Portal talk:National Register of Historic Places

What we need

What we need are people who are around often who can update this thing, that is the main problem with many of the Portals, they just aren't kept up with. Content should be no problem, we could cycle the FAs and GAs as "front page" articles for maybe one week at a time, cull DYKs from the list and/or archives (NRHP places seem to be among the most popular new entries on Wikipedia) and even develop our own versions of ITN and OTD if you really want to reflect the Main Page of Wikipedia, I thought our own ITN would be a great place to note new listings each week. Of course, we could have our own ideas integrated too. Thoughts? Volunteers? IvoShandor (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way to drum up interest is to add it to the NRHP template, as was done originally. It's not bad as-is and is bound to be improved as editors find it and see ways to improve it.--Appraiser (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping the random functions could help act as automatic updating. In the sense that each visit the portal will be different, due to each section being randomized. More subsections could be added to each part to enhance that. A separate section/sections could be added to showcase new FA and GA articles. But we could add them to the random articles section. I did so already with a few of them.

To be honest, I looked at other WikiProjects that had content that could be used here (Portal:Architecture and Portal:Biography), and "borrowed" some. I hoped that once the portal got created, the ball would roll and content would accumulate. I looked at some of the old DYKs we have archived at the project and added them, but hordes more could be included. Thought that 5 DYKs per subsection was a good amount.

I commented out the "quotes" section b/c I wasn't sure there were enough relevant ones to merit a section. Or where exactly to look to find some. The same with the "news" section, though there's an option to get content automatically generated from WikiNews, but not sure if it would work so easily with NRHP.

Regarding pictures, I'd love to see more NRHP pics on Commons be recognized as "quality images." I skimmed thru the process and may try with some of mine. However, anyone can nominate any photo. So if you know of any, check out the guidelines, and nominate away! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have an account at Wikinews, I have often thought of compiling weekly NRHP "reports" based on the weekly list of new additions, as well as occasional stories on the NRHP and related topics from press releases and I could do interviews via phone or email. This is something I would probably be willing to put a little time in on if it would be useful to an actual working and trafficked NRHP Portal. IvoShandor (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be coming off as too strong, but I am really concerned that good talent and effort should be put into keeping something current and "newsy", if there is very little likelihood it would help a lot in reaching some target group. I am very skeptical about the amount of traffic that would ever be generated. There's not even any way conceived of to measure impact or views. It would be like running a new cable channel: no one in their right mind would launch a new cable channel without measurement systems in place to measure readership/viewers, and then to continue running that indefinitely with no feedback would be costly and crazy. Is there any way to measure hits on a page here?

I have seen some other portals, like one for New Orleans, which look good at first glance but then i come to conclusion they are dead sites and not helpful, that they are actual turn-offs to newbies. This discussion smacks of failure in advance to me, to be recognizing in advance that it will be a failure, and posing that more and more effort must be expended to make it work. We don't want an albatross, we don't want a drifting sea net that traps and kills indefinitely, any new fish that comes along. Are there any examples of successful portals, where there's a consensus that effort put in has been well spent? I don't know of any personally. I do observe some though that look like disappointments, and which I perceive have the effect of turning off potential new members rather than bringing them in. I haven't visited Portal:Biography or Portal:Architecture mentioned above. But I would certainly want to hear from editors in the corresponding wikiprojects, about whether they thought effort put in was worthwhile, before committing to anything here.

An NRHP portal faces an uphill battle towards being useful to any significant number of persons. For one, I don't believe that there are any general readers out there who are interested in NRHPs per se. People grow up being interested in architecture or history or biographies, yes, and maybe some are interested in geography, but I don't believe anyone grows up thinking they want to follow "news" about NRHPs. Maybe it makes sense for Architecture to have a portal, but not NRHP. Or, perhaps there is a way to add some NRHP-specific content to the Architecture portal, and get all the benefit or more than we could get from an NRHP-specific one. I have noted sometimes, when searching for a given article, that an automated feed of new articles on architecture (which includes new NRHP articles that mention architecture or certain other key words perhaps) displays in some WP:architecture member pages.

One group of people interested in news about NRHPs that I see we could possibly reach are the current editors/members of WP:NRHP. I for one follow the new article announcements in the box on our main page with some interest (but by no means visiting all of them). I think i am more interested about new articles, which show some research and creativity and pictures and writing by fellow editors, than I would be to see announcements of the titles of new listings of NRHPs with no further info. If I was interested, I could just sign up for the available email list. If you want to share that news, how about put in some entirely automated system, that feeds those emails into a display box within the main page, and let it run. Current editors/members dont need a portal. Or, if you want to develop a portal for just ourselves, then please propose how it would work and be useful. Would you mean to close down the new articles announcment box that is currently in the NRHP main page, or otherwise shut down overlapping features? If it would really replace features we already have, rather than duplicate them, then maybe that would be better. But why switch from what we have in place?

Potentially, some time in the future, a news feed of the new announcements could be of more interest, if we were ready to be pouncing on each new one and creating an article for it right away. I certainly am ready and willing to pounce on every new NHL or NMON or NMEM or other major item announcement, to create a wikipedia article on it and a wikinews story on it (as I have so far done for just one, the African Burial Ground National Monument announcement a while back), but those are few and far between. But I currently would not like to redirect the projects' attention to working on articles about the newest announcements, where material is not available on-line, at cost of slowing efforts to develop articles about NHLs in general, or about NRHPs in areas where there are members or other people going out and taking pictures. Again, if you wanted to facilitate pouncing on new announcements, it would be better to figure out some automated piping in of the weekly official emails, with no maintenance effort.

Consider a "how-to" alternative to a "newsy" portal. That would be a "how-to" entry point, which would be a mostly static site, with several articles on how to take good pictures of NRHPs, how to get started uploading pics through Commons, how to write your first NRHP article. This would be aimed at brand-new people, newbies. It would be useful to have this, to refer people to, to invite them to visit and get started. We could have some organized effort to note edits of NRHP pages by non-regular members, and to be sure and send invitations to the Talk pages of those who have not already been invited, to learn more about NRHP by visiting this how-to portal. For such a how-to portal, aimed at newbies, it would NOT be appropriate or helpful to have a news feed about new NRHP announcements by the NPS. Any new person would like to have help getting started on a local NRHP site to themselves. Maybe some search system feature, a "try-here" search feature that got them to nearby NRHP sites would be appropriate. Or a buddy system to ask for a buddy to help them get started with some local NRHPs. Offhand a static portal that provided a form for new persons to state and interest, and which would provide a buddy for some personal help for a while, sounds a lot better to me than a "newsy" portal, in terms of being rewarding for involvement put in and in terms of having likelihood of getting more NRHP articles created, if that is our overall goal. By the way, i have gone a little out of my way to be welcoming to some new people, some of whom have become new active members in NRHP, and I personally have found that to be rewarding. But perhaps it was a personal contact that made a difference, and that a portal would not provide.

Basically, I am not on-board yet, and I think a marketing orientation is what is needed. Then, what is the target market you want to reach, and I think that is newbies who have made an edit or two to an existing article, or who sign up on an interest list somewhere. And i think a static site that is good for a few first visits by a newbie (fine, you can have a few rotating feature article examples, but don't invest in real news) is all that is called for. I would really like to hear others' views about who could be reached, and what purpose would be served by reaching them, and how that would be or could be measured. doncram (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would note that there is a way to track page views, [1], a pretty neat tool. I also think that the amount of work involved in updating a portal would be minimal, especially if it were a weekly or bi-weekly thing. I'm not sure I follow you on the idea of a static portal, I think portals are meant more for readers than editors so I don't know if "how-to" guides would be appropriate in Portal space. If people want to do this we should, I can't say I think it matters much either way but I also don't think its existence warrants a discussion to deep. This all I have to say on this matter, if someone would let me know what happens it would be appreciated.IvoShandor (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said what i have so strongly. It's not up to me, and it's okay by me, if others want to start up the portal page on any basis, and put it back onto the NRHP template. If it is on some terms then I will choose to help, on other terms i won't, but that is okay. I guess I wanted to push some thinking but i don't want to be just a negative voice. Go ahead, anyhow anyone likes. I still would not understand how it helps to drive traffic to a portal site, by putting it onto the NRHP template, if the designers of the site aren't clear on what it is to be for (and especially not if it is marked under construction), but I don't want to stand in the way. In fact i may just bow out and take this off my watchlist. Go ahead any way you want. doncram (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Workspace

A subsection with links to help in creating new content: Portal:National Register of Historic Places/workspace. --Ebyabe (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures, Pictures, Pictures!

Why are there three sections for pictures? What's the difference in the Picture and the Featured Picture? Surely we don't plan to put only featured pictures in that box, do we? Do we have enough to do that? I think these two should be combined. Also, why is there a Panorama section? Do we have enough panoramas to keep that going? Why not just include panoramas in the picture box? Instead of having three different places to show pictures, why not just show one? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I may have gotten carried away on the photos. :) The Picture and Featured Picture could probably be combined, but if so, I'd like to see a notation on the Featured ones to indicate that status. B/c, you know, Featured Pictures are cool. I think I saw the Panorama section done on other portals. Those kind of photos look better when the thumbnails aren't squished, imho. --Ebyabe (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the coding of User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox1. It's my custom POTD template for User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox2, which I use for my custom main page. It handles all pictures – panorama or not – just fine in my opinion. If the picture is wider than the viewing window, the picture is shown inside a scrollbar. You can edit the code of my Sandbox 1 to put in the date of a panorama POTD (but be sure to change it back, or I'll be angry :P) to see how it works, but I think this method could be used here.

I like the idea for notation on the featured pictures.. probably the gold star that has grown as the symbol of featured. It could actually be superimposed in the lower right (or any corner for that matter) of the picture using {{Superimpose}} or something of the like. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured portal consideration

Ebyabe asked for comments, about what would it take to bring the portal up to Featured portal consideration. Hoping to kick off some discussion: what are the featured portal criteria? are there one or a few examples of featured portals that are fairly similar to what this one should aim for? And, I have been interested in providing some "How to" type instructions or essay or other material (aiming to give direction to people who might be willing to take pics of NRHP sites), and I wonder if this is allowable in a portal? doncram (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Portal peer review

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Portal:National Register of Historic Places

I believe the portal is ready for Featured status, but would appreciate feedback. Any improvement, alteration or enhancement suggestions would be most welcome. Thanks. Ebyabe (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to be a persistent block of whitespace below the biography box. Could this be re-ordered somehow? Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Hm, possibly. Adding something would be nice, but can't think what else could go in the spot. Not sure if moving things would help; it may only rearrange where the whitespace is. We'll try some stuff and see. Thanks! --Ebyabe (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Did the best I could. The elements in the left column (article, picture, biography) are not each of uniform size, and since they change randomly, sometimes there'll be whitespace. At least it's not quite so egregious now. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

comments by doncram:

• The featured picture of the Union Stock Yards is not a picture of an NRHP-listed place. Only the gateway to the former stockyard is NRHP-listed, and I believe that the gateway is not included in the pic. If it is in the background somewhere, the caption should describe where it is; otherwise i think the pic should not be used.
• I am not really enamored of the leading pic of a generic NRHP historic plaque. I would not want to add to the incorrect idea some might have that all NRHP-listed places have that plaque. I concede that using that plaque photo, which seems non-specific to any one NRHP place, serves a certain role like an NRHP logo, in its location near the top of the portal. Is there any other logo that could serve the same role? I think the overall NPS logo would not be appropriate though.
• As a reviewer, I am hampered by a mental block that i have in not understanding what a portal is supposed to do, so I don't really have a clear perspective on what the leading little article should accomplish. But, I would estimate that the first mini-article there needs copy-editing. Should it be defining what the sport of NRHPing is? Or what wikipedia's role with respect to historic sites in the U.S. is, like how many sites already have been photographed? If the mini-article is to describe what is the NRHP program of the U.S., then, out of the first two paragraphs, I would prefer for the first sentence of the second paragraph to lead the mini-article.
• The following passage in the 2nd paragraph seems incorrect or inconsistent: "Some states, however, might have state or local laws that become effective when a place is listed on the National Register. In contrast, a local historic district often has enabling ordinances at the municipal level that restrict certain kinds of changes to properties and thereby encourages those changes that are sensitive to the historic character of an area." What is the contrast that is alluded to? Local zoning ordinances sometimes specifically key on whether a place is in some local register and also on whether it is NRHP-listed, and they can specify the same or different types of reviews for any changes to properties of the two types. I think the restrictions on NRHP-listed properties would pretty much amount to being "enabling ordinances at the municipal level", so I don't understand what is the contrast. It is hard to characterise all possible types of local zoning laws here, of course.

Hope these brief thoughts are helpful. doncram (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Definitely needs more articles and biographies. And the "Purge server cache" words are awfully small and I almost missed it. You can certainly make it bigger without affecting the layout because there's quite a bit of blank space there for you to use. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

More panoramas are also needed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

comments on commentary

Gee, has it been that long since I started this thread? Let's see about getting back into the swing of things.

Stock Yard photo: found one for the actual gate already uploaded, changed on the portal

NRHP plaque: I see the point, but it does have the benefit of being generic, and not favoring one state or territory. I'm not sure what other options are available, either. There doesn't need to be any sort of photo, but I think it adds some visual interest, moreso than a block of text, imho.

Portal purpose: You know, I've wondered about that too. Lets look at some other portals and see whassup. I'll see what I can find out.

2nd paragraph question: I'm not sure on this one.

More articles/bios/photos/etc: Always we'll need more, they can always be added. But what's enough before it could be considered feature-worthy?

There are currently 9 18 articles, 26 pictures, 5 6 biographies and 3 15 panoramas. Articles are relatively easy to add. Bios are harder. I know I'm not as up on that stuff. And panoramas, well, they're not always categorized as such. I added what I could find. There are several more I could add, but they'd be all Florida ones I took, and this is Portal:NRHP, not Portal:Florida (which, btw, featured portal). --Ebyabe (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

-Ebyabe (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

An explanation of the purpose of portals can be found here. But basically, they're about a specific topic, not a WikiProject itself. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And Purge server cache is now bigger. --Ebyabe (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice from the Portals WikiProject

WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.

As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals. So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   07:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)