Talk:List of county courthouses in Texas

Revising format

Hi, i added a notes column at the same time as I was adding some information about one courthouse. Then there was some confusing back and forth edits as another editor made changes too, which I did not realize. Anyhow, it seems good to refine the table organization and to have some consensus, so pinging recent editors: User:El cid, el campeador, User:25or6to4, User:Bryanrutherford0.

What I have started changing over, is to add a "County" column (converting from the former "City" column), and to change "Street address" column to "Location" (including street address, city, and coordinates). And to add "Notes" column. I would like to be able to add coordinates and make the new {{GeoGroup}} template work well to show the locations of all the county courthouses in a linked OSM or Google map. This brings into more general conformance with other county courthouse list-articles. I implemented this so far within the first rows only down to Austin County so far. I'll pause for comments. I think these column titles work pretty well. I wouldn't mind a different order of columns or some other refinements. (Note, currently, the table is garbled: the first rows through Austin County and inconsistent with those following. This is temporary.) --Doncram (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I approve! Go for it!-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources and how to show sourcing

User:25or6to4, did you have one or two main sources which might be brought in? These might perhaps in footnotes to some of the column titles, or in a lede. I can assume you got the separately-NRHP-listed ones from the NRIS database, and we could ensure the NRHP-ness of those items are supported by getting around to creating the separate articles for each of them. I am willing to do that. But how did you determine the NRHP-contributing status of others, and the Texas historical status of others, and how should the status of individual items be supported with respect to those? --Doncram (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The best source I use for all the Texas-related information is the Atlas from the Texas Historical Commission. It has a wealth of information for which sites are NRHP, RTHL, TSAL. Most of the NRHP listings on that site also are linked to the nomination files, including the HDs, which I went through previously to determine if they were contributing. I like the adjustments that have been made to the chart as well, and can assist in the switchover. 25or6to4 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• TGSACourthouse.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Current and former courthouses

@25or6to4: How do you feel about splitting the list into "Current" and "Former" courthouses? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed edits at this article, to which I previously contributed (though if i recall correctly, i may have edited mostly at a different, duplicative version which got merged in [yeah, that was what now survives at User:Doncram/List of courthouses in Texas; also I created/developed a lot at List of courthouses in the United States and some other state-level lists]). I appreciate that Vami IV is interested/willing "To begin the expansion into hopefully Featured List territory,..." (quoting an edit summary). My preference though, in agreement with User:25or6to4, would be for the improved article to continue to include former courthouses which are notable. In that either the former courthouses are individually Wikipedia-notable (have or could have a separate article) or that there is sufficient information/sources available for them to be "list-item-notable" (i.e. have enough to say about them via photo and/or text, for it to be worthwhile to keep a row about them). --Doncram (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Going to break your post in two parts, if you don't mind, because I want to explain why I did that. First reason: A former county courthouse is no longer a county courthouse. It is just a historic building, and it is my opinion that if a former county courthouse should be listed alongside the current county courthouse, it should be in a "National Register Properties in X County" navbox and list. Second reason: Sourcing. At the moment, I have both of the books I put in #References in print, and The Courthouses of Texas only covers current courthouses (in the Year of Our Lord 2007). Third reason: List articles get to massive sizes. That is not desirable. Just having the page open with those former courthouses was causing performance issues for my computer. A review of the edit history for this list will show much removing former courthouses shrunk the article. It will easily be recovered by the prose of the lead and "Notes" boxes of the list, but regardless it will be that much smaller. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Your line of thinking would also lead to List of United States federal courthouses in Texas being merged with this, which would make all of the above problems worse. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Okay by me for list of Federal ones to be linked and kept separately, the same way it would be okay to divide out regional sublists within Texas, perhaps, if it is necessary to manage size of this overall list-article. Am open for discussion of best division-izing. --Doncram (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey all. So, my thought is that a former county courthouse is still considered a courthouse, no matter what it's current usage is. The second Cameron County courthouse is still known as a courthouse by name, even though it doesn't provide judiciary services anymore. For sourcing, there's plenty of other sources with the previous courthouses, including state and local. Every one of the old/former courthouses is eitehr listed NRHP or RTHL, so the state has done documentation on them. The overarching List of courthouses in the United States also keeps the former courthouses for other states, so I wouldn't want to go against that either. For article sizing, when the formers were removed, it reduced the article size by 7000 bytes. Expanding the list with notes for all the current sites will increase the size back beyond that, so it's kinda a moot point. Sadly, with 250+ counties, any list for Texas regarding counties is going to be ginormogantuan. But how would the article be split then? I don't personally like splitting by county (See the 8 RTHL lists at 140k bytes each). Split by geography? Which direction then? I've never seen a featured list review of a divided list. I feel this list should keep the former courthouses for now, including the two that have been recently destroyed (!). I don't think splitting the former into a separate list is useful, since they're all on NRHP or RTHL county lists. Maybe they could be separated to a separate list on the same page, at the bottom? 25or6to4 (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The last sentence of what you wrote is exactly what I'm proposing, like on the list for New Mexico's county courthouses. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Continuing...about location for former ones 25or6to4 and Vami IV, I didn't comment before, didn't have much opinion. But now it seems to me that in "regular", geographically-organized NRHP list-articles like National Register of Historic Places listings in downtown Denver, putting the demolished/delisted ones down in a lower section is fine. Because they are not related to items above. User:Vami IV, I see that was done also in List of county courthouses in New Mexico, but I don't like it. It seems to me that readers would like to see all the courthouse buildings for one county together; the predecessor ones are highly related and relevant to learn about at the same time. This is more apparent now that you've been adding descriptions (and I have added a few). Is the 4th courthouse very much grander than the 3rd one in the county, or did it join Madison County Courthouse on the list of 5 most ugly courthouses in Texas? In this Texas-sized list, the separation between "current" and "former" ones would be extreme; I would be afraid readers wouldn't even know about the existence of "former" ones below. Unless one added links within the "current" one mentioning "see also" the former one below, which I would be inclined to start doing. Which would not be elegant in appearance or usage IMHO. Actually, Vami IV, I wonder if you have been coming around to this opinion already, from working in the article? --Doncram (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And yeah, there has been plenty of consideration in Wikipedia about whether "former" vs. "current" buildings or other items in a list of notable places should be kept together or split. The consensus always or almost always has been to keep them together, in general keeping geographically-nearby ones together, and to divide by region/area if necessary. The most recent full discussion/decision that I am aware of was in 2018 at Talk:List of Masonic buildings in the United States#Split vs. merger proposal, where there was overwhelming consensus that former vs. current Carnegie libraries, Masonic buildings, etc. be kept together. Note there are at least two kinds of "former", ones no longer serving their original function vs. ones destroyed and gone. Both types of former are kept in with current ones in all or most list-articles I am aware of.--Doncram (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It is surprising to me how many of the items in the current list are redlinks. Towards developing this list-article "into FL territory", perhaps we and/or others who might be recruited could make a supporting drive to create/develop such articles, at least for the historic ones listed on the National Register (for which extensive info should be available). Then it would be easier to develop out interesting descriptions in the table here, and the whole list would be more valuable to readers who could further browse to the corresponding articles. In my Wikipedia editing I happen to focus mostly on NRHP-listed topics, and I think 25or6to4 largely does too, and there are others who could perhaps be willing to contribute in a focused campaign. E.g. User:Camerafiend who nicely developed the corresponding List of county courthouses in New Mexico, and others who've commented at Talk:List of courthouses in the United States. Vami IV, would you be interested in that happening? And what is your interest (like courthouses generally or like Texas or what?). It happens I've recently mostly been editing Colorado articles, but could refocus over here. --Doncram (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am myself never surprised by the gaps in our coverage. Been here too long. A quick look at my userpage will show that I have mainly edited in WP:GERMANY, but I happen to live in Texas. I'm also no stranger to NRHP editing. If other users want to help with this list, especially additional sources and updates on these courthouses since 2007, I welcome it. For this article, books, news stories, and NHRP documentation will suffice. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI, wikipedia coverage of NRHPs is lowest for state of Texas, at 33.2 percent of 3,395 having articles now, vs. 74.7 percent coverage average nation-wide, per wp:NRHPPROGRESS. I have the impression that courthouses are relatively more often developed, amongst NRHP sites nation-wide. More NRHP effort in Texas warranted. --Doncram (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Splash Bell County Courthouse (Texas), now a bluelink instead of redlink. --Doncram (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

table formatting: use "Year" or "Years" or "Date" rather than "Built"

As i just tried demonstrating in this version of the list-article (see first row only), I suggest reporting dates/years more succinctly in just one column, using the column so far just used for built years. Suggest mentioning NRHP listing by "NRHP-listed" or "NRHP-listed" or just "NRHP" or NRHP, and Recorded Texas Historic Landmark by "RTHL-listed" or "RTHL" with or without linking, following the year. The column will still be sortable by the built year or other first date/year appearing in the cells. This is to standardize, simplify, economize. Saves a fair amount in text in notes column in the first row already (compare to first row in this version after i self-reverted the demo). As done in many list-articles I've been involved in, including List of Masonic buildings in the United States where I think it works well. Also can distinguish between NRHP-listed vs. "NRHP CP-listed" (meaning is a contributing property in an NRHP historic district). Comments? --Doncram (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I like this, but have suggestions. For fully-listed properties that are also contributors, that should be left to the Notes column. And the "-listed" thing needs to go. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC),

Okay, good. Reimplemented first row, dropping "-listed", changed column title to "Years". About CP ones, I don't think CP-ness needs to be mentioned at all in the list article for properties that are individually listed and are also CPs in a historic district. It is just the ones that are NOT individually-listed, which are CPs in a historic district, that I meant to indicate by "NRHP CP" (or should it be "NRHP-CP"?). Actually the color coding of rows already helps with this, too. --Doncram (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Citation-needed, or not?

For Wilson County Courthouse, there is a "citation needed" ({{cn}}) tag attached to the current text, as in: "Designed by British-born architect Alfred Giles in Italianate style.". Hey, I don't think a citation-needed tag is needed, because the assertion is innocuous and is sourced in the linked article. Any reader interested in the source, or inclined to question the assertion, will naturally go to the linked article and check the source there. If the assertion could be considered controversial, then I would include the source here, but not otherwise. --Doncram (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. I placed that tag there to further mark the text as prose I had not written or buttressed yet. Helped a lot with similar courthouses as I was making my way down the list. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Vami_IV, no need to apologize at all. There is room for difference in preferences on this point (and other things too). I certainly won't remove any references painstakingly added, but am not eager to add them myself, and IMHO the citation-needed tags can be removed where the info is supported in a linked article.

By the way, can you check your book for Maverick County, probably not built in 1979, given its photo and 1971 RTHL. Maybe built in 1879? --Doncram (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As it turns out, there are two courthouses in Maverick County. The NRHP one was built in 1885. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This list needs to be broken up

There are seriously too damn many courthouses, past and present, in this state for this list to remain whole. This list already 140k bytes, and it doesn't even have every current and former county courthouse in Texas on it. It is also nowhere near complete. A complete version of this list, with all the courthouses, citations, and context and lead, would easily amount to a 300k byte article. It needs to be broken up. Let's decide how. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

For my part, I'm now in favor of breaking it into two or three lists, alphabetically by county name. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)