Talk:Anson Davis House and Springhouse

maybe merge related article

Hi User:Ɱ, again your new article shows up on my notifications list. Here, I wonder if it would not be better to merge Anson Davis House and currently separate Anson Davis Springhouse into one article, at "Anson Davis House" or "Anson Davis House and Springhouse" perhaps. Your article states they're on the same property. Including two infoboxes. I'm not going to make a formal merger proposal that others would get involved in, it's up to you, but that's what I would do, anyhow. I see you got NRHP nomination documents for both; it would be good if the references could include author and date of preparation to provide context. I recognize you're probably not done editing these, though. Glad you're on the case! --Doncram (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion - you definitely have years on me with writing NRHP articles, so your input is most welcome. I agree, especially because there's not too much more to write about them. At least the NRHP nominations, written in the 70s, are very short with little detail (I wonder if there was less scrutiny then, like early-2000s GA/FA nominations?) ɱ (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, is there an infobox formatting precedent for this? Would really like to not have to include both, as they're pretty lengthy, especially compared to the content. Might there be some way to combine? ɱ (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Anson Davis House Anson Davis Springhouse
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
Main house, in 2014
Interactive map highlighting the property's location
Location	4900 Hayden Run Rd., Columbus, Ohio
Coordinates	40.065922°N 83.123120°W / 40.065922; -83.123120 40.066018°N 83.123020°W / 40.066018; -83.123020
Built	1848 (house) 1850 (springhouse)
NRHP reference No.	75001402 (house) 79002907 (springhouse)
Added to NRHP	July 7, 1975 (house) April 11, 1979 (springhouse)

Springhouse, in front of the property's garage, in 2015

User:Ɱ, about writing one combined article for 2 or more very similar/related NRHP places, there's lots of precedent. Sometimes it can work well to have separate sections for each one, each with a separate infobox. Here, though, as you note there's not much info to use, and two infoboxes could be quite repetitive with same address info, etc. I am sure that I have seen and/or myself created infoboxes covering more than one (but can't recall the articles) with custom editing. Actually i know I have created many infoboxes with multiple refnums for historic districts or other NRHPs where there was more than one listing, like when there have been later increases or decreases of area or there has been additional information officially provided in separate NRHP listings with separate refnums at later dates. There are no hard and fast rules, you are free to create some custom version that you like. How about i/we just try to draft a combo infobox here. It should, at a minimum, include the explicit formal NRHP name for each place, and include both refnums, I suppose, and I am not sure what else. Using explicit <br> line breaks helps in such editing. I don't think it is possible to include two photos one atop the other in the infobox (as I know can be done in a table row in a NRHP county list-article), but one can just include a separate thumb for a photo of the second one, outside the infobox. Here goes, below. Also, I see how to include two sets of coordinates (with "display=inline" for one, rather than "display=inline,title" for both which won't work), but I am not familiar with the "district-map" business so I don't know if two markers can be set up. I will put in a separate {{GeoGroup}} link so a reader could click through to see both locations marked in linked map. --Doncram (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, does this work okay? Maybe this draft has too many parentheticals of "(house)" and "(springhouse)" where it would be obvious enough without them. Feel free to use directly as here or to edit as you like. --Doncram (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I wish the linked map would allow the reader to choose Google maps or Bing maps, so they could switch to "Satellite view" to really see both the buildings and more, as the {{GeoGroup}} template used to allow. For the last few years it has only allowed readers to see the multiple locations within OpenStreetMap, which has no satellite view option, oh well. --Doncram (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your help! I too wish there was a satellite view, and I'm sure we have some coverage already, but likely far out of date for many non-Western World areas, and even Google is hopelessly out of date for Columbus. We'll see what the future will bring... ɱ (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

References