Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston

Neighborhoods column

I think it would be helpful to use the 21 official neighborhoods of Boston and identify the Neighborhood of each site, in a Neighborhood column. I added a column to make a start at that. This would follow example of List of RHPs in Baltimore and in other NRHP city list-articles. If/when neighborhoods are identified for all, the neighborhoods can be used to split the list-article into smaller chunks, organized geographically as individual neighborhoods or groups of neighborhoods. By the way, the List of Boston neighborhoods article could be improved to cover these 21 official neighborhoods. Fixing it up would support the use of the 21 neighborhoods, here. doncram (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Are there maps available showing the specific boundaries of the neighborhoods? If not, it could be difficult to place each listing in the correct area. There may be some districts or linear areas that overlap "official" neighborhoods. Personally, I like it all under one "Boston" heading, since the legal boundaries are easily available. --Marcbela (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If you select any one of the 21 neighborhoods from the dropdown menu available at http://www.cityofboston.gov/neighborhoods/default.asp, with 2 clicks you can get to a small scale map showing the outline of the neighborhood against the larger outline of Boston. In conjunction with the Google map based on coordinates in this article, those little profile maps would suffice for identifying neighborhoods for some, but would fail for use in borderline cases. I don't yet know where a larger scale, more usable map showing the 21 neighborhood partition can be found. If by prefering to keep them all a Boston heading, you mean that you would rather not split up the article, I tend to agree, until the addition of photos and descriptions makes this article too large file-size way (like over 150 meg). I like having a bigger area covered in one article. With 253 entries though, this probably will eventually be split, and i think it is better to prepare for a geo-based split rather than a weird split by Alphabetical names. It doesn't hurt to have a neighborhood column, in any way, does it? By the way, thanks for your additions of photos and other MA area edits recently. Very glad u were able to pull out a pic of that PT boat NHL, especially. doncram (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • 150 KB do you mean? Admittedly, a 150 MB size page would be too large :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps. :) Either way, with current size "77,080 bytes" there's some room available still. Also, I meant to agree with you that splitting list-articles makes for complications for linear districts (RRs, canals, irrigation systems, river-side parks, etc), which then need to be listed in each partition segment they go through. In my view the system of MA NRHPs got split up too much or too soon, already. doncram (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• I like the sortable column idea for the Neighborhoods. At least they can be grouped together this way, without breaking up the main list 21 times. --Marcbela (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, for those NRHP sites having a street address, we can just plug the address into lookup available at http://www.cityofboston.gov/myneighborhood/, to get which of 21 neighborhoods apply. doncram (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing Marcbela proceeding to identify neighborhoods into the column--nice work, keep it up!--I revisited the Neighborhoods in Boston list-article to build out the official list there. When i do so, it turns out there are 23 official neighborhoods in boston. The official site says there are 21, but lists 23. Anyhow i listed them out in a new section in the neighborhoods list-article. Perhaps the list of 23 can be spiffed up with wikilinks and any suitable descriptions for the neighborhoods. doncram (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Official" list is nice as a rough guide, but some may not work here (such as "Mid-Dorchester") - just combine with Dorchester. Also, the Theatre District sites come out as being in "Chinatown". We also need a "Boston Harbor". There may be others. What to do about "Boston Common"?--Marcbela (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Mid-Dorchester"? Couldn't you link to Dorchester but display as Mid-Dorchester? Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There really is no such thing as "Mid-Dorchester". Even the city government website links back to "Dorchester" in its description. Dorchester was once an independent town that was annexed to Boston.--Marcbela (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

But if there's an official neighborhood of that name, how can you say that there isn't such a thing? The way we've denominated listings for cities such as Pittsburgh and Baltimore has depended on the official boundaries and names; not clear why we can't do likewise here. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, there is no official neighborhood called "Mid-Dorchester". Even the boundary between Roxbury and Dorchester is not well defined. We don't need to make things any more difficult. That government website is only useful as a guide. At some point, logical decisions need to be made.--Marcbela (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I also wondered whether any of the neighborhoods covered the Boston harbor islands. Perhaps the official neighborhoods only cover areas where there are houses that need to be assigned to neighborhood services programs, and disregards unpopulated areas. The boston light house is the one manned lighthouse in the U.S. right now, i think, though. Hmm, also the Boston Common is not populated, so maybe the official partition doesn't address it. I wonder if an official map could be obtained by contacting the official neighborhood services agency, which might resolve these questions.

It does seem to work well in many cities to use one official list of neighborhoods, to head off local arguments. But, the official list might need to be augmented or otherwise modified to work, if it doesn't in fact partition all of Boston. As long as any fact that Mid-Dorchester is part of Dorchester is covered in the section on official neighborhoods at Neighborhoods in Boston, I think it would be fine to follow Marcbela's preferences. Just, logically, there should be an explanation at the neighborhoods article, or elsewhere, defining the neighborhood terms used here. Perhaps Mid-Dorchester gets dropped from that section, while Dorchester gets a footnote explaining that fact? doncram (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Please pardon; I'd not looked at the website. Nyttend (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere on this website http://www.cityofboston.gov/myneighborhood/ does is state that the neighborhood list is "official". I just did some checking with various streets, and I would disagree with many. For instance, it puts the Charles Playhouse in Bay Village, when it is clearly in the Theatre District (for which there is no article yet). The other problem with using that city website search is that there are many streets with the same exact name in different neighborhoods, since they used to be seperate towns. (Centre Street, etc.)--Marcbela (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the top left, it does state "Official Web Site of the City of Boston". But, point taken that Bay Village may not be the common term now used for that area. Again, I think it's important or at least helpful to define terms, somewhere that can be linked to. It is more helpful to have all the neighborhoods defined in one place (like the section at the neighborhoods article, which seems to have to be modified anyhow), so that it can be clearly presented as a MECE partition (and questioned and revised if necessary). To avoid future contention, and so that it does not appear subjective or random what are the neighborhoods being used in this column. I'll try to develop the neighborhoods section further. Perhaps one or two neighborhood identifications in the column might get questioned or revised sometime later, but for now I'm just glad you're filling out the column, using your good judgment. doncram (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this page so slow? / Split up, or not?

Is it just me? Slow as an old dog. So, should this list be split up, or not? --Marcbela (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Several large cities have been broken up; you can look at Baltimore for a good example. I can't imagine why splitting would be a bad idea here. Please don't split it, however, until you've finished placing neighborhoods for each site: the best way to split it by neighborhoods, so it wouldn't be a good idea to split before we knew where each site went. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(a few months later) The neighborhoods have now all been identified. Out of the 265 listings, 43 are identified as being in Downtown, 18 in Beacon Hill, some more in Chinatown and in Back Bay, etc. How about splitting out those in "downtown areas of Boston", to include those four and perhaps more. I think that lowercase "downtown areas" could be okay as a name, not sure. I would like to get this under 200 listings, so the linked Bing map will show them all. doncram (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Renaming

I object to the renaming of this article from "Boston, Massachusetts" to "Boston". This renaming may be useful in other places, but do we need to be that lazy to ommit the name of the state from the title?? Is this being done with other NRHP listings? This is a nation of STATES. They should be given their due.--Marcbela (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Scan

Just went through the whole list to

• check to see that any images in articles were also here
• check to see if piping was needed

. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I've done this with nearly thirty states, but in most cases I did it several months ago, and there were so many in Massachusetts that I never got around to doing it at all. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be a good idea to encourage us to put this kind of note on the talk page when we do this? -- I started adding notes because KudzuVine is also working the problem in Massachusetts and without a note there's no way to tell if you're working a field that's just been plowed.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe; I've never thought of that. As a rule, when you see "Descriptions" or similar statement in my edit summary on one of these, it's such a check; and when I create a new page, I always perform such a check. However, I understand that not everybody can read my mind and know exactly what I've done without my telling them :-) Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

missing

Blue Hills Parkway and West Roxbury Parkway are missing from the Boston list. --Polaron | Talk 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect information should not be kept

Regarding this, practicing conservatism to the extreme is not beneficial to the style and substance of Wikipedia. No encyclopedia in the world always publishes text formatting exactly as found in a source, rather they—and we—use consistent and sensible text formatting throughout the body of work. Further, the geographic coordinates of a place should not be preserved when they are plainly wrong. There is no excuse for providing bad formatting and misinformation when we can do better. Sswonk (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nyttend and Sswonk -- if I may mediate? On the coordinates question, I suspect that Nyttend did not intend to revert the coords. I think it's pretty well established that we can change coords in the lists and the articles to values that put a Google, Bing, or other map marker over the correct place. I know that I do it all the time and problems with coords are so common that we don't even report them at wp:NRIS info issues.

The names are a more difficult matter. It has been the practice to show, in the city and county lists, the names as they are in NRIS, exactly as they is shown there. Exceptions have been obvious misspellings, and even those are discussed in advance at wp:NRIS info issues. That leads us to such things as

• VFW Parkway, Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston, two lines below Cassin Young
• Sears Roebuck and Company Mail Order Store when the building was a Sears retail store but not (IIRC) mail order
• St. Paul's Church when it's actually "The Cathedral Church of Saint Paul"

But, we do regularly change Doe, John House to John Doe House, so the rule about using it exactly as it appears in NRIS can be broken. It seems to me here that we might use USS Constitution and USS Cassin Young (destroyer) here. If we correct the sorting of the list and put them next to each other, it seems silly to have one be "U.S.S." and the next "USS". Also, there's no good reason for ALL CAPS in their names -- it's not standard orthography in the marine world -- maybe the NRHP application writer in the 80's had a thing about ALL CAPS for ships, see LUNA (tugboat). I note also that LUNA is shown in italic. I think the NRIS database does not show italics (certainly the Elkman tool doesn't), so whoever entered LUNA added italics, and there's precedent for that here as well.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward has it basically right. Sure, i don't mind lower-casing and italicizing, and this has been done for ships in NRHP lists elsewhere as a matter of formatting. Sswonk needs to understand we are not imposing NRHP names for places as article names, but rather adhering to NRHP names for lists of NRHP places and for NRHP infoboxes. There are other cases where the NRHP-listed name is a historical name for a ship which has been renamed by a new owner, and the NRHP list should show the historical name, so that people looking for the NRHP will find it (and be linked to an article hopefully explaining both names). There are multiple places on the web such as [1] which show NRHP names. If someone is sure that the NRHP name is wrong, they are free to take that up with the National Park Service's National Register program. In occasional cases where we know a name is wrong we have been doing that, via batch-reporting of items noted at wp:NRIS info issues. No one is saying to keep incorrect information in Wikipedia. We're being kind of bureaucratic, yes, in showing NRHP names in NRHP lists. But, it would be inappropriate to apply the equally bureaucratic style of the wp:SHIPS' {{USS}} template in NRHP list-articles. Here since there are two USS ones in one list-article, picking one of the two NRHP name formats and revising the other to show them consistently seems okay to me, but if it was just one i would not change from the NRHP name (besides lowercasing and italicizing). doncram (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I experienced an edit conflict, times two, in the past fifteen minutes attempting to revise the entry for USS Cassin Young (destroyer) to the form that doncram ultimately used. The page loads very slowly on my Mac, and always reports a javascript error, probably due to the coordinates map listings/heavy use of templates. The proper style for USN ships is without periods, but I am definitely not going to lose sleep over that minor difference. Thank you for making these changes. Sswonk (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

After hitting the undo button, but before saving, I copied over all information that was correct, as far as I could see. Not at all trying to say that coord fixes are problematic; I didn't notice that coords were corrected, so my reverting them was unintentionally. Nyttend (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good. I further switched the two having inconsistent NRHP names to show "USS" rather than "U.S.S.", just now, to defer to Sswonk's preference. About the javascript error for Mac users, Sswonk, can you comment further about when that happens in looking at NRHP list-articles of various sizes? Does it just report some error, but still let you see the article, or is it more serious? This article, with 265 entries, is perhaps too long in my view. Note, neither of the two ships discussed show up in the linked Bing map, because that cuts off at 200 entries, although the Google map shows them all. If I knew there was a certain cutoff where Mac users had problems, I would more strongly support splitting NRHP list-articles like this one. doncram (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I should add that I am using Firefox 3.5, and the browser may be the issue rather than the platform. Due to work as a web developer, I have multiple browsers on a Windows XP machine and two different Mac OS X versions on two Macs. Since this is a performance issue, I agree it should be investigated for possible splitting of long lists. I will run tests on a variety of machines/browsers and report below in a new thread, with timings, error messages, etc. I am starting it now with a note about the problem. Sswonk (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had reached agreement that we were going to use Luna, USS Constitution and USS Cassin Young to be both consistent and correct. Note that the official USS Constitution web site does not use periods in the name. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Restored, the ship's name is alphabetized by the first character of the name. The typewritten lists that have been reposted as web pages to the NRHP site do not have to be followed exactly for capitalization, but rather should be properly formatted with the correct typographic style, a practice long established on Wikipedia, this was discussed above. Sswonk (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If a source is needed regarding the alphabetization of ship names, the Naval Vessel Register shows all the ships in the U.S. Navy. Choosing any letter in that list will present the names of ships properly alphabetized as they should be, as titles, not personal first and last names. For example, the carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is properly listed under the 'G' list, not the 'F' list. – Sswonk (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what other sources say. This is a table version of the National Register list for Boston, not a list of buildings and ships that are on the Register; if common usage and the NRHP disagree, we write articles according to common usage, but when the NRHP name is discussed, we go with the NRHP name. If we can change non-erroneous names for this, what's going to stop us from changing outdated names or less-commonly used names to the current common forms? Changing formatting in this manner is contrary to the way that all lists nationwide are formatted. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nyttend, please see WP:ALLCAPS. We are not changing names, only capitalization. Consistent typography is the practice in all of the realms of publishing, not just Wikipedia. If there are other lists with these typographic anomalies preserved, they should be changed as well. We are not bound by any rule to exactly duplicate inconsistent or faulty typography, despite your contention that we are. You're inability to follow the consensus here is becoming problematic. Sswonk (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm following our reliable sources and the policy of this wikiproject to format all lists as the Register does, with the sole exception of "turning around" personal names, such as "Revere, Paul, House". Decisions at one list talk page can't trump decisions made by an overseeing wikiproject, and no consensus can trump reliable sources. You cannot present any reliable sources to say that the National Register does not choose to format names in this manner; and if they intend to follow a different way of naming their properties than most entities do, that's not wrong. Consider WP:NRIS issues — I have reported many typographical errors, both in addresses and in names of properties; this is not an issue of "Layfayette and Elizabeth W. Hendricks HOuse", or even of "Lafayette and Elizabeth W. Hendricks HOuse" as reported there. I am not wedded to any idea of preserving faulty names, but to the idea of preserving idiosyncratic names in faithfulness to the standards of the wikiproject and to the reliable source we have in the Register. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But, NRIS is completely inconsistent in its naming of ships. Here's a list, as they came out of the Elkman tool of all (I think) the USS and U.S.S. listings:

• USS CASSIN YOUNG (destroyer)
• USS MASSACHUSETTS (BB-59) National Historic Landmark
• USS LIONFISH (SS0298) National Historic Landmark
• USS TORSK (submarine)
• USS BECUNA (SS-319)
• USS CABOT (CVL-28)
• USS SEQUOIA (yacht)
• USS BOWFIN
• USS BLUEBACK (submarine)
• USS CROAKER (submarine)
• USS CAVALLA (submarine)
• USS STEWART
• USS LCI-713 (Landing Craft)
• USS RAZORBACK (SS-394)
• USS New Jersey (BB-62)
• USS Lexington
• USS MASSACHUSETTS--BB-2 (shipwreck)
• USS POTOMAC (yacht)
• U.S.S. CONSTITUTION
• U.S.S. MASSACHUSETTS
• U.S.S. LIONFISH
• U.S.S. JOSEPH P. KENNEDY JR. (DD-850)
• U.S.S. CONSTELLATION
• U.S.S. OLYMPIA
• U.S.S. NIAGARA
• U.S.S. KIDD
• U.S.S. NAUTILUS (submarine)
• U.S.S. ARIZONA Memorial
• U.S.S. TEXAS
• U.S.S. SILVERSIDES
• U.S.S. CAIRO
• U.S.S. TECUMSEH
• U.S.S. PETERHOFF
• U.S.S. HAZARD and U.S.S. MARLIN
• U.S.S. MISSOURI
• U.S.S. LING

Note that they are mix of ALL CAPS and Title Case and that USS and U.S.S appears for the same vessel (the younger battleship Massachusetts) in the NHL and NHRP listings. Although I did not have the strength to look up more than a few in their state/county/local listings pages, I can say from the few that I did look up that we have changed some and left others.

Surely we shouldn't blindly follow the inconsistencies of NRIS when no one will be confused by changing U.S.S. CONSTITUTION to USS Constitution, particularly when the latter is the official name of the vessel. I think that having U.S.S. CONSTITUTION and USS CASSIN YOUNG appear side by side will have the average reader wondering why we can't figure out which it should be.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But which one shall it be? Shall we have to discuss whether periods are appropriate here or not? Only by following the standard followed by all other NRHP lists nationwide can we be free from confusion over how to list a site. NRIS is inconsistent here, to be sure; but it's also inconsistent in its naming of buildings: some are named for the residents when the building was nominated, some are named for the builder, and some are named for another person. Why do you want to ignore the longstanding consensus that governs all lists nationwide and try to impose an outside standard at variance with the way that all NRHP lists are formatted? Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The inconsistency, or imposed anomalous standard, is yours, i.e. making exact duplication of ALL CAPS listings, even where it is unnecessary for purposes of verifiability and understanding of the topic. All publishers impose such minor changes in capitalization and punctuation in lists for editorial and style consistency. All editors, Jim, Polaron, doncram and myself, who have an opinion on this are in agreement that lowercasing and italicizing are acceptable in this case to maintain Wikipedia project wide consistency. Compromise suggested: if it is even necessary, the strictest interpretation of WP:V can be satisfied with a footnote to the entries in question thus: "¹ The NRIS (or NRHP as appropriate) lists this location as "U.S.S. CONSTITUTION". That should be the NRHP guideline (projects do not impose "policies"), not slavishly repeating poor styling found in lists that were probably formatted on a typewriter without a thought as to what the name would look like in an encyclopedia. Sswonk (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Kindly observe its title here, the nomination form — the typewriter formatted it as you want it, so the all caps version was only done in printed and online versions: the Register people clearly decided that all caps was superior. Nomination forms are not to be taken as authoritative of the correct situation; it's not unknown to find changes that aren't erroneous. Let me ask: why do you want to pronounce what the project's opinion should be? Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I really hate spending time on this sort of issue -- a pox on all of our houses.

• I have great sympathy for Nyttend's concern that we're at the top of a slippery slope -- that changing the NRHP name must be done very carefully and infrequently because there are many times when the NRHP uses a strange or obscure name that many of us think could be changed for the better -- we could all cite tens of cases of this -- I might like to change ten percent of the names in Boston....
• But, we do change names when there are obvious spelling errors or other mistakes. A quick look at NRIS info issues will remind us that there are many of these. The first and last ones on that list, Hawthorne House and Officer's Club Douglas Prisoner of War Camp, both have Nyttend's sig on them, a measure of the debt we owe him for hard detail work, but also evidence that he is willing to make reasonable changes.
• My view, and, I think, that of the others who have weighed in here, is that the proposed changes here are in the same category, that the capitalization and inclusion of dots (U.S.S. vs USS) are in the nature of spelling errors. The fact that the list above is about 50/50 between USS and U.S.S. should prove that the NRHP has no particular opinion on it. The capitalization is less obvious, since it's only two lower case.
• I also note that we have done this elsewhere -- all three of the ships on the list in Fall River have their names shown differently from the NRHP listing
  • USS MASSACHUSETTS is listed as U.S.S. Massachusetts
  • U.S.S. LIONFISH (SS0298) >> U.S.S. Lionfish (SS-298)
  • U.S.S. Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. (DD-850) >> U.S.S. Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. (DD-850) --- (note addition of comma)
• If we can't agree on this now, today, I propose that we drop it, wherever it is, for a month (I haven't looked at the current list). It's not that important and I have photos to add to articles and you all have other things to do as well.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Quite honestly, I don't see what there is to agree on that hasn't already been agreed by everyone except for Nyttend, a minority of one. Of course exemplary service and dedication are important attributes to have, but "exemplary" doesn't mean "exempt" from consensus. What I am seeing in reversion edit summaries is a constant complaint that we are for changing names. What everyone here is trying to do is make the list easier to read, no one has changed the names by formatting them to match Wikipedia title case. I am at a complete loss of comprehension as to why this is not obvious to Nyttend. We could call Orkin to fumigate the pox from our houses, in other words start an RFC, but I am telling you it would be laugh-out-loud hilarious to many, many RFC watchers that we would even consider doing that. There is no reason to wait a month, consensus is clear both here and throughout the encyclopedia de facto and by guideline consensus de jure at MOS: WP:ALLCAPS. I am nearly dumbfounded, unable to go further. There really is nothing left to discuss. Sswonk (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(Exposition) I wrote the above quickly and in passing. Now that I re-read it I see that it may be construed as a personal attack. I have to be clear, it is nothing of the sort, in fact I mean to write with a tone as one would say, "as smart and well-traveled on Wikipedia as you are, why can't you see this as we do?", nothing more. Sswonk (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Page rendering issues

I have been receiving error messages regarding script response on an Apple iBook G4 running Firefox 3.5 when attempting to edit the article page. In an effort to understand why this is happening, I am currently testing several browsers on Windows and OS X to see if this is a general issue or just specific to a certain configuration of system and browser. I will provide a list of results below in the next hour or so. Sswonk (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a Firefox issue, with an error triggered after 10 seconds of script execution. The error message is:

A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding. You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script will complete. Script: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Wikiminiatlas.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&smaxage=21600&maxage=86400:179

This is not really an error at all, just a notification that a script is running longer than the default configuration of Firefox likes. The setting accessible at the about:config screen is "dom.max_script_run_time;default;integer;10" meaning 10 seconds before the warning is issued. So the script is taking too long, and setting the dom.max_script_run_time to 20 seconds causes the message not to appear. Still, the following results do bear some scrutiny, as the Boston NRHP list is one of the slowest to load pages I have found on en.wikipedia. I am running broadband cable ~6MHz through Wifi, most pages take under two seconds with anything over five being pretty rare. The HP laptop is over five years old, so these results probably aren't typical for most Windows users.

Platform	Browser	Seconds
Apple iBook G4 1.42 GHz, 1.5 GB, 10.4.11 Tiger	Firefox 3.5.3	20 (original case)
	Safari 4.0.3	13
	SeaMonkey 1.1.16	11
Apple MacBook (late 2007) 2.2 GHz Core2Duo, 2 GB, 10.6.1 Snow Leopard	Firefox 3.5.3	8
	Safari 4.0.3	6
	Opera 10.00	5
	Chromium (dev) 4.0.223.3	6
	SeaMonkey 1.1.16	11
HP Pavillion ze4800 2.12 GHz Athlon, 512 MB, WinXP SP3	Firefox 3.5.3	13
	Internet Explorer 7.0.5730.13	53
	SeaMonkey 1.1.16	11
	Google Chrome 3.05.195.27	41

Please note, there was some sort of slowdown of the en.wikipedia site in the last 15 minutes, these results were obtained before that situation occurred. Other than the oddly consistent score of SeaMonkey on all three machines, the slowness of the page is what is a little concerning. Of course this is strictly an unscientific survey, I didn't clear caches, unload plug-ins, add-ons or scripts, only made sure each browser was the only thing running at the time of the test. Bottom line is, it's just because it is a big script heavy page and Firefox gets impatient after 10 seconds of script time that I had the messages appear. Sswonk (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! for detailing this. I happen to use Firefox on a Windows PC, and don't get the error message, though the page is slow to load. In general terms, I take this as support for splitting NRHP list-articles having more than 200 entries. Loading time for this one is worse than some others also because there are a fair number of pictures included (which don't add much to explicit article size but require loading). Thanks. doncram (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Divide this article?

We discussed the slow loading time of this article above. Since I hope to start taking pix for it soon, I'll be working with it a lot and it's a real nuisance. Does anyone object to dividing it up by neighborhoods? The neighborhoods and counts are:

• 43 - Downtown
• 28 - Roxbury
• 23 - Dorchester
• 18 - Beacon Hill
• 15 - Back Bay
• 15 - Jamaica Plain
• 13 - Fenway-Kenmore
• 12 - North End
• 12 - South Boston
• 11 - Charlestown
• 7 - Boston Harbor
• 7 - East Boston
• 7 - Theatre District
• 6 - Brighton
• 6 - South End
• 6 - West Roxbury
• 5 - Allston
• 5 - Hyde Park
• 5 - West End
• 4 - Chinatown
• 3 - Mission Hill
• 3 - multiple
• 3 - Roslindale
• 2 - Bay Village
• 1 - Allston and Brighton
• 1 - Hyde Park and West Roxbury
• 1 - Jamaica Plain and Fenway-Kenmore
• 1 - Jamaica Plain and Roslindale
• 1 - Leather District
• 1 - Mattapan
• 265 - total

The three "multiple" are

• The 1767 Milestones (not sure what neighborhoods)
• Boston Common (Downtown and Beacon Hill)
• Boston Common and Public Garden (Downtown, Back Bay, Beacon Hill)

I would be inclined to make separate articles for each neighborhood down through Jamaica Plain -- that would be 142 of the 265 -- and leave all the rest in one.

How do we handle the seven that are in more than one (three "multiple" and the four near the bottom)? I would be inclined to leave them in the "everything else" article, with only a footnote and link in the other articles in which they "should" appear. I know that's contrary to our practice with Massachusetts sites that extend across counties, but I think it's just as clear and a lot easier to maintain.

While I'm at it, I'll go through the neighborhoods and make sure we've got them right -- there are a few where the coords come out in very different places -- that could be bad coords or bad neighborhoods.... . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine a good reason to oppose splitting; this has been done with many large cities nationwide. However, I think that it would be better to split a different way: cities are generally split into regional lists, with multiple neighborhoods per article unless a neighborhood is truly too large. See Denver, Colorado for an example of what I mean: there are separate lists for downtown, northeast, southeast, and west Denver. It shouldn't be too hard to decide which neighborhoods should be clumped together. Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Jim's suggestion is the better way to handle this for a few reasons. The first is the historical record that will refer to the areas of the neighborhoods he has listed by name. Roxbury and Dorchester are former towns of Norfolk County that were annexed by Boston in the second half of the 19th century (see File:Dorchester_1858.jpg. Jamaica Plain is also a significant part of the town of West Roxbury that was annexed in this way). The Back Bay was created from landfill during this same time and is fairly homogeneous with regard to architecture as a result. The other two, Downtown and Beacon Hill, along with the four previously mentioned, are nearly always referred to in both regional and worldwide writing by name rather than by a compass direction. Ultimately, this is the case for all of Boston because of the process of annexation that created its present makeup and because it is spread in several directions, some of which are split by water and not historically tied by location. Charlestown and South Boston, for example, would probably be lumped together as "Northeast Boston", a term which is never used locally and is especially problematic for "Southie".

I think only one minor drawback to using Jim's suggestion is going to be naming the list that includes areas outside of the six historic regions. My solution would be to have those "other areas" instead listed in the main Boston list. We would be left with only the other six regions, i.e. Downtown, Roxbury, Dorchester, Beacon Hill, Back Bay and Jamaica Plain, being linked as split out subarticles, with an explanatory header and sentence for the list of other areas on the main Boston page. To really drive the point home, locally this would only be handled by neighborhood name and never be listed by compass direction. People here would either be put off by a geographic separation or simply might have no understanding of what is meant by "Northeast Boston". Nearly universally, written history and modern travel literature uses the neighborhood name as Jim has suggested. Sswonk (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that we'd have way too many articles this way compared to all other city articles that have been split. I'm not saying that we necessarily must use names such as "northeast" — it's simply that we need to be consistent with all other split city lists and have the entire city divided into regions, rather than having tons of little list articles and ending up with either a list article with sites scattered all over the city or a directory article that still includes several sites. We necessarily will have one or the other of these situations if we simply split out the larger neighborhoods. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Jim's solution with my amendment as having "tons of little list articles". See National Register of Historic Places listings in New York County, New York for an example of how this would be done. The main article, National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston, Massachusetts, would begin with a list of the six major neighborhoods with sites, with images and a link, like that article and then have the remaining images in a list for all other NRHP sites. Here is a sample page (the totals are correct but the dates are not) transcluded from a sandbox page at User:Sswonk/Boston_NRHP. I combined some of the neighborhoods to keep the broken out articles limited to four. That will help greatly with the loading time. Sswonk (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox page showing proposed Boston list revision

Listings by area The areas in this table are listed in separate articles. The table following this lists all other locations within Boston. Area Image First Date listed Last Date listed Count Downtown October 15, 1966 March 9, 2009 43 Dorchester and Jamaica Plain October 15, 1966 November 15, 2007 38 Beacon Hill and Back Bay October 15, 1966 September 25, 2008 33 Roxbury October 15, 1966 November 12, 2008 28 Current listings for all other areas Landmark name Image Date listed Location Neighborhood Summary This proposal was not adopted and is preserved only for reference. The "current listings" table was removed to speed page loading performance.

Transclude page placed above, click "show" to view. Sswonk (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to the neighborhood split -- I just thought that "that was the way it was done". The Boston neighborhoods are not very well defined in most cases. To some extent, that's a matter of people wanting to be in the classier neighborhood, so over time the boundary migrates, with the upscale neighborhood getting larger. It certainly is not as well defined as the Manhattan splits, for example. Also, while they are well defined by City Hall (in order to issue neighborhood parking permits), even this geo-interested forty year resident can't draw them on a blank map. I had to look up several as I was going over the classifications, and I'm sure that the average user won't know them. And, there are the seven above in more than one neighborhood....

Perhaps it would be clearer to do a straight alpha split (A-H) and (I-Z) gives approximately equal halves. That also eliminates problem of sites that are in multiple neighborhhoods.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 10:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break for convenience

In my eyes, what you say, Jim, about official boundaries between neighborhoods is highly significant: most of the separate city lists, whether or not they're split into pieces, have used official neighborhood boundaries whenever possible, even if (e.g. Philadelphia) the precise boundaries are rather little obscure. New York City is a different matter, and the split by streets used there is simpler: because the county is so linear, and because these streets extend pretty much all the way across the island, they're very useful landmarks. Are there any clear boundaries of that sort in Boston?

Moreover, we've tried alphabetical splits (Philadelphia was once in that format, for example), but they don't work as well for navigation. Let's say that you live in a neighborhood and are looking for sites near you: if the city is split alphabetically, you have to search both/all the lists to be sure that you've seen everything nearby, but if the city is split by neighborhood, you only have one list to search, or two or three if you live near a "regional" boundary. Somewhat similar is the idea of a catchall list: it's not very helpful to have a list including some sites all over the city, simply because their neighborhoods don't have as dense a concentration of listings as do other neighborhoods.

I'm going to look at the official map and be back. Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point about the alpha lists. The Mass Pike is a logical dividing line -- most people know where it goes, even when it's underground, and it crosses the whole city, except in East Boston, where it doesn't matter because all the sites are north of it. I see two ways of using it:

• By neighborhood -- Put all of each neighborhood either north or south of it. If you made a few arbitrary choices for those neighborhoods that could be in either, you'd end up with more or less equal halves.
• By actual location -- put each site in one list or the other, depending on its actual location. That would mean that a few neighborhoods would have sites on both sides. Although I suspect that will end up with a split more like

90/170, I think I like this choice better. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• 90/170, what is this? North/South of Mass Pike? Sswonk (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, too cryptic. 90 sites south of the Pike, 170 north. Might be 100/165, or 110/155, but it's not even.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Try North/South of Mass Ave, that might be more even. Southie is north of Mass Ave if continued in an imaginary line east. Sswonk (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Or a three part, Mass Pike, with the northern half split again, say by Charles Street or I-93. Mass Ave is probably no better than the pike now that I think about it. Sswonk (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Mass Pike isn't bad -- depending on where you put Allston, Fenway-Kenmore, and Boston Harbor, it ends up within 25 of being even. Mass Ave is worse -- it takes more on the north side at its east end and doesn't give up much from the north on its west end. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, I realized that re: Mass Ave after posting. I think a three part split is better, however. I am testing load time for 170 places, I believe it will still be an issue. Nyttend, I have been looking for an official map of neighborhoods in Boston for years. There really isn't one, the Mayor understands the issues Jim mentions—real estate firms place houses in neighborhoods with a better reputation, because of the lack of official boundaries. The Boston Redevelopment Authority has drawn boundaries, see http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/zoning/downloadZone.asp ; those are semi-official. School zones are more likely to have better accuracy, but they also are arbitrary. We'll have to use street boundaries I'm afraid. Sswonk (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, the load time for 170 listings is still over twenty seconds when an edit is made, and still ten seconds loading the page on my MacBook, which is a very fast computer, when holding the shift key to force bypassing the cache on Firefox and Safari. That simulates a first time reader hitting the page. This is tested using my sandbox page at User:Sswonk/Boston NRHP. The real solution to this is going to be figuring out how to streamline the loading of all of the coordinates templates, that is what is clogging the rendering engine. I would like to put this question out to the WP:VPT regarding possible suggestions, maybe there is a simple solution. What do you two think, would you object to asking for community support on this? Sswonk (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen that outdent template before; is it commonly used? I don't think we need community input re: the coord templates (by the way, I don't believe that they slow it down as much; large pages with lots of coords but few pictures don't often take too long to load), but if there's some way to speed up the loading of pages like this, we should definitely check it out. By the way, Sswonk, see this page that Jim recommended: this is what I was meaning, although I see his point about it being so slow. If we're going to split by streets, I don't think that we need to worry about neighborhood locations: the concrete boundaries provided by the streets would be quite simple. What is the Mass Pike: a street named the Massachusetts Pike, or the Massachusetts Turnpike? If you mean I-90, I like this idea, although perhaps we could split it into more pieces. Perhaps we could make downtown a separate list? We currently have 42 sites listed in downtown, so that would result in approximately 90/130/40 if we did a south/north/downtown split and if I understand rightly that downtown is north of the Pike. Would there be any way to split the remaining pieces (or at least the north-of-the-Pike piece) into two or three east/west pieces? If we figured out a way to split into six pieces of approximately forty listings each, we'd have a set of rather easily-navigable lists. Nyttend (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been seeing {{od}} more and more recently, from the page history it is just over a year old. The developers have also been working on a more friendly talk structure, which is sorely needed. See this encouraging description. The French Wikipedia has a slightly different approach to ours, here is a sample page: fr:Discussion:Paris, if you scroll down you will see that the "paper" behind responses alternates in color. It is still the same as ours, using colons to indent, but an easier to read format I think. But the first one that is in development is what is really needed, as it allows responses internal to a main discussion topic that do not trigger edit conflicts when other threads are being edited at the same time. I think you are right about the images taking the longest, I have run an analysis of this article through Safari's debug system and here is the result with cache cleared to simulate first time viewing: Documents: 2.06s Stylesheets: 3.64s Images: 7.46s Scripts: 4.41s Total: 11.95s. The problem is, the scripts and stylesheets need to be done before the images can be drawn, and the images can still be put in place while someone starts scrolling to read. The page, menus and scroll bars are not available until the document is built by the scripts, which are figuring out the structure, and these include the templates. So the perception that the page is stuck or broken exists during the first several seconds before the page and then images start to appear. I will think about how to ask this question. On the six page breakdown of the Boston list, I think four would be better. I'm going to try to come up with a street boundary system to demonstrate this afternoon. Sswonk (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think four is better: because six would simply be too many, or because four make more sense with Boston's geography, or because of some other reason? Please understand, by the way, that I've only once been anywhere in New England (the summer before I turned 13), so I'm almost totally unfamiliar with Boston. Therefore, I'm somewhat likely accidentally to make suggestions that look nice on Google Maps but aren't very good in real life. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just thinking aloud, actually. I probably see Boston as Boston proper (again, see File:Dorchester_1858.jpg), with Back Bay and the areas west another section, southwest a third (Old Roxbury and West Roxbury) and Dorchester and South Boston a fourth. Just a hunch. Yes, the Mass Pike is Interstate 90, which is often used by weather reporters to divide northern and southern Mass into quickly described regions. Sswonk (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhood changes

Looking at a GPS Visualizer Map with the neighborhoods called out, I suggest the following changes:

• Piano Row District to Theatre District
• Hayden Building to Chinatown
• Dill Building to Chinatown
• Jacob Wirth Buildings to Chinatown
• Boston Young Men's Christian Union to Theatre District
• Liberty Tree District to Chinatown
• House at 1 Bay Street to Dorchester
• Symphony Hall to Fenway/Kenmore (according to Boston City neighborhood finder)
• Nazing Court Apartments to Roxbury (ditto)
• Mount Hope Cemetery to Roslindale (ditto)

More to come, I'm sure.

Note that according to a map on the City of Boston Web Site, there are only 17 neighborhoods, rather than the 24 (plus "multiple" and Boston Harbor) that we have been using.

• Allston-Brighton
• Back Bay
• Beacon Hill
• Charlestown
• Dorchester
• Downtown
• East Boston
• Fenway (or Fenway-Kenmore at the Neighborhood finder cited above)
• Hyde Park
• Jamaica Plain
• Mattapan
• Mission Hill
• Roslindale
• Roxbury
• South Boston
• South End
• West Roxbury

The following neighborhoods on our list that are apparently not official are:

• Allston and Brighton are combined
• Bay Village
• Chinatown
• Leather District
• North End
• Theatre District
• West End

. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Having heard no comment, I have moved

• House at 1 Bay Street to Dorchester
• Symphony Hall to Fenway/Kenmore
• Nazing Court Apartments to Roxbury
• Mount Hope Cemetery to Roslindale

In accordance with the list above, I propose eliminating

• Bay Village
• Chinatown
• Leather District
• North End
• Theatre District
• West End

and combining Allston-Brighton . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No opinion; you've already heard how I'm quite unfamiliar with Boston neighborhoods. Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the reorganization along the official list from the city, removing the seven neighborhoods listed above by Jim. Sswonk (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

However, this list http://www.cityofboston.gov/neighborhoods/default.asp is sourced in the article Neighborhoods in Boston as the official list. I will add additional input on this in a few minutes. Sswonk (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the list Jim cites above and I repeated in the sentence above this one, the Boston "neighborhood finder": Read more about each neighborhood by using the drop down list below:

[2] Allston
[3] Back Bay
[4] Bay Village
[5] Beacon Hill
[6] Brighton
[7] Charlestown
[8] Chinatown / Leather District
[9] Dorchester
[10] Downtown
[11] East Boston
[12] Fenway Kenmore
[13] Hyde Park
[14] Jamaica Plain
[15] Mattapan
[16] Mid Dorchester – add to Dorchester
[17] Mission Hill
[18] North End
[19] Roslindale
[20] Roxbury
[21] South Boston
[22] South End
[23] West End
[24] West Roxbury

I think that we should go with the list generated from the map called "Districts", but break out Bay Village, Chinatown/Leather District,[25] and North End[26] from that list. My wife has always said the Leather District is a name made up by real estate developers to make locations in Chinatown sound like they have a less ethnic name. Nyttend, if this looks confusing don't be concerned. Annexation, landfill, busing and real estate advertising have all been factors in the confused situation you see here, where even the City of Boston itself has different boundaries for the neighborhoods. The only neighborhood missing that I would also include but for which we don't have a map is the West End. I think it should be listed separately, not as a part of Back Bay as the main "Districts" map has it. I also think the hill from Charles Street to the river should be part of Beacon Hill and not Back Bay. My opinion is that since the city itself can't decide what is what regarding neighborhoods, we are exempt from charges of original research and if challenged it would be pretty easy to find sources that say "this is Beacon Hill" and "this is West End". So, my list would be the one above, with "Mid Dorchester" and Dorchester combined to just Dorchester. Sswonk (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts, detailed:

Include

• North End -- should include, very distinct borders, well known

Maybe:

• Chinatown -- borders very indistinct
• West End -- five sites, not sure where else you'd put them -- not North End -- downtown?

Not include:

• Leather District -- a name I remember using thirty years ago, but not much used now, distinct borders because of x-way
• Bay Village -- Had to look it up to see where it was; we have only one site in it.
• Theatre District -- very fuzzy borders, arguably largely in Chinatown

• So we disagree only about Bay Village, which as I said, has only one site....
• Agreed that Beacon Hill should go west to Fiedler bridge
• Have no strong feelings about combining Allston & Brighton or not

. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We do have distinct North End and Bay Village maps, from the BRA linked in my paragraph right above your latest comment. The problem with eliminating Bay Village and using the lines on the "Districts" map is that, again like Back of the Hill and West End, that map lumps it in with the Back Bay. Theatre District is out, no maps at all. Allston and Brighton should be distinct in my mind, each has its own zip code as the respective name, good enough for me. West End is a victim of urban renewal as you probably know, but can't remotely be considered Downtown or even worse Back Bay. Of the five sites, are they all in "Cambridge Street North District" from[27]? Are any sites in "Bullfinch Triangle District" from that same map? They might be Downtown, but not sure where they are listed now. Sswonk (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Template overflow - split page?

This page is not rendering correctly because of the large number of (mainly the new {{NRHP row}}) templates on it. Given its length, it should probably be split up anyway (this has been done with other cities that have many listings, like Philadelphia and NYC).

A distribution count shows that the following division by neighborhood creates two roughly equal-size lists:

• Boston Harbor, Boston vicinity, East Boston, Charlestown, North End, Beacon Hill, West End, Downtown, Back Bay, Chinatown, Leather District, Bay Village, Theatre District
• South End, South Boston, Fenway-Kenmore, Allston, Brighton, Roxbury, Jamaica Plain, Mission Hill, Dorchester, Mattapan, Roslindale, West Roxbury, Hyde Park

This division draws a line roughly along the western side of Back Bay and the Mass Pike, with one group to the north and east. Other divisions (and ideas on how to name the lists) welcome. Magic♪piano 17:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that we discussed this in 2009 without coming to a resolution. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, unless we subst the NHRP row templates (somebody did this to the Worcester list, which is even longer than this one), the last 50 or so entries don't show up, so something needs to be done one way or the other. Calling my divisions "northern" and "southern" is a decent approximation of the geography (it elides the fact that Allston-Brighton is as far north as some of the "northern" listings). Magic♪piano 03:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not trying to shut down your idea — I was purely trying to ensure that you were aware of previous ideas. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading through the earlier thread leads me to think there wasn't necessarily a lack of consensus that something ought to be done, and . Sswonk's idea has some merit, but suffers to some extent from any other geographic division: that you ultimately end up with some essentially arbitrary sub-groupings (because some "neighborhoods", like the harbor, don't group anywhere well). I'll poke him for comment, but he's not edited since November. Magic♪piano 15:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest "North of Mass Pike" and South of Mass Pike". Although that is certainly not an even divide, it has the overwhelming advantage that it is easy to explain and that the Mass Pike extends all the way across the city from east to west (I would treat all of East Boston as North). Since no sites actually have "Mass Pike" as an address, it creates no confusion as to which side of the street something is on.

No other street does as well -- Mass Ave doesn't quite make it to the sea and I suspect it would do even worse in evenness. Washington Street might do better in that respect, but there are actually three Washington Streets, so it's not as clear a choice.

I've lived in Boston for forty-five years and have been in most of its neighborhoods taking 165 NRHP site pictures -- I know that I could not come close to accurately laying out a division described by any group of neighborhoods. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 12:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that using the Mass Pike as a divider is one approach -- it does have the consequence of dividing listings in Fenway and Allston-Brighton. (I'm agnostic on whether this is a problem, just pointing it out.) The harbor listings could be placed in whichever list is otherwise shorter. Magic♪piano 01:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The Mass Pike divides the harbor -- the Ted Williams Tunnel is part of the Mass Pike. With that said, most of the harbor sites are south of the tunnel, which makes them consistent with your thought.

As for dividing Fenway and Allston-Brighton, I'm pretty sure that the average Boston resident would be far more accurate placing something on one side of the Mass Pike than in placing it in a particular neighborhood. Certainly Charlestown, South Boston, and East Boston have clearly defined boundaries, but most of the others are not clear to most of us. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 12:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm indifferent on breaking up neighborhoods. The Pike may divide the harbor, but I have no idea whether Boston Light is north or south of it (and I've been there). :) Barring objection, I'll split this up later this week. Magic♪piano 19:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Mass Pike ends at the Airport. All of the sites shown as "Boston Harbor" are south of the Mass Pike, except Boston National Historical Park which is actually eight sites, none of which are really in Boston Harbor in any sense. Of the eight, only the Charlestown Navy Yard touches the harbor. Edna G. shipwreck, listed as "Boston Vicinity" is probably north of the Mass Pike. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Mass Pike seems a nice idea: simple for us editors to use, simple for locals to use, and less difficult for non-locals to use. Neighborhood-based splitting is far more important when we're grouping neighborhoods; when we're relying on highways, it's not a problem to have some neighborhoods on both sides. Look at the Cincinnati lists: we split the city east-west on its official east-west dividing street, and it works well, even though its biggest historic district (an entire neighborhood) is on both sides of that street. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have created National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Boston and National Register of Historic Places listings in southern Boston. Assuming the geo coordinates are at least approximately correct (as confirmed at least in the parts of the city I know well), there don't appear to be any issues. One list as 139 entries, the other 137, with two overlaps. I have somewhat arbitrarily placed Luna (tugboat) in the southern list: the geo coordinates are at best out of date, she is listed by NPS as being at Commonwealth Wharf (i.e. World Trade Center) but was not there when I once was out that way, the comments on her rehabilitation are rather dated, and the owner's web site has not been updated in some time either. (I may place calls to see if/when/where she is/will be at some point.) I will probably propagate the necessary changes into the Boston, Suffolk County, and Massachusetts lists later this weekend. Magic♪piano 21:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe this work is now complete. Magic♪piano 22:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Thank you for your effort here. I am very surprised that it came out so close to even.

As for Luna, I am beginning to doubt her continued existence. She certainly is not in Boston and I would give ten to one against her being in Massachusetts. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just moved Bigelow School to southern Boston -- almost all of South Boston is south of the Mass Pike. I also removed a 2x #28 row in the the southern listing. The numbers don't work, either before or after my changes. Before we showed 137+139=276. There are two that are in both, so we are showing 274 total, yet the lead tells us that there are 275. Similarly, after my changes, it's 136+140=276 -2 =274. Did we lose one?

BTW, do we have a tool for easily inserting or removing rows? I used Excel, and took about ten minutes to change all the |pos=, but is there an easier way to deal with this new (to me) template {{NRHP row}}? . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone at WT:NRHP once mentioned having code (javascript I think) for automagically renumbering tables; I just do it by hand in the online editor. I found errors in the numbering on the south list (not sure if your fault or mine), it has 141 entries. Magic♪piano 14:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Mine. The error in the old list and the different error in my list produced the same problem with the total -- hence my question above -- I should have caught it. Sorry. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 16:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)