Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Nebraska

split / reorganize NE listings by region

I notice at http://www.nebraskahistory.org/histpres/nebraska/index.htm that the state of Nebraska and/or its historical preservation people divide the state up by regions consisting of groups of counties. Could we follow that grouping, and divide up this big list in that way? This could involve re-merging back into region lists, some individual counties that may have been further split out. It would involve reducing down this main page into functioning more as an index. The main index table here would group the counties differently (by region) but be sortable by county. There has been movement in other states, such as for Alaska, to rearrange NRHP list-articles by region, but finding an appropriate grouping of counties is sometimes hard. Here, the state or its historic preservation people provide a ready-made grouping. What does anyone else think about this? --doncram (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the way we have it now? Why can't we simply split out some more counties (say, those with six or more listings) if it's too large? A larger number of smaller lists is easier for navigation than a small number of large lists, because they download far faster. We can trust locals to know in which county they are, and out-of-town visitors who want to find a site would have a map anyway, so it wouldn't be confusing to split out more counties. Nyttend (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, one reason is so that the linked Google and Bing maps ("Map of all coordinates") work better for readers, showing together all the NRHPs in a given region. And work better for any editor/photographer interested in finding NRHPs close together, including across county lines. The Google map linked to this main list-article displays patches of NRHPs, and you can't tell why, whether there is gap of no NRHPs or the county has been split out. The Bing map is worse, as it cuts after after showing the first 200 coordinates only, so it shows only some of the coords in the article and almost all readers would not understand that it is showing locations in the first counties alphabetically, except for those having county list-articles split out, and cutting off in the middle of some county when 200 limit is reached. The state-wide map is misleading, in both versions. A regional list-articles' map would not be misleading (and even if in the region a large county has been split out, that would be clear or could be clarified in the text). doncram (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If we split out more counties from the current version, we're going to have a small enough total number of listings on this page that the maps will display properly. Moreover, it's obvious when looking at the list that we've split out some counties. We tell the reader that Blaine, Logan, McPherson, and Stanton counties have no listings, and the occasional reader who wants to see the map before the list won't long be confused upon looking at the lists — of course if the reader found this page, it won't be hard to find any other page, and the clickable county map will enable the reader to find what counties are nearby. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the large number of small counties, I think the division by regions as provided by the state is an excellent idea. If you separate out Lincoln and Douglas Counties (home respectively to Omaha and Lincoln, and each with more than 90 listings) and divide by the described regions, you end up with lists varying in size from 29 to 138, which fix the template inclusion problem and provide reasonable geomapping sets. I would construct a table in this list similar to those used for cities whose lists are broken up, and merge/redirect all of the smaller separated county lists. I think that a clickable region map could also be made up. Magic♪piano 21:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing places in Kearney County?

I think I'm missing something fundamental about the NRHP. This list, which claims to be complete, currently shows 7 places in Kearney County, but when I search on the NRHP web site, I find 20 places listed in Kearney County. Is there some reason that the remaining 13 places are left off of this list? I assume that there is some aspect of what is listed and what is not that I am missing.

The reason I ask is that I was brought here by the page for the Frank,_George_W.,_House, which is not listed on this page but which appears to be a legitimate NRHP listing. Jonesey95 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Kearney, Nebraska is in Buffalo County, not in Kearney County. When you're running your NRHP search, are you distinguishing between the two? Ammodramus (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I knew there was something I was missing. That's it. When you search on the NPS site for listings in Kearney County, it returns any listing with "Kearney" in it, counterintuitively enough. So it finds listings in (the city of) Kearney that are in Buffalo County, even though I asked specifically for Kearney County. Thanks!

Now, where can I go to register a complaint about Kearney being in the wrong county? Also, Buffalo buffalo! Jonesey95 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't stop there. Lincoln is not in Lincoln County. Adams is not in Adams County. Dawson is not in Dawson County. Thayer is not in Thayer County. Valley isn't in Valley County. Johnson is in Nemaha County, and Morrill is in Scotts Bluff county—whose county seat isn't Scottsbluff (one word, not two) but Gering. Grant is a long way from Grant County. Loup City isn't in Loup County, and Brownville is nowhere near Brown County. There might be more, but that should keep you busy for a while... Ammodramus (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

WP comment of the year. Made my day. Thx. Jonesey95 (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Address-restricted graphic

I'm planning to remove the address-restricted graphic from these tables. This will keep counties from showing up on the color-coded maps at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress as fully illustrated, when in fact there are AR sites with no illustrations.

I am trying to get illustrations for all of the NRHP sites in Nebraska, AR or not. Some are easy: there's no reason why Dowse Sod House in Custer County should be AR, since it's open as a museum, promoted as a tourist destination, and shown in at least two editions of Delorme's Nebraska road atlas. Others are better concealed, but can still be found and photographed. Still others can't or shouldn't be photographed themselves, but photos can be taken and/or found to illustrate them—for instance, nearby historical markers, or artifacts recovered from archaeological sites.

I'd like the Progress site to provide an accurate representation of what's done and what needs doing in Nebraska. Since I understand that future updates to the site may count AR graphics as illustrations, it appears that it'll be necessary to remove the graphics. Ammodramus (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Updating notice

Would it be of benefit to future updaters to have a notice that only appears in the edit phase such as the following "When updating this article make certain to also change, when appropriate, the introduction total and the table of count by county." (particularly for those individual county articles, so that people are aware that particular sections are not automatically changed when the tables contents are changed. Also, the number of designated sites in the intro differs from the by county count. Could someone in the know resolve that?LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)