Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Maintaining lists of FA, FL, GA etc

A bot has recently been set up to maintain the lists of "Recognised content" for projects eg FAs, FLs, GAs, FPs etc, which can be a pain to maintain by hand. I've set this up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset, see User:JL-Bot/Project content for the instructions etc. Would this be useful for this project?— Rod talk 16:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think so; it's sounds like it would benefit any large project when it can be hard to keep track of Featured and Good content. Nev1 (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
OK I've set up the code for this & hopefully the bot will add the content within the next 24 hrs.— Rod talk 19:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename - List of heritage buildings in Vancouver

I have nom'ed this page for a rename. Please see it's talk page to comment. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Registers Covered

Hi guys, I've been out for a while because of fall semester, but I have about two weeks left on break, so I'm trying to get back into the groove of things. Before I left, I was working on color-coordinating all the various heritage registers this project covers and hard-coding them into Template:Designation for use in {{Infobox Historic Site}}. Before I left I was planning on making a subpage that could be a central location for all supported registers, so we would only have one list and thus one place to edit. I didn't get around to doing it before, but now that I'm back, I have. The subpage can be found at Template:Designation/Supported designations and contains every designation covered by the Designation template. That table is now transcluded onto Template:Designation/doc and the front page of this project.

As you can see, I've collapsed all of the U.S. National Register of Historic Places designations into a single row that can be expanded, and I've done the same with U.K. Listed Buildings. A few months back, there was a big discussion about the best way to handle these designations, since they would have taken over the entire documentation if every one got their own row, but I think this is a suitable compromise. I think I was the only one that was pushing for a generic "Listed Building" parameter that could be used in conjunction with "type", but in case anyone else wanted it, it's in there now. Still, editors can use Grade I, Category A, Grade B+, etc. designations and get specialized text, but if the grade/category is not known for the building, the generic "Listed Building" setting can be used.

While sorting out the NRHP/Listed Buildings dilemma was a big step, there is still more work to be done. When I transcluded the new subpage onto the main page of this project, I commented out the old table that was there, removing all the ones that were already in the new subpage. There are still several designations in the old table that haven't been given colors, callnames, text selections, etc., so if anyone would like to volunteer to label a few or assign colors to them, that would be much appreciated.

I see that when I was gone, not really much was done with the Designation template, but one editor (User:Doncram) did try to add a designation for New Zealand unsuccessfully. After looking back at the documentation I wrote, I was a bit unclear on how to go about adding new designations to the template, so I'm going to try to write up some new, clearer guidelines for when I'm gone (I'm not sure if I'll be able to edit through the spring semester either).

I have a few other small things I'd like to do after all of the registers are sorted, labelled, and included in the template, so any help would be appreciated. Glad to be back! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent work you have done. Just a comment from the UK viewpoint. In order for the colours of the different grades to be comparable to each other in the constituent countries a slight amendment will be needed. For Northern Ireland, Grade B+ should be coloured blue (not green) and Grade B1 should be green; for Scotland, Category B should be blue and Category C green. The colours will then more or less reflect similar importance of the buildings in all the countries. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah I'm glad you caught that. I think that was must a mental overlook on my part; I knew Grade B+, GradeII*, and Category B were all at least somewhat equal, but I think when I was editing Template:Designation that I switched Grades II and II* in importance. Anyway, the coloring problem is fixed now. Thanks for pointing that out!
I'd also like to point out that I've begun merging the two tables, and I expanded the documentation of Template:Designation a bit to include some requirements for addition. Many of the registers listed in the table previously on the front page of this project don't even have a Wikipedia page for the register, much less any kind of organizational scheme for properties or artifacts on that register. I believe there should be a basic criteria that must be met (which I outlined on the doc page) before addition can be granted, so some of the registers in the old table must be greatly expanded, or I don't see how adding them to the infobox will do any good. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that's fast work on changing the colours. Many thanks (again). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
What happened to all the other lists that were here, such as Archaeological Zones of Mexico, Archaeological Parks of Guatemala etc? Simon Burchell (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
From above: "When I transcluded the new subpage onto the main page of this project, I commented out the old table that was there..." The registers are still listed (all the ones that have at least Wikipedia pages on them at least), but they're in an HTML comment. If you want to see them, click on the edit link for the covered registers. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox update

In case no one is watching the talk page of {{Infobox Historic Site}}, I just posted a comment about a new feature I coded (but haven't included yet). See Template talk:Infobox Historic Site#Native Names for more information. I also made some smaller changes earlier like fixing a bug with coordinates that would still show the label in the infobox even if "coord_display" was set to title, changing the default coord display to "inline,title", and other small things. Comment here or on the template talk page if you'd like to see this native name update go in. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage

After several months of plugging away at it, I've finally finished the lists for all of the listings on the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage. I want to invite anyone interested to give input or make improvements, the lists are located at:

I divided them up this way in order to minimize page size. I modeled them on a simplified version of the NRHP lists, but I'm not particularly happy so far with the navigation within the page and between articles. Thanks! Altairisfar 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, great work with the articles! I don't see any problem with the way they're split up, but I think it might be beneficial to create a bunch of redirects, such as Properties on the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage in Mobile County, etc., and have them point to that county's section in the correct article. It may also be beneficial to append "List of" to all of these since list articles usually start with that.
Aside from that, I have a question. Template:Designation currently shows the text "Alabama Landmark" in the designation bar of Infobox Historic Site. Is that nomenclature correct? Are they called "Alabama Landmarks", or simply "Properties on the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage"? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I like the idea of the redirects, I think that would be helpful. They definitely are Alabama's landmarks, but I've never really seen them referred to as such. Newspaper articles and the Alabama Historical Commission always seem to simply mention something along the lines of "listed on/in the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage" or "listed on/in the Alabama Register." Altairisfar 23:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Yea, that's what I thought; I had never seen "Alabama Landmark" either, but I made the infobox say "Alabama Landmark" simply for space concerns. I don't think it's really that big of a deal, but if you'd like to change it to something more "officially" correct, I'm fine with . I don't think it really matters since the bar links to Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage. What do you think? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm very happy with it the way that you did it. In addition to space concerns, the current form makes it fit in with the other state and local designations better too. I don't foresee it ever being a matter of great debate. Thanks! Altairisfar 15:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Architecture of the United Kingdom

Hello all, just a nudge that I'm looking for collaborators to work on a new version of the Architecture of the United Kingdom page. It is presently found at User:Jza84/Sandbox3. To avoid accusations of bias, please feel free to get involved. Please give me a quick note on my talk page if you wish to get involved. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Takalik Abaj FA nom

Hi all. Takalik Abaj is currently at WP:FAC and is in danger of being mothballed due to lack of interest. I'd therefore like to invite any comments at the review page. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Article was promoted today. :) Simon Burchell (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bounty

I've put a $50 bounty on Blenheim Palace for delivery to FA by 11 July 2010, if anyone here is interested.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A building near site of Adam Smith's mother's home, where he wrote The Wealth of Nations

According to a commons category for its photo, the building at 220 High Street, Kirkcaldy, Scotland, is a Category B Listed building. Is there some way that can be confirmed? The building is of interest, also, for holding a plaque that declares it is on or near the site of the house where Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations. That house, per discussion at Talk:Adam Smith House was destroyed in 1834 however. So presumably this building is newer. Could it be a listed building, and for what reason? --doncram (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Historic Scotland Listed Building Report Nos 218-222 High Street are listed (Cat B) as a 5-bay, 4-storey, classical tenement. It says "Adam Smith (1723-1790) lived in the house previously on this site, a 3-storey building with crowstepped gables to the street, it was demolished 1834. The plaque was erected in 1953 by the Kirkcaldy Naturalists.". Hope that helps.— Rod talk 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Some development proceeding at Adam Smith House and its Talk page. --doncram (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

BLPs

About the big ongoing Biographies of Living Persons controversy at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, i can't fathom much of it. Too much written!

But, this CatScan comparison of category:architects vs. BLP unsourced shows about 18 architect articles lacking sources. Glancing at other "BLP unsourced" articles i found mostly that the articles seemed legit, just needed footnotes rather than external links, and i fixed a few. How about help on bringing this architect subset down to zero? --doncram (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Those architects that contain template BLP unsourced are:

I know most of these haven't designed historic buildings so relationship to wp:HSITES is tangential. Just trying to identify some part of the BLP issue to peel off and resolve, and then to strike off list above. --Doncram, 23:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

All addressed to some degree, removed from BLP unsourced. Thanks User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao for helping! --doncram (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Serbia

Hello! I am founder of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cultural Property of Great Importance. That covers all important Serbian cultural and historical monuments. I would love to add my WikiProject and all related Serbian sites to this WikiProject. It would be nice that some of the founders talk to me, and inform me what to do next! Until now, i created tons of articles regarding Serbian historic sites. Hope to hear you soon! :) --Tadija (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That looks great! While it appears that you (and possibly other members of the WikiProject) have a less-than-fluent level of English speaking ability, the register seems to be well organized and could qualify for addition into this project. I'll work on cleaning up the language in the articles later and adding the designation to our infobox, but until this Thursday night or so, I'm busy with school. Glad to have you aboard! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, we tried to make register nice looking. I personally hope for featured lists one day! You will explain my that infobox designation add, and all other regarding this project when you have time! Good luck with school! :) --Tadija (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sorry it's taken so long, but I just copy edited the English on the register's main page. It appears as if all of the lists are not finished, though; some links are just redirects to other places. If you'd like, I'd be willing to help you list out all of the monuments in each category, using the English version of http://spomenicikulture.mi.sanu.ac.rs/list.php as a source.
Pertaining to the infobox, see Template:Designation for an explanation of what's needed to add this register. Basically all you need to do is come up with a color scheme and some other stuff. After the designation is supported by this project, you can add {{Infobox Historic Site}} to any of the articles you wish and include the Serbian Cultural Property of Great Importance tag on them.
Let me know if you have questions! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, i would ask you first just for copy editing, as i will finished soon all pages. You need to know Serbian for this, as register is not translated fully to English..  :( But for copy-editing, COOL! :) --Tadija (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

List of National Monuments of Ireland

I was just alerting the rest of the project that List of National Monuments of Ireland is now completely table-ized and includes all ~1000 monuments in the Republic of Ireland. The list-article is about 69 kB long, though.. should it be split out into county lists similar to how WP:NRHP does with their lists? (i.e. National Register of Historic Places listings in Mississippi) I'm not getting much response from the main editor before me, so I turned to you guys. Should I just leave it, or what? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Great list. I think splitting it out into county lists would be appropriate, but maybe we should see if we could get some input at WikiProject Ireland also? Altairisfar 19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't think about that. Question raised at WT:IE#List of National Monuments of Ireland. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Northern Ireland

Do we have any list of listed buildings in Northern Ireland? Reading Dunluce Castle, I was surprised to see that the article says nothing about listed building status, and I can't find any page discussing listed buildings in NI. All we have is Category:Listed buildings in Northern Ireland and its three subcategories, which contain only ten articles between the three. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a searchable list from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. As with Scotland NI appears to still use A, B1, B2 rather than I, II*, II.— Rod talk 08:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea and others

Website is located here. They have a heritage search by area, and it appears they have a complete database online. Think it could be added to the list? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I found the World Ship Trust - anyone know anything about that? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
One more: National Heritage Institute of the Philippines. There appears to be a database in progress here, and an incomplete list here. And there's a good rundown of categories here. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Project cleanup listing

After several months out of action a bot has now updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites/Cleanup listing. 187, or 10.7%, of this projects articles are flagged for cleanup, including several GAs & articles which are tagged as top and high importance for the project. Any help with providing references, coordinates etc would be great.— Rod talk 15:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Governing body" in NHSCanada pages/infoboxes - always Parks Canada or??

Please see Talk:List_of_National_Historic_Sites_of_Canada#Parks_Canada_jurisdiction_re_infoboxes; if replying, please reply there.Skookum1 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Another project to add

Heritage Foundation Pakistan - see their website. Looks like something else that might be of interest. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

See Template:Designation/doc#Requirements. Specifically the second requirement. There isn't a list article anywhere, and I can't even find a list on their website. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, someone's been creating articles about some of them - I'll ask and see if I can't find a list. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Scotland

There is currently a list of Grade I listed buildings for each English county, but currently no lists of the equivalent Category A buildings in Scotland. To fill this gap, I have begun gathering information, and have set up a 'template' article, covering the Clackmannanshire area. This draws on existing featured lists such as Grade I listed buildings in Manchester and Grade I listed buildings in Taunton Deane. Since this would be the first of potentially 32 lists, I'd like to get it right from the start. The draft page is at User:Jonathan Oldenbuck/LB in Clacks, I'd welcome any comment or suggestions for improvement. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's getting off to a good start. The only suggestion I would make is that you use coordinates rather than grid references. I know that the lists you mention above use GRs, but coordinates give much more accurate locations, with an arrow pointing to the "spot"; for example see Listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area). You can then also use the maps of coordinates, which are rather good fun. Plenty of hard (but interesting) work ahead. Good luck.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Its looking good - just one minor point based on having done lots of these & got them to FL is that the HB number is an external link within the table - I was criticised for this & was told that I had to turn them all into properly formatted references.— Rod talk 16:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments guys. I'm working with GRs as that's what the source data uses, I take your point (and those the maps of coordinates are great btw) but I'm not to keen to translate 3700 GRs into lat/long if I can avoid it! Rod thanks for the pointer re external links, I'll have a go at reformatting those. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I've found it surprisingly easy to "get" coords using Earth Tools - it makes the lists so much more informative, and it gives good links to aerial photos (or it does in England).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again, I'll look into Earth Tools. Draft page now moved to mainspace at List of Category A listed buildings in Clackmannanshire. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It's good to see Scottish lists being started – nice work! I agree with Peter's and Rod's comments above, and would add that Featured List candidacy is certainly a realistic aim. In the meantime, I have seen an interesting fact in the lead, which has encouraged me to nominate the list for the Did You Know? feature on the Main Page. If accepted, this will result in some Main Page exposure and hopefully a large number of "eyes" on it (and some more exposure for the project as well). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Hassocks, much appreciated! Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, I have completed list pages for each of the Counties of Northern Ireland: List of Grade A listed buildings in County Antrim, see navbox for the others. Still working on Scotland mind... Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

I don't know if this WP has a barnstar or not (not checked), but if you havent and want to consider creating one, this image is a possible candidate for use. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Spain

Can someone create this new designation for Spain?

Generally it is recommended that there be a list article of all sites on the register; might you (or a collaboration of people) be able to start one? Possibly List of Bienes de Interés Cultural? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I have started a list.--Alan (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How to describe and infobox a 1466 building moved in 1910

I've just found a stub for Crosby Hall and I've been trying to improve expand the article. My problem is the building was originally constructed in 1466 and then large parts of it moved & rebuilt in 1910. How should I describe this & what do I put as date of construction etc in the infobox (I also can't get a map to work there). Any help appreciated.— Rod talk 21:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I would put a dual construction date.. something like: "1466 (Great Hall and Parlour)<br /> 1910 (Remainder)" It appears as if the map is working fine? What do you mean by this? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Another editor sorted the map about 30 seconds after I posted the message. Thanks I've now added the construction date(s) to the infobox.— Rod talk 21:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

British Museum prize

The British Museum is offering 5 prizes of £100 (≈$140USD/€120) at their shop/bookshop for new Featured Articles on British Museum related topics - in any Wikipedia language edition. Ideally the subjects will be articles about collection items.

The English-Wikipedia page WP:GLAM/BM is the clearing house for the BM's involvement with Wikipedia

They suggest a good place to start is at the British Museum's "highlights" page and sort "by culture" or "by place" relevant to your own culture/history/language. I did this & searched for Somerset. One of the hits was about the Sweet Track which was a pretty poor article for such a significant feature of my home county. I've made a start on improving it & if anyone fancied helping that would be great (we could share the prize :-) Obviously if others have ideas for BM related articles relevant to this project we could look at improving them as well.— Rod talk 20:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

After all the flak received by WP in the popular press, it's good to see that an academic institution is taking us seriously.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

List of historic civil engineering landmarks / List of Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks

Comments invited at Talk:List of historic civil engineering landmarks#Requested move. --doncram (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever its proper list-article name is to be, I think this is a valid historic register to include among those covered by this WikiProject. I boldly added it to the Wikiproject's list, but find my edit reverted by another editor. Can others comment, please? I don't myself care about what color it is supposed to get in the HSITES' color template system, if it needs one at all. Can't we simply add any local or other formal historic register to this wikiproject, without a lot of bureaucracy? --doncram (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I was the one that removed your addition to the list. I don't have a problem with adding the designation to this project, but that list is not technically the list of registers under this project. It is a list of registers supported by {{Infobox Historic Site}} and Template:Designation. By all means we can cover the register (i.e. add the {{WikiProject Historic Sites}} banner to talk pages), but in order for it to be added to the list of supported designations, support must first be added to the Designation template as has been done for every single other register on that list. For information on how to do that, see Template:Designation/doc#Adding new designations.
I take it as if you feel this is a personal attack on you when in fact it is just sticking to the system in place. Like I said, there's no red tape to adding any register to this wikiproject, but that list is not what you thought it to be. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to add the historic register to the section at wp:HSITES titled "Historic registers covered". Could you please just add it there? Please do check your email though. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to do, but there is no such list of "historic registers covered". The list on the front page is simply a transclusion of registers supported by the infobox of this project, all of which are under the scope of this project. A register can be covered by the project (i.e. project tag on the talk page) and not show up on the list. Since the list of registers supported by the infobox and the list of registers under the scope of this project have such a high overlap (nearly 100% if not exactly 100%), there is only one list for both. It is simple to add a register to the infobox as you can find out by clicking the link I gave you earlier. The only way for the link to appear in the list that is transcluded on the front page is to add it to the infobox, which is in most cases desirable. Are there any articles on this register that need an infobox but can't really find one that fits? If so, adding the register to this project won't fix that problem, but adding the register to the infobox will because it will make available an infobox specifically tailored to that article's needs.
Simply follow the steps on that page I linked to and suggest some reasoning behind colors, callnames, etc., and the register can be added.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pennsylvania, City of Pittsburgh, PHLF

So, there are now three complete listings for historical sites within the state of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania state historical markers

First is the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission's (PHMC) Pennsylvania state historical markers. These are the official historical markers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that have existed since 1914, and since 1946, have been overseen by the PHMC. A jumping off point for the complete list for all 2,313 markers listed individually by Pennsylvania's 67 counties can be found at List of Pennsylvania state historical markers. The scope of these markers are somewhat unique from other historical sites (like NRHP) as they often mark a person, place, event, path, structure (often long gone)...really anything that has had a significant historical impact in Pennsylvania. The color scheme that makes the most sense is the official state colors, blue & gold, probably in the style of the markers themselves, which is gold text on a blue field (see this photo for an example). Obvious call names include "Pennsylvania", "PA", and "Penn".

This looks good to me. Color scheme and callnames sound good, although the full name ("Pennsylvania state historical marker") is usually included as a callname for designations. I would also suggest using "PHMC". As for the subject matter receiving markers, I don't really think that is relevant to the infobox; many registers have designations for "intangible" objects or people. I don't really see how this infobox can be used on articles related to people... but at least for the buildings, sites, and other non-moving, non-living objects, this is a valid designation. If no one objects, I'll add it soon.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
IMO, the state marker's aren't an historical designation, they're just information / educational signs. Almost all states have an historical marker program, but only some have historical landmark program (For example, I believe Mississippi does both). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 19:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
You're correct about Mississippi. This page shows their Historic Marker program, and this page (as well as this list) shows their state landmark program. I, however, don't agree with you about the markers not being a historical designation. The marker program itself (at least in the MS case) claims to "identify and interpret the most important historical sites" in the state. When I created the list of Mississippi Landmarks, I saw the MS marker program, but since I couldn't find an online list of marker locations (though I've seen several around the city of Meridian where I was born), I didn't create a list on here. The PA lists, however, are already online and fairly developed. I see no reason for not including this as a historical designation. If anything, we should find more states' marker programs (if in fact they do have them) and add them on here. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason why the PA marker lists wouldn't fall under the scope of the project, but adding it as a designation would be somewhat misleading. The signs, technically, aren't designating anything (one generally can't designate an event or a person an historical site), they're actually commemorating. The MS marker site says that; the PA marker site [1] doesn't use actually use that term, instead saying the markers "capture the memory of people, places, and events" (i.e. commemoration). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 20:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Admittedly, they don't fit neatly into established categories because the scope of the markers is broader than most. However, according to the actual PHMC guidelines, "the person, place, or event to be marked had a significant impact...of statewide or national historical significance". The quote you refer to is the lay text on their front web page. The designations thus do include archeological sites, buildings, battlefields, and structures that are clearly within the scope of this infobox, but also individuals who, yes, are more commemorative. However, even that distinction is blurred as the markers are almost always placed at a location of significance to that individual (e.g. birthplace, home, workplace), whether or not the structure continues to exist. While this makes the selection of an accompanying photo in the list articles more open to interpretation (especially since the markers themselves are copyrighted), I don't think it should effect their status as marking historic sites here any less relevant. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Using that logic, Niagara, neither listed buildings nor sites on the National Register of Historic Places should have a designation either. Any designation is commemorating some historical event, person, or site; what makes these markers different? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course the subjects of the markers have to have had a "significant impact" or anyone with a spare thousand dollars or so could have one created, commemorating themselves if they wanted. When a building is designated a listed building or on NRHP, its status changes (be it protection from demolition or just eligibility for federal tax credits). Nothing is being designated when a PHMC marker is approved and erected. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The reality is that the NRHP is mostly an honorary list. It doesn't change the legal status of anything about the property. It may, but not necessarily does, make the owners of the property eligible for tax incentives for restoration. It is a list, not a designation. In fact, you don't even get a plaque or any physical representation that a property is so listed. It is actually much weaker than many local designations. By your definition, only a National Historic Landmark is a designation. You are stating that a change in legal status is necessary for something to be "designated"? Where and when did this become a criteria for a "designation"? That also doesn't appear to be the case for Alabama or Nevada, both already included with designations in this infobox. The lack of change in legal status certainly doesn't alter the fact that these historical markers do in fact designate historical sites and that they are in fact the official state historical designations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I took some time to think about this and came up with, IMO, the clearest explanation of why historical markers shouldn't get a special header in the infobox: when a subject is put on the NRHP, or made an Alabama or Mississippi Landmark, the subject is put on the list; when a PHMC or Nevada or Mississippi marker is produced for a subject, the marker is put on the list, not the subject. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your explanations seem to me to now be a moving target of semantics and I continue to disagree with them. The construction of one list, mostly a bureaucratic secretarial undertaking, has no bearing on the significance of the another, nor does it nullify the actual objective of the program to identify historic sites associated with the site iteself or someone/thing associated with it (and both are done in this program). The list of PA markers in the PHMC database designate significant people, places or events at the locations where they are placed, and each is entered into the database as the marker title, address, description (i.e. the subject I guess), type of marker, GPS coordinates, and keywords. Suggesting that a PA marker title on the PHMC database list somehow corresponds to a "list of markers" that disqualifies its identification of the significance of a historic site is in no way different than suggesting the official title on the NRHP form constitutes the creation of a detached "list" of NRHP designations. It likewise ignores the review processes for each program, as well as the text of the description on the NRHP application form, or such a similar description on the PA form, as well as the descriptive summation that ends up on the marker/plaque itself. Along this line of thinking, the only difference between such "lists" is the Park Service does not hand out physical plaques to people, whereas the PMHC does. No offense intended, but these explanations continue to defy my own logic, and apparently, established precedent in this project. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
...And this is why I don't, usually, get involved with these kinds of discussions. By your logic the State of Pennsylvania has been "designated" 29 times, one for each marker that was erected.
Of course those markers won't have articles or have this infobox designation. As mentioned previously, the markers don't all fit neatly into established categories because the scope of the markers is broader than most. However, there are 2,284 other markers, and hundreds of them do fit neatly into a historic site category even by your criteria. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Should Dudemanfellabra decide to implement it...fine, I will still disagree with it and will, personally, not include any historical markers in an infobox because it still doesn't make sense to me, but I won't become belligerent or disruptive over it (as that appears to be the most common outcome in discussions like this). I pointed out what I felt were reasonable arguments for the differences between historical markers and other historical designations, and would rather go back researching / writing articles of interest anyways.
By the way, the PHMC no longer gives away the markers, the person applying for one is expected to foot the bill. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
As clearly stated on the website, due to a cut in state funding because of the economy. I'm not following the relevance of that fact per the previous discussion, other than it shows that in hundreds of cases, the NHRP list and the PHMC list is even more similar. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
How about this? Show me at least two articles where the designation in the infobox would be a welcomed addition. If you can, I'll add it; if you can't, I won't. Sound like a deal?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Off the top of my head and sticking strictly to markers that would seem to fit Niagra's criteria (e.g. only specifically about the site or structure still present): Allegheny Arsenal, Allegheny Observatory, Bost Building, Braddock's Field, Crawford Grill, Fort Pitt, Neville House, Stephen Foster Memorial, Yohogania Courthouse, Central Library, Christ Church, Church of the Advocate, Eastern State Penitentiary, Johnson House (The), Laurel Hill Cemetery, Masonic Temple......well there are hundreds, some of them already have NRHP infoboxes and they are absolutely identical in scope and context to the PA marker.
But if adding these are too controversial, I'm sure the Pennsylvania Wikiproject can come up with its own infobox. I don't want to offend Niagra because he is a great contributor to Wikipedia, and there is no point to compromising the success of the project over technicalities like this. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Through the Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh Wikiprojects, I have created a new infobox template for Pennsylvania historic sites and landmarks (Infobox PAhistoric) that can handle Pittsburgh's designations and other local designations as well. Therefore, there should be no further need to incorporate those designations into this project's infobox if it remains too controversial and/or this project doesn't see fit to do so. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw "Fork alert" mention at Talk page of the NRHP infobox, regarding this. Hmm. One option that requires not programming, for places that are both NRHP-listed and listed on this historic markers program, is to use the local designation option within the NRHP infobox. For example, how the Los Angeles Historic Cultural (LAHCM?) program markers are indicated for sites that are both. For places that are not NRHP-listed, I would think that an adaptation of the Historic sites infobox template should be provided, as was done for other local historic register programs. --doncram (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
In all instances, the local designation option is used in the NRHP infobox if they are so listed, but as requested there, that option would be improved with the addition of a text color option (an easy option to add if the editing wasn't restricted to administrators) so that it could match the color schemes used in the historic sites project. The only down side of the historic sites infobox here is its inability to be embedded into other infoboxes (e.g. infoboxes for bridges, military structures, etc). CrazyPaco (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

City of Pittsburgh Historic Designations

There has been confusion in the past between two separate designations within the city of Pittsburgh. The City of Pittsburgh's designation is voted on by the city council only for properties within the city limits of Pittsburgh. The designation carries the weight of protective law, and it is often used to protect endangered properties that are threatened by development. There are four City of Pittsburgh designation types: Historic Districts (12), Historic Sites (1), Historic Structures (85), and Historic Objects (2). A complete list of these designations can be found in the first half of the List of Pittsburgh Landmarks#City of Pittsburgh Historic Designations. The existing "Pittsburgh Landmarks" designation, with its black & gold color scheme that matches the city's official colors, could be converted to City of Pittsburgh Historic Designations. The call names should be changed to "City of Pittsburgh" and/or "PIT". The "Pittsburgh Historic Landmark", "Pittsburgh Landmark" likely should be dropped to avoid confusion with the second, separate city landmark designation, PHLF (see below). "PHLF" should also be removed as a designation for these City awarded designations.

It is possible that the City of Pittsburgh designation portion of the list article could be split off into its own List of City of Pittsburgh historic designations.

Personally I think the lists should be split out to allow specific links from the bar in the infobox. To clear up any confusion, there could be a small explanatory article left at List of Pittsburgh Landmarks (kind of like what you've done here) with links pointing to the individual articles. As for the designation itself, I agree that using the current black/gold scheme is desirable, and I agree with removing the callnames you suggested. I think we should also include "Pittsburgh City Landmark" and "Pittsburgh City" (while using "Pittsburgh PHLF" for the next designation to distinguish). My only real gripe is that the list isn't split out.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks

The other half of the confusion over Pittsburgh landmarks rests in the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation's (PHLF) historic landmark plaque program which has existed since 1968. PHLF is a private foundation that has sought to identify architecturally significant structures within Allegheny County. Although the award carries no legal protection, landmark status is only given if the historical integrity for a property/structure has been sufficiently retained. Starting in 2010, the scope has been expanded to cover structures within a 250 mile radius of Pittsburgh, as long as those structures have a significant connection to Pittsburgh's history. (However, no such properties outside of Allegheny County are yet listed.) There are at least 538 properties that have been awarded landmark status at one time, although 20 have been demolished or had their landmark status withdrawn. All known such distinguished properties are listed at List of Pittsburgh Landmarks#Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks. A color scheme of blue lettering on a gold field could distinguish this historic status from the Pennsylvania and City designations and is already used in some NHRP infoboxes (see Cathedral of Learning). Alternatively, black and gold could also be used, in reverse field from the City designations, as long as it is legible. Call designations should be "PHLF" and "Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation".

It is possible that the PHLF designation portion of the list article could be split off into its own List of Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation Historic Landmarks.

Like I said above, I think the list should be split out. About coloring, I would choose the inverted black/gold design for this so as to show that it is closer in scope to the city landmarks than to the state markers. There could be, however, a completely new design for this one... possibly a color scheme used on their website? I'm open to whatever, but my preference is NOT to go with blue and gold. The Cathedral of Learning article uses a gold color which is used in 20398402398423 designations in California, Nevada, and maybe some other places, so I think it best to avoid that and change the existing calls to some other scheme. Call names look good (+"Pittsburgh PHLF" as I mentioned above), so I'm fine with adding this as soon as the list is split out.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you are right about the inverted black & gold...if it is legible. There really aren't consistent color schemes used by the PHLF on their website or plaques...it seems to vary over time. I agree with your call name suggestions here and above. On your suggestion, I'm going to go I went ahead and split the article. I supposed it can be reverted if it doesn't seem to work or there are enough complaints. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that separate designations for City and PHLF designations are desirable for the historic site infobox template because there are properties that have been awarded both designations, as well as properties that have only received one or the other.

Let me know questions or thoughts on these designation requests. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

list of largest houses?

Perhaps it's not the most attractive quality for a house, but i wonder about a list-article to designate the largest known residences. Like there are world's tallest buildings and various city's tallest buildings list-articles, and links from each article covered to the building tallest previously and next. Some U.S. candidates for mention:

  • Shadowbrook Cottage, a former house in the Berkshires mountains of Massachusetts, which was "the Gilded Age mansion "Shadowbrook Cottage" which was reputed to be the largest private residence in the U.S. at the time of its completion in 1894." (I've heard of this before, and just also came across mention of it in mostly-unrelated Kripalu Center article.)
  • There's Aaron Spelling's 56,500-square-foot mansion, known as The Manor (Los Angeles, California), which is the largest house in Los Angeles County.
  • There's Hyde Hall in Otsego County, New York, built in early 1800s for the heir of English colonial governor of New York State (George Clarke (governor)), who had a vast estate. The house/mansion was very large for its time, but looks not too impressive now, which was perhaps one of the largest homes in the United States in its day. This one is a historic site: it is a U.S. National Historic Landmark and is NRHP-listed.

--doncram (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this could be problematic as getting a shared definition of largest could mean "floor area" and include things about number of floors etc. Is only the main building included, what about attached structures? do you include servants quarters or just living area etc? Does it have to be as the house was originally built as many of those in the UK have had wings added and removed over hundreds of years?— Rod talk 20:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree it would be hard to exactly quantify the size of places reliably to support exact rankings. For example there may be a historic palace of Persia or Thrace or anywhere else where the exact size is unknowable. But I think a list of residences that were/are known specifically for their being large could be interesting and sorta useful. Such a list-article could also provide some other benchmarks, like how large is Buckingham Palace and the U.S. White House for example. From the Windsor Castle article: "Windsor Castle, ... is the largest inhabited castle in the world and, dating back to the time of William the Conqueror, is the oldest in continuous occupation.[1] The castle's floor area is about 45,000 square metres (480,000 sq ft)."[2]
  1. ^ In operation for nearly 1000 years
  2. ^ Calculated based on report of area destroyed in 1992 fire as being 9,000 square metres, which was reported to be about one-fifth of the total area of the castle. See http://www.essential-architecture.com/LO/LO-050.htm
    3. Which royal family of any country has the biggest residence, currently, I don't know. I'd kinda be interested in comparing those to the Aaron Spelling house size, and to some super-huge house in Utah that i've heard about. --doncram (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    On a quick google (& no claims of RS) I'd agree re windsor castle (intheworld.org/biggest-house-in-the-world/ ref) being the largest of the UK palaces, but try the Palace of the Faith Light of the sultan of Brunei for size.— Rod talk 16:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    I see there's List of Baroque residences which covers many big palaces, without giving size estimates though. --doncram (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    I've stumbled upon this, which might be of interest. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks! I tried a reply that also include an external link to a webpage listing some modern-day U.S. large houses, including one in Colorado over 50,000 sf, but Wikipedia's software cancelled my edit (because the included URL is on some bad list). That List of largest historic houses in the United States could use some definition. Perhaps it was formed from some list of older-than-50-years-old houses? I would think any new house that is now known to be largest would be instantly important, historic. Perhaps there's room/need for a world-wide list-article, but that list-article can address the U.S. material i'd be interested in sharing. I'll move to Talk:List of largest historic houses in the United States for that. Thanks again! --doncram (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

    Details in infobox

    I used Template:Infobox Historic Site on the article about the Sweet Track. This is currently at FAC (more comments welcome), where User:Johnbod criticised the level of detail given (4 seperate sections are each designated as Scheduled Ancient Monuments) saying "Do we really need four different bars, designation numbers, and approval dates for Scheduled Ancient Monument status in the infobox? Can't these be consolidated? This one is not as bad as the appalling Template:Infobox World Heritage Site (join the campaign to improve that here), but it still clutters up the top of the page with bureaucratic details likely to be of interest to no one." As a result I have removed 2 of the reference numbers, but does anyone else have any thoughts on the level of detail which is appropriate in this infobox?— Rod talk 09:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

    You could make use of the <br /> tag. i.e. "designation1_date=13 June 1996 (Section 1)<br />22 April 1996 (Section 2)" and "designation1_number=27978 (Section 1)<br />27979 (Section 2)", etc. and then describe in the prose somewhere the different sections (Section 1 = 500m north east of Moorgate Farm, Section 2 = 650m east of Canada Farm, etc.) --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

    Two state registers

    This should be far less controversial than the PA proposals, but in the midst of my keeping an eye on the clean up category for the NRHP infobox, I came across state-level designations that should be included: the New Jersey Register of Historic Places and Michigan State Historic Sites. See articles Four Corners (Newark) and Bridge School (Michigan) for how the designations should be formatted. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 04:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

    The NJRHP is actually on my to-do list, so I'm getting around to that. Thanks for bringing up the Michigan designation though.. I think I'd seen it before and planned on creating a list using this. Usually it's desired for a designation to at least have a somewhat thorough list before being added to the infobox. I'll add Michigan to my to-do list as well.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

    style guideline for disambiguation of places

    There's a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Order of entries allowing geographic order explicitly, again which may be of interest. The proposal is for a change to disambiguation page style guidelines, to allow, explicitly, for dab pages of places to be ordered by country, state, city, rather than by a more complicated ordering. Many dab pages are currently organized by geography; this proposal would make clear that is acceptable. Please consider commenting there. --doncram (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Historic sites articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

    Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

    We would like to ask you to review the Historic sites articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

    We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

    For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

    They have semi-automtically picked 48 sites, which look like mostly good topics for a DVD release. I note the one that is "unassessed", Robben Island in South Africa, has a cleanup tag about its external links and a citation needed about whether its lighthouse is flashing or rotating. Could anyone fix those issues, at least? I haven't reviewed others or compared our list of top-rated articles to what they picked. --doncram (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

    wikipedia policy on locations of archeological sites

    There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#"Address restricted" and pictures which may be of interest. --doncram (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks for the link. What weird behaviour.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    Which is weird, a historic register system that allows for listings with address restriction promises? Or wikipedians wanting to try to respect/cooperate with that system? i could imagine u mean either. please do comment there! --doncram (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

    St John the Baptist Church, Inglesham

    I have recently been writing articles on redundant churches in Wiltshire under the care of the Churches Conservation Trust. I've now started work on St John the Baptist Church, Inglesham which is a bit out of the ordinary! I will be nominating it for DYK soon, but think it could go on to GA status. It has some ancient architecture and decoration covering nearly 1000 years. I would be grateful for any help experts on this wikiproject could offer:

    • Some of the technical terms are complex and I'm not sure I've got them all reight
    • My books on old churches don't cover Wiltshire does anyone have any suitable sources?
    • My prose is generally poor and it would be great if someone could give it a copyedit.

    Any help appreciated.— Rod talk 08:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


    Cultural Monument of Albania

    List seems to have been completely filled out, but lacking infoboxes. I can do those with AWB, though, once there's a designation in place. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

    Issues with Infobox Historic Site, new article Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec

    Please see the template talk for my issues with Infobox Historic Site. Also I wanted to announce I've begun working on Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

    WikiProject cleanup listing

    I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    Request

    See Template talk:Designation#Request. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

    Done Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

    www.imagesofengland.org.uk

    This English Heritage-operated website has been used on many articles relating to listed buildings. Not sure when, but it seems to have been revamped, and URLs in the form (e.g.) http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=302261&mode=quick no longer work. I can't find what the new, correct version of such links should be. I recommend Heritage Gateway as a suitable replacement; this is also operated by English Heritage, and is updated with new and changed listed buildings (unlike IoE, which is static as of 2001).

    PS. Links would need to change as folllows (using the above as an example):


    Also cross-posted to WT:ARCH and WT:UKGEO, where discussion has begun. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

    Can we get a bot to do this? A simple regex search would do the trick I think.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    I've started a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 39#reformatting 7,610 reference URLs.— Rod talk 08:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    RFD about what is now a disambiguation page, National Historic District

    Some comments from wikipedians familiar with disambiguation policy would be welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 5#National Historic District. A redirect at National Historic District was proposed for deletion, and an alternative of replacing that with a disambiguation page has been proposed.

    Full disclosure: I am the one proposing deletion of the redirect or disambiguation page. The term "National Historic District" is not valid under any national historic designation program or any other regime; it is effectively a typo appearing in a scattered few small local nonprofit or commercial websites, posted by ignorant writers. None of the items offered under the proposed disambiguaton page are valid synonyms for the bogus phrase. There were about 50 wikipedia links to the bogus phrase which i have replaced, so now there are no links from mainspace. I suggest deletion of the phrase, to undermine future inappropriate usage of the phrase. I am particularly concerned that the disambiguation page is being deliberately "internationalized" to suggest that the term "National Historic District" might be erroneously applied in reference to areas in other countries, where there is not yet any known mistaken usage. Comments there welcome. --doncram (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

    Cultural Heritage of Serbia

    Just to tell you, we renamed the WikiProject, and main designation page, from Wikipedia:WikiProject Cultural Property of Great Importance to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cultural Heritage of Serbia. So this entry should be fixed in this wikiproject main page list. Also, main page was moved from Cultural Property of Great Importance to Cultural Heritage of Serbia. Thanks in advance! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 21:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

    The link has been fixed.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    But its not? It's still listed as Cultural Property of Great Importance? --WhiteWriter speaks 23:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    Where exactly are you seeing this link?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Historic_sites/Archive_4&oldid=1136051079"