fame for Great Americans, already listed, with photos. Nom and ES state erroneously that it's on the highest point in the Bronx; I will have to correct them.
Wawona Hotel Historic District, Yosemite National Park (nomination) Name change and boundary increase for existing listing.

Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm less than an hour away from Columbus, and I'm mostly done with photographing the Bartholomew County list, so I'm sure that I'll be able to pick up an image or images for The Republic. Nyttend (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Badger nomination has been a controversial topic in Chicago. [13] Teemu08 (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting ... should work that into the article. Never would've thought of NHL status as a way to dodge environmental laws. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The Republic

I drove over to Columbus today and photographed The Republic, along with all of the already-listed sites that weren't already illustrated. One question — how do we want to do the article? The Republic is the daily newspaper in Columbus, and the NHL-to-be is its headquarters. I'd support trying to do a combined article on both the newspaper and its headquarters building, but this raises the question of the title. It appears that the standard disambiguation style for newspapers would have this article entitled The Republic (Indiana) — that's the title currently on the List of newspapers in Indiana — rather than our typical method of disambiguation. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we can have separate articles on the newspaper and the building. The former hasn't always occupied the latter, after all. I have done something similar with Poughkeepsie Journal and Poughkeepsie Journal Building (which was listed as Poughkeepsie Newspaper Office, since the Journal hasn't always used that name). Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Something oddly interesting

I was adding a new Iowa listing, since the new ones for this week are up (they've been posting them on Thursdays instead of Fridays lately, hurrah). I decided to take a virtual roadtrip via Google Street View, and had a deja vu moment. Compare:

Jefferson, Iowa

Quincy, Florida

Courthouses are different, but otherwise the squares are eerily similar. I'd suspect they had the same landscaping architect firm, but it'd be unusual since they're so far apart. Mostly sharing for curiosity's sake. Anyway, happy December, y'all. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 02:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

They are, how odd. :) Altairisfar (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a typical Shelbyville plan; we have lots of them here in Indiana. Two of the best examples that I've seen are in Sullivan and Rockport; aside from the courthouse architecture, they're almost identical. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Last weekend for photo contest

Just a note that anybody who wants to participate in the Fall NRHP photo contest needs to upload their photos by 12:01 AM Monday December 5, 2011. See Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest Best Photo has only 7 entries so far, so here is your chance!

Smallbones (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Listings owned by unexpected notable people?

I just finished Newberry House (for which I cannot thank Denverjeffrey enough for the photo, which is one of several that nicely complete the set I took walking around Aspen one afternoon in August 2010). Doing the research on it, I not only found further confirmation of its ownership by Jack Nicholson that I'd first noticed in the MPS cover sheet, I found something that has made for a great DYK hook.

In Aspen it's probably not surprising that one Register-listed house would wind up being owned by a notable person (other than, say, a notable descendant of the person who made the house notable by living in it in the first place). But I wonder how often this has happened elsewhere ... say, in LA. Has anybody else come across a listing that, upon further research, turns out to be owned by a celebrity or some other person who would merit a standalone article? Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice article. "Celebrity" and "unexpected notable people" are probably too vague since there are tons of places listed only for their association with historic persons, say the Governor of Pennsylvania in 1900 (which I don't think you mean) or authors well-known in the 1920s, but who haven't been mentioned since. So how about defining it as places associated with "nationally recognized entertainment figures" or perhaps "current media stars"? (In which case I'm stumped). Smallbones (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

For 2 cases of notable person owning historic place as of the NRHP listing, rather than buying it later:

1. Bartlett Arboretum (Kansas), owned by Dixie Chick Robin Lynn Macy. Actually she wrote the NRHP application. The notable person had the time and money and interest to get the notable place listed onto the NRHP.

2. Former Newton's Tavern, residence of fashion mogul Bill Blass, 1 of 12 contributing buildings in New Preston Hill Historic District. Blass died in 2002. I think (not sure) it was his main residence as of the 1985 district listing.

--do ncr am 15:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Gianni Versace owned a home in the Miami Beach Architectural District (or as I think of it, Art Deco Central). It's also where he was killed. I drove by it on my last trip down there, but didn't realize, so didn't photo it. That's all I've got. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 05:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone else took a photo of it, though. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 05:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Daryl Hall of Hall & Oates owns the Bray House in Maine, built in 1662. Teemu08 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Why is this fact not in the article?--Pubdog (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Hall's article in the Personal life section, but with a citation needed tag. Along with a lot of other stuff in that section. If a reliable source can be found, it should definitely be added. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 04:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be careful about publicizing these things unless we have really good sources, like the ones I found for Newberry House, which is after all one of three properties Nicholson owns in or around Aspen. Online tax records, or summaries of such in nomination forms, shouldn't be enough. If a reliable third-party source mentions this, then yes. I mean, I think they have greater privacy interests than most residents of NRHP houses. Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if exactly fits your criteria, but I would bet the record for the most notable people who (co)-own(ed) one building is held by The Dakota. - Station1 (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't thought about that one (or any other large urban apartment building, for that matter). But it's a special case. Perhaps I should have limited it to single-unit dwellings. Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A recent listing is the Wild Goose, the yacht owned by John Wayne. Einbierbitte (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons photos software update and rotated images bug

I just thought I would give a heads-up to anyone who uploads photos to Commons regularly. A recent software update has butchered the exif for thousands of rotated images. Basically, if you rotated the image (which is typical for tall buildings requiring you hold the camera sideways) your images might be affected, regardless of whether or not you uploaded them before or after the software update. Thus, the images may appear sideways in their respective articles:

Fortunately for me, the bug only affects one camera I have used over the past year or so, but nevertheless, it took me about two hours to go through and find (hopefully) all the affected images, and it will take the rotatebot 2-3 days to fix them. If you notice that any images appear sideways in articles, go the image's Commons page and click the rotate button just under the image. Bms4880 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Would this affect images that I've rotated and then saved on my own computer before uploading, or does it only affect photos that were in the wrong orientation at the time of their uploading, and were subsequently rotated? If the former, would the problem be visible in thumbnails at Commons, or do the photos actually have to be included in a WP article before the bug manifests itself? 01:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mine were all correctly oriented when I uploaded them to Commons, and it does show up in the Commons thumbnails, not just those displayed on Wikipedia. Interestingly enough, the bug affects even the images in the upload history, and thus it makes it appear the image was uploaded incorrectly. And again, it only affects one of my cameras (a Canon Powershot). There are several complaints on the Village Pump, with the usual "tough luck" response. Bms4880 (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on what program you used to rotate the images. I always use Windows Photo Viewer, which appears to be basic enough that it doesn't keep any rotation information in EXIF. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the November change was in display. If you're using the new Wikimedia software version to look at an incorrectly turned picture, it will be displayed as not turned. My turned pix were mostly turned by Windows Vista or XP. Some were turned by Windows 7 or by 21st century versions of Google Picasa or a 20th century version of Adobe Photoshop. None, far as I see, have suffered from the change of Wikimedia software. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have always used Photoshop CS5 or better for images I've uploaded, as it always rotates it the right way however it was stored. The only time I have needed to use the rotation tool there has been in correcting tilts or the appearance thereof. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As you may have noticed you can rotate those images at commons through using User:Rotatebot. Normally there should be a small icon somewhere on the right below the picture to start the dialogue wether it has to be rotatet to the left or to the right. After that I takes some time to execute the rotating, atm. about 36 to 38 hours. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I just clicked the rotate button below the images. For the record, I use the same software (Microsoft Office Picture Manager) to rotate images for three different cameras, but the bug is only affecting those taken with my Canon PowerShot. Also, it's only affecting 90-degree and 270-degree rotations. Bms4880 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Fall 2011 NRHP Photo Contest results

Thanks to everybody who participated in the photo contest. A very quick count shows a dozen editors entering photos and 533 pix in the Commons Category "NRHP Fall 2011 Photo Contest" (though many folks didn't have that category on their pix).

In the most photos challenge, User:Magicpiano came from nowhere, adding 186 photos in the last few days, to overcome a seeming safe lead by User:Visitor7, who had 149 pix.
In the Washington DC challenge, User:Slowking4 was the clear winner, though I have to say that User:Farragutful was obviously too shy to enter the contest. Between them they've almost fully-illustrated the DC lists. Barnstars to both.
For the (overall) Roadtrips Challenge, User:Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats, went coast-to-coast, 2387 miles from Oregon to South Carolina, to win easily. The Google maps method of measuring distance turned out to be a bit controversial (multiple numbers can result), but that didn't effect this result.
For the Chicago Challenge, I've awarded User:TonyTheTiger the barnstar. Some might say, with only three pix entered, this was the easiest barnstar ever awarded, but those who know Tony, know of all the unsung work that he does throughout the project. A very well deserved barnstar IMHO.
I've also awarded a barnstar to User:Visitor7 as "Best Newcomer" - for most of the contest he simply dominated it.

The Best Photo contest has moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Fall_2011_Photo_Contest#Challenge_.238_Best_Photo, where there will be a single round of !voting to determine best photograph.

User:Niagara looks like he might not be able to judge the "Most Unusual" challenge. There's a note posted that his computer has died. If we don't hear from him soon, I'll set up !voting similar to the "Best Photo" challenge.

I'll ask the other judges to post the winners of their challenges here. Smallbones (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't even know about the contest until last Tuesday. However, I had by then already uploaded somewhere around 90 images that were eligible. The rest were then a matter of alternating between driving around towns with long lists of unillustrated listings and then processing them. In the process, I reduced the number of unillustrated Middlesex County, Massachusetts listings (which has over 1,300 total listings on 15 lists) to fewer than 50, completed three sublists, and nearly completed two others. My submission was somewhat late because I needed to sort through and tag the earlier uploads.

Kudos to User:Visitor7 especially for his effort, and of course everyone else who played. Magic♪piano 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry we didn't get the word out to you earlier. Your barnstar is well deserved. Of course the ultimate reward is the photos themselves and seeing them in the lists and in articles. But I hope this was a fun exercise for all of us. Smallbones (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Of the photos submitted, the most unusual would be Visitor7's Lithia Fountain. What's more strange than a fountain in a town square that isn't decorative or shoots jets into the air, but is a bunch of drinking fountains that dispense a foul-tasting, effervescent, mineral water. I'll leave it Smallbones to award the actual barnstar.

Sorry about being late, I probably won't be back up to speed until Christmas. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 00:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, barnstar presented. Niagara should probably also get something for sponsoring the most unusual challenge, but I'm trying to think what would be most appropriate. I know - advice on buying a new computer! Smallbones (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the best photo portion of the contest, awarding the best photo NRHP barnstars based on the !votes to both Pubdog and Nyttend for their beautiful photos. I also awarded a NRHP photo honorable mention to Smallbones for a great photo and for organizing the contest in the first place. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Shutdown Wikipedia tonight

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Turn_Wikipedia_off_RfC. Some of us think this is too short notice. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States

I've been contacted by User:Aude concerning Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States, see also: Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012. (aka WLM) User:Multichill is also one of the prime movers behind WLM.

I was sorry to tell her that I'm a bit fatigued with Photo Contests right now, and that I think a full discussion can wait until after the New Year, but I think for now we can look into what WLM proposes, what we might like to do, and perhaps try to digest the lessons of the recent NRHP Fall 2011 Photo Contest. i.e. think now, talk later.

Random thoughts:

Aude is the founding president of the DC Chapter of Wikipedia and is involved with WP:GLAM, and I think the main mover behind Wikimania in DC next August.

I've suggested that WP:NRHP, perhaps with WLM, can have a separate session at Wikimania, maybe even inviting HABS or the NRHP (the gov't agency, that is) to make a presentation. Anybody have good contacts with them?

While our little photo contest was fun, to make a significant dent in the 40,000 (pure guess) NRHP sites left unphotographed, we need to join with a bigger project, to get higher visibility, better organization, etc.

We'd likely have significant input, but not complete control, over how the contest was run in the US. e.g. I think we could still have "Longest Roadtrip" and "Most Unusual" contests, if we wanted.

enuf for now.

Smallbones (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones. There is no hurry and this can wait. Regarding Wikimania, it would be excellent to have a session about NRHP. I do have contacts at the NPS / NRHP, and they might also like to help out with the contest. (they did a Flickr contest) I also think it would be excellent and most successful if we have WikiProject members who want to take the lead on this. The chapter can help however needed. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Bit fatigued with Photo Contests ? That sound familiar ;-)

You guys already have the most important requirement for Wiki Loves Monuments: Good lists. That already saves you a lot of worries.

If all goes well I will be in San Francisco and Washington DC end of January/begin of Februari. Would be nice to have a eastcoast and westcoast Wiki Loves Monuments related meeting. Anyone willing to organize something?

As for NRHP/NPS contacts: Did you ever talk with them about Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues? Also their database dump could use an update.

multichill (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion - are architects who designed works on the NRHP notable?

The deletion discussion for Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson has some fairly large implications for this project, so it could probably use more eyes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fully Illustrated lists - progress from last year

Just to see how we are progressing, I checked a few numbers from the Fully Illustrated lists (totals not double checked) and did one comparison from last year at this time. Maybe when Multichill's lists get to be fully operational, we can see how his numbers look.

Fully Illustrated NHL lists:
- 659 sites in 15 geographic lists (states)
90%+ illustrated (but not fully illustrated)
- 1146 sites in 20 geographic lists

Fully Illustrated NRHP lists (mostly county lists)
- 7036 sites in 214 lists in Dec 2011
- 3846 sites in 122 lists in Dec 2010
90%+ illustrated (but not fully illustrated)
- 1642 sites in 85 county lists
- There's probably a lot more of these not yet included on the list.

No major conclusions to be drawn here, but to go out on a limb

If we continue to add 3200 sites per year to fully illustrate NRHP lists, it could easily take 10 years to get to "completion"
But if continue with the same percentage growth rate (ie nearly double the sites) on this list each year, it will take less than 4 years

All the best, Smallbones (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

NHL refnum oddity

Has anyone run into a case where an NRHP-listed site is assigned a new different refnum when it's made a NHL? I just ran across this with Fort Frederik. It's probably an oversight, since it was NRHP-listed in 1996 as Fort Frederick and an NHL as Ft. Frederik of US Virgin Islands. See this and this this for more info. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 22:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this happen before (though I have no specific examples offhand). I think in most of the instances where I've seen it happen, the boundaries of the NHL and the regular NRHP listing are different. Only part of a district is designated an NHL or something like that. Is that the case here? (I admit I didn't click on a single link in your comment. I'm currently working on assessing quality/importance of articles since I've been absent for a few weeks.)--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As an example, see the Fisher Building, which was originally added to the NRHP in 1980 as part of the Fisher and New Center Buildings entry, and assigned refnum 80001922. In 1989, the Fisher Building only was designated a NHL, and it was (eventually?) assigned refnum 07000847. Bizarrely, the NHL refnum corresponds to a 2007 date rather than a 1989 date. Assuming this isn't a database typo, it may be a unique occurance of a refnum being assigned after a listing action was completed. Andrew Jameson 00:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Mismatched figures in quality and importance statistics

I've been out for a while because of school and graduate applications, but now that I'm back, I've begun trying to straighten out our quality and importance statistics, found here. After a massive drive taken on mostly by User:Ebyabe, all 45K+ articles under this project's scope are now assessed with both quality (stub, start,...) and importance (low, mid,...). After the completion of the drive, however, I've noticed a few anomalies in the numbers.

While adding up each row on this page, all looked fine except for the stub row. Every other row's individual cells added up to the total in the far right column, except stubs (which in turn is throwing off the "article only" subtotal), which were off by 6. I thought for a second that this was an error in the code of the page, but I double-checked it, and everything looks fine (at least in that row). After ruling a code error out, I began to look for mis-tagged articles, such as this one, which is a non Talk-space article that had a banner tag on it. I found the article by sheer luck because I just went to a random page in the stub category and it happened to show up.

I commented out the project banner on that page, and that made the stub column be off by only 5. If my theory is correct, that means there are 5 more pages hidden somewhere in the more than 24,000 stubs that should not have project banners... or at least not be marked as stubs because they are not in mainspace. I am, however, unaware of any method to filter articles in a category by namespace, so my only method of finding them would be to manually search all 24K+ listings in that category–something no one in their right mind would do. Does anyone know of a better method? Perhaps an automated editing tool like AWB (which I can't use because I'm on a Mac) or an off-site category filter?

There is also still the possibility that my theory is incorrect, and there is another reason that the total is off by 5. If anyone has any ideas, I'm all ears! I'm going to continue double-checking the statistics, and I'll report back if I find any other anomalies. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Were you looking for these?

multichill (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was, but after fixing all seven of these, the total number is now smaller than it should be.... it's off by a one article. How did you generate that list? It was pretty simple to figure out why the number was higher than it should have been (articles tagged that shouldn't have been), but I have no clue why the number would ever be lower. Any ideas? That's the only thing that I can find wrong with the table of statistics (plus the fact that the stub error propagates to the article subtotal).. Help?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Could something like this happen if the banner were included twice, with two different assessments? Ntsimp (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a possibility, and as far as I can tell the only way this situation could have come about. If there is more than one template call on a talk page, and both templates have different importances (e.g. a contributing property article being rated Related-importance in one template and Low-importance in another), that would cause the article to be double counted as one adds the columns, but it would not affect the total stubs category, because putting an article in a category twice does not create two listings. I just tested this in a preview in my sandbox, though I did not save the edit.

Apparently there is one article out there (out of 45K+) that has two templates on it with different importances. I just tried using the catscan tool to find it, but I had no luck. Querying the intersect of Category:Low-importance National Register of Historic Places articles and Category:Related-importance National Register of Historic Places articles, as well as all other combinations (i.e. Low+Mid, High+Top, etc.), I was unable to find any overlap. I'm almost sure that article has to be out there somewhere, though... maybe the toolserver just isn't picking it up? I definitely know it's a stub, though, because all of the other classes work out perfectly.

Apart from the catscan tool I tried, does anyone know of any other way to find this article? Is it possible to find all articles with multiple template calls? That would no doubt shrink the number of articles that may need to be manually searched drastically, and in fact it would be good to know if pages have multiple template calls anyway because that's an error of its own. Thanks for the help, guys!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Old Santa Fe Freight House, ABQ?

File:Old Santa Fe Freight House, ABQ.jpg, a recent upload. Part of the Albuquerque railyard complex, I think -- context here.

Ring a bell with anyone? Pretty sure it's in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, but I actually don't see much Santa Fe RR stuff there. Part of a Hist Dist, maybe? TIA & Merry Xmas, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Vernacular Frame House (Delaware)

Delaware is pretty unimaginative when it comes to naming sites, e.g. 4 sites named "Fair View" in New Castle County. But the one named "Vernacular Frame House" takes the cake. AKA " Vernacular Frame Structure." Can anybody suggest a better name for the article? the nomination is short and plain vanilla, as the article will likely be. Smallbones (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, that phrase would describe, oh, almost half the listings on the Register. You'd think they could at least have used an address. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. What's worse, that phrase would describe almost half of the buildings in America, historic or not. Anyway, I suggest the "Ethel S. Roy House." Andrew Jameson (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

How about Red Lion Hundred Vernacular Frame House, or just adding a section to Red Lion Hundred? - Station1 (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I went with Ethel S. Roy House and don't think I'll even add Vernacular Frame House (Delaware) as a redirect. BTW, Elkman's tool shows that Madison, Ohio has Brick Vernacular House No. 1 and Brick Vernacular House No. 2. Smallbones (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

See a bunch of properties on National Register of Historic Places listings in Knox County, Ohio, such as the Gothic Revival House and the Early Greek Revival House. Moreover, check some bridges in Nebraska, which are listed as Bridge, Bridge, Bridge, Bridge, Bridge, and Bridge. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Fenway and Wrigley on their way to the Register?

From today's New York Times is this interesting blog post about the landmark status of Fenway Park and Wrigley Field and the different ways the two teams have handled what are practically the only regularly-used team-sports venues in the country not to have been replaced by second- or third-generation corporate-sponsor-named stadia or arenae.

It seems from it that Fenway has been accepted for a state-level listing by the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the application has been sent to the NPS, which strongly suggests it will be listed. So, we could be seeing this one show up on the pending list soon, and even listed early next year.

Wrigley is a different matter. Unlike the Red Sox, the Cubs haven't worked as closely with Chicago's City Council, which gave landmark status to the brick outfield wall, the ivy, front marquee and scoreboard (And hey, while they're at it, how about Steve Bartman's seat ;-)? Certainly that's a historic resource). It notes near the end that way back in 1987 the park was found eligible for the Register, but the team never followed up on that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait'll next year! Smallbones (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought Wrigley Field was already on the register. ----DanTD (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That surprises me too. I figured Wrigley would be an NHL. Bms4880 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly think it should be, as one of the oldest baseball stadia still in use and a physical legacy of the Federal League, the last real competition to MLB. However, as the experience of the Los Angeles Coliseum and [[[Soldier Field]] shows, NRHP or NHL status and pro sports venues generally aren't compatible because the owners like to be able to make whatever changes they feel they need to.

I wonder if New York will seek NHL status for the original Yankee Stadium field, now that the surrounding structure has been dismantled and the field itself remains for public use. So much of the historic value of Yankee Stadium comes from things that happened on that field (not just in baseball ... the 1958 NFL Championship Game, for a long time the NFL's Greatest Game Ever, took place on it as well) and legendary sports figures who played there. I think it should be an NHL, anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Rescuing a NRHP article from a move to a broader article that covers it and 5 nearby non NRHP properties

Today I recreated Eustace Hall as a stand alone article. See its new talk page. It had undergone several name changes before being moved in July 2011 to Laboratory Row, which was then expanded to include 5 other MSU campus buildings. Its subsection in the Lab Row article now has a main article tag to Eustace Hall. Have others encountered similar situations? clariosophic (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What could possibly be wrong with including the one paragraph about Eustace Hall in the article about Laboratory Row, and dispensing with the separate one-paragraph article? All of the buildings in the longer article are of roughly the same vintage, and the Laboratory Row article includes that wonderful panoramic photo of the group of six buildings in 1912. I know that many NRHP WikiProject participants set great store by the NRHP infoboxes, but the Eustace Hall infobox could be included in the Laboratory Row article. IMO, historic buildings are more interesting in context than in isolation, and Laboratory Row provides a wonderful context for Eustace Hall. --Orlady (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)