Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

House of the Temple

Does anyone know if this could be a NRHP, but listed under a different name? I'm shocked if it isn't one. I walk past it everyday and it's old and huge. The reason I ask is because I'm having some difficulties with locating the registered names for certain buildings in D.C. Two examples of NRHPs that are named something totally different is the United Church and the Clarence Moore House/Embassy of Uzbekistan. It's officially titled "Canadian Embassy" in the database, although it's not the Canadian embassy. Obviously I found the registered names for those two buildings, but a few buildings I'm wondering could be possible NRHPs under a different name are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Riggs Bank is another one I'm having trouble with. There's the building in Georgetown (the one I just linked to) and this one, across from the Department of Treasury Building. The sign says PNC Bank, but when I got close, there was a plaque saying it was Riggs Bank. Side note: It's very interesting taking pictures of NRHPs and NHLs in this city because there are so many historic buildings. I'll walk past a crappy-looking building that's actually a NHL, while other buildings that are very old, large, and beautiful aren't even NRHPs. APK yada yada 05:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot one. The Embassy of Cameroon in Washington, D.C. is mentioned here as being a NRHP. I can't find it in the database. APK yada yada 06:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The Embassy of Cameroon is probably a contributing property to the Massachusetts Avenue Historic District. As far as the House of the Temple is concerned, it's probably a contributing property to the Sixteenth Street Historic District. I don't have a list of contributing properties handy, but based on a look at these Google Earth layers in Google Earth, the buildings in question look like they're within those districts. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This page about the Scottish Rite Temple pretty much confirms that it's in the district. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your help. In regards to this building, a real estate website says it's a historic landmark, but I'm not finding it in the database. This book says its the former Italian embassy, but I'm not sure what it's called now. APK yada yada 17:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fun, and NRHP related, site

So someone's been updating the links in a few of the Florida NHRPs I made many moons ago. It's the ones relating to a company that does spherical panoramas, and they've done a few of the NRHPs around here. Their index is here and one great example is of the interior of the Lyric Theatre in Stuart. It's a memory ho', but worth it if you've got the system resources. I dunno how they do it, especially the floor/ground and ceiling/sky, but it's pretty amazing. Watch out when you "grab" with the mouse and move around, it can make you dizzy. I'll definitely know I've got the right places when I get to them to take my own photos. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Emergency! Texas Governor's Mansion in the news

It's in the news that Texas Governor's Mansion, an NRHP and NHL, was burned. See for example NYTimes article.

Help! The article needs development! The article is in poor shape, did not mention it was a National Historic Landmark, was tagged with "refimprove". I just added NRHP nomination text/photo links, HABS link, NRIS footnote, NHL link, and dropped the refimprove tag. But i can't develop the article with all that information right now. Can anyone help? It's high profile for us.... doncram (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Me take a look today, tomorrow maybe. I just don't have the time I used to, sorry, I made a minor change to it already, after having read the story in the news, how sad, they say arson. --IvoShandor (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if it could be raised to start, to get rid of the stub notices at the bottom. Ipoellet (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton Grange National Memorial

On a happier note, Alexander Hamilton's home, The Grange, was moved yesterday (June 7, 2008) and was featured in this morning's (June 8, 2008) press. clariosophic (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Lighthouse articles being renamed to another project's style

Many of the articles on lighthouses and light stations included in List of Registered Historic Places in California have been moved from "Foo Point Lighthouse" or "Foo Point Light Station" to "Foo Point Light." This is done without discussion in most cases. Some existing articles were simply changed to redirects to new articles with the new naming convention adopted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses.

Please review the discussion regarding the propsal to move Point Reyes Lighthouse to Point Reyes Light at Talk:Point Reyes Lighthouse.--Hjal (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Windmills

Can I make a plea for all windmill articles that fall under this project to be added to the List of windmills article, and for all articles to be tagged with the category of Post mills, Smock mills or Tower mills as appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Iron Turbine Windmill, NRHP in Prescott, Arizona; May 2008
Iron Turbine Windmill, NRHP in Prescott, Arizona; May 2008
I count 26 windmills listed on the National Register, by regular Elkman NRHP infobox generator report. These could easily be added to the List of windmills article. Hey, Elkman, can you generate a table of those in customary format, to accomplish that most efficiently? We should just plop such a table into the List of windmills article, and then merge in the few others listed there for the United States.... Categorizing by smock mill or other type will have to be done by more knowledgeable people, eventually, though. doncram (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's a quick stab at it, mainly where I replaced the word "roundhouse" in the roundhouses query. By the way, are those numbers in the leftmost column worth anything? It seems like a maintenance issue if we ever need to delete rows from a list. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're not sure what type a mill is, see Post mill, Smock mill and Tower mill. If you're still not sure after that, give me a yell. Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, somewhere here now I have added a pic of historic Iron Turbine Windmill in Prescott, Arizona. Unlike all the pics for Post, Smock, and Tower mills, it is not enclosed. I have some other pics for modern windmills in the western U.S. that are also rather bare and different. What type is this? doncram (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider supporting Mjroots' proposal for a new WikiProject Mills at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Start again, to cover windmills, watermills, animal powered mills and related topics. Votes of support, even if you don't expect to do a lot in the area yourself, would be appreciated, so this nice initiative could get off the ground. doncram (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That photo shows what would be classed as windpump in the UK. I could create a category for it if you wish. The Dutch call them "American windmills" although they have some quite large ones over there. Mjroots (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Hmm, i keep seeing the windmill terminology in U.S. documents, but i can see that "windpump" may be a more descriptive term, and that windmill is somewhat of a misnomer, though it is the American term. Thanks for the windpump category, i will use it. But, are windpumps welcome or not in WikiProject Mills, given that they are not mills?
Of course they are welcome. They are powered by the wind, aren't they! <g>. Windpumps are not "mainstream", but there are people who have them as their main interest. Getting back to the bigger windmills, there is now an infobox available for use. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Octagon house

Ref. new article Octagon House. The creator says it is disambiguation, but it is a list of National Register of Historic Places places - I don't think disambiguation is correct here. Either way there is a conflict with the existing Octagon house article. I'm suggesting the list is moved to List of octagon houses. Views needed - see Talk:Octagon House. ProfDEH (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

{{NRHPdis}}

I created a new template, since the project-related disambiguation pages do seem to be proliferating. It may need tweaking; tweak away. I've added the pages I could find easily; check Category:National Register of Historic Places disambiguation. Please feel free to add more that you may know of, and to add to any pages created in the future. Cheers! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Old news?

I just noticed that Chicago Board of Trade Building will be on the main page on June 18 (June 17, 7:00 pm Chicago time). Congrats to all who worked on it!--Appraiser (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Winslow House

There are two articles created the same day by the same person on the same subject, the Isaac Winslow House . There is a proposal to merge them. Anybody care to add their two cents? Einbierbitte (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mainly that we should be welcoming and helpful to a new contributor, Winslowdirector. Based on that username choice, i assume the editor is the director of the Winslow House Museum, who can probably provide some great photos, who can probably be encouraged to provide great references, who can help make a great article. I don't mind for tone to be a little bit promotional, even, as it would just be promoting an innocent, nonprofit house museum, not some evil empire! doncram (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Careful there, Don ... one person's evil empire may be another's house museum ;^) <with tongue firmly planted in cheek>--Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

C-Class

There was a discussion and consensus recently to create a class between start and B. I've had it added to the assessment template, and created Category:C-Class National Register of Historic Places articles. If anyone feels like reassessing based on the new class, go right ahead. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

help

Does anyone see what's causing the reference errors in Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site, Ninety Six National Historic Site, and Kate Mullany House? Thanks--Appraiser (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I ran into this a few days ago. The NRHP2 infobox, in order to be more flexible, requires that the designated field specify designated as what. In these cases, since they were designated as NHL's, the correction was designated_nhl=. I've made the corrections to these articles. Lvklock (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thanks--Appraiser (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

wp:List of fully illustrated NRHP lists

Hey:

I only see images for 9 of the 12 in Delaware. clariosophic (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops i meant Minnesota, with its 22 pics for 22 NHLs. Changed, above. Thanks. doncram (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
List of Registered Historic Places in Hennepin County, Minnesota has pictures of all 140 properties on it, as well. List of Registered Historic Places in Ramsey County, Minnesota isn't too far behind -- only the sites in White Bear Lake, North Oaks, and New Brighton don't have pictures yet. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Dakota County is only missing one (just because they moved the damn building before I got there), and Scott County is only missing four (two of which are "restricted address).--Appraiser (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Awesome about Hennepin, and it has some lovely pics. Hmm, i don't know if those "almost" ones can be allowed to be listed here. :) Not sure what might count as an allowable exception, to be listed here with an asterisk.As you know, it's possible that the official NRHP documents include a public domain pic, surely that must be tried before an exception could be processed.... Also, for a restricted address site, it's possible to give a pic "in the vicinity of". If you happen to know the exact location of the restricted site, its possible to label it that way, too, and/or deliberately take a pic not at the exact location. Some buildings are in gated communities or on restricted military bases, which makes getting pics difficult but not impossible. I climbed a hill recently to get a telephoto-style pic of an RHP in a gated area, feeling like a papparazzi(sp?). Or u could rent a plane and take a wide, aerial view, even if u don't know exactly which building it is, you know it's in the picture.... doncram (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It's tough to beat Elkman's effort in capturing underwater pictures such as of the Hesper (shipwreck).--Appraiser (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Washington's NHL list was completed quite awhile ago. Murderbike (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

List of NHLs in FL - 33 out of 39. Of the ones left, 3 are sort of get-able - Fort San Marcos De Apalache is a state park, the Zora Neale Hurston House I dunno how accessible it is, and the Maple Leaf is underwater, but artifacts from it I think are in a Jax museum. The other 3, well, Okeechobee Battlefield is not marked at all (but there's a re-enactment there, so maybe try to contact those folks), and Mud Lake Canal and the Windover archaeological site sound really restricted, and mayn't be able to get photos of them. Could have to settle for ones with the original NHL submissions. Btw, congrats to all on the hard work. Difficult to believe we've gotten this far. Yay, team! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops i meant to say Washington's NHL list, with its 23 NHLs. Sorry, Murderbike! It has 6 additional photos covering all the sites in two additional short lists: NPS areas that are not also NHLs, and former NHLs of the state. Those are a bonus; I'd say that it would have been fully illustrated with 23 NHL pics. doncram (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I was mostly joking about all the lists we make here, to open with a red-link to wp:List of fully illustrated NRHP lists, as if we would be putting such lists of lists out in mainspace. But actually, should we put this list onto the wp:NRHP main page? I would be happy to see these accomplishments listed there, myself. doncram (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

List of NHLs in WV I'm going to Mingo County, WV next weekend and plan to take a picture of a NHL without a picture, Matewan Historic District. I'll be getting pics of other places on the NRHP as I travel from Georgetown, KY to Williamson, WV. The hard work that you'll are doing by sorting out these lists is inspiring. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 17:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FloNight's nice comment above led me to create Elkman county table-ized reports for Floyd County, KY, Pike County, KY, and Mungo County, WV, so that FloNight might have locations to upload road trip pictures to. It caused me to add a generic paragraph including and explaining use of "Map of all coordinates" to Google maps for List of Registered Historic Places in Kentucky (Fayette County to Hopkins County)‎ , List of Registered Historic Places in Kentucky (Pendleton County to Woodford County)‎, and List of Registered Historic Places in West Virginia. I wonder, should we create a template for the generic wording (or modification thereof) that I used in the top of each of those RHP list articles, in order to include the same generic wording in the top of every RHP list that has any coordinates included? doncram (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cape Henry Light

Yes, Doncram, it is an octagon and I put in a quote from Benjamin Latrobe to that effect. The image in the infobox, though is of the new lighthouse. There are pictures below of the two together (the old brick one is to the right). I hesitate to replace it, though. Best wishes. Another octagonal lighthouse on the NRHP is Eldred Rock Light in Alaska. There there are two infoboxes. One for the Lighthouse project & one for NRHP. Maybe that would work for Cape Henry. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dayton; and No. 22 18 The Inyo

Is there someone who can fix this page? The title got all mixed up with the NRIS inversions. It is supposed to be the "Virginia and Truckee RR. Engines No. 18, The Dayton; and No. 22, The Inyo". Einbierbitte (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary and redundant banners

(moved from Template talk:Infobox nrhp2)
Per this edit, I must request that we stick to just one federal designation where possible in infobox above-the-image banners. NHLs and NHSes are already included by definition on the Register ... putting all that info on the top of the picture adds nothing save clutter, and having just been through an FA nom where visual clutter in the infobox was an issue we had to address to get the star, I'm especially sensitive. I'm pretty sure that those banners would have to be removed as well to get that article through FAC.

Use them for local desigations, sure, but all that federal stuff is unnecessary. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern about this, though I think there is benefit to including the multiple banners for sites like Grey Towers. It is still a compact presentation that i think is useful for readers, who might click on the banner titles and go and learn about what is a Registered Historic Place, what is an NHS, what is an NHL, etc. It is simply a confusing fact about Grey Towers that it has three Federal designations that all sound kinda similar, though we know they are distinct. Arraying the banners together at least makes that clear: they look similar but are distinct, and they all apply for this site.
This is not an issue for programming the NRHP2 infobox though, right? An editor can choose not to use certain fields in the NRHP2 infobox, so that fewer banners show. Although that doesn't stop another editor from adding them back of course. doncram (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with Daniel Case here. One of the cool features that the nrhp2 provides is the ability to show multiple banners on sites that are so-designated. This solution is far superior to having separate infoboxes for the various NPS units. His subsequent edit removed the NHL color, while I have been systematically adding infoboxes and templates to NHLs to give them the recognition they deserve. There are relatively few NHLs and even fewer NHSs. To omit either one seems capricious and arbitrary.--Appraiser (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with Daniel too.. in fact, the multiple bar system was one of the main reasons for creating the NRHP2 infobox. I also disagree that the infobox looks too cluttered to allow the article to be denied FA. See Chicago Board of Trade Building; it has multiple designations and was recently the featured article on the main page. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it would survive an FAR, or at least not with that decoration. (As was also made clear in that FAC, what another article does or has is of little bearing on the article under dicussion). IIRC, CBTB was approved a long time ago, before that section of the MOS was written. Daniel Case (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Show them all. The CBT infobox looks great. I agree that the general public has no idea that an NHL is also a NRHP, etc. The Grey Towers one looked better before also, although I think the NHS banner would look better with a lighter color. Also the New York State Route 32 article that Daniel Case refers to is not an NRHP article and it's really comparing apples to oranges. On highway article lists of interchanges, etc., can well go in separate tables as was done in Route 32, although I would prefer seeing the sign images that were deleted and I prefer the table in a sidebox. clariosophic (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My point was not addressed by any of these rebuttals. The extra bars, for federal designations anyway, are redundant and unnecessary. All NHLs are on the NRHP to begin with. As are all NHSes. And all historic districts. Redundant information is visual clutter. (Local landmark status, however, should be permitted a banner.

We already have (or should have) that big {{Registered Historic Places}} banner at the bottom of every page signifying that it's a Registered Historic Place. That is enough.

What individual projects do matters little, if it violates Wikipedia policy, no matter how "cool" it looks (This was exactly the take-home message from the NY 32 FAC). And I would refer you all to this section of the MOS ... despite the page title, it applies to all information conveyed through visual rather than purely textual means (remember, MOS is policy). I do not know of any other project or infobox that so routinely places differently-colored banners over images or maps in infoboxes. It distracts and possibly confuses the reader rather than educate and inform. Articles about individual listings are not the place to re-educate the public about the confusion I admit exists between NHLs and RHPs and the proper term to use for each. That's why we have National Historic Landmark linked in the bar. In fact, putting two separate bars there may actually create the impression the two are separate and distinct, instead of making the point that NHLs and NHSes are a subset of the NRHP.

Consider also this, from the MOS page on infoboxes: How important is the field to the articles that will use the infobox? Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article? Grey Towers is first and foremost an NHS, but it is also an NHL and an RHP. All that can be found in the categories at the bottom of the article. Putting two or three banners above it where only one conveys the most salient info also distracts attention from the picture, and thus basic principles of layout.

Look, guys, I know you worked a long time on this template and it does have its useful features, as I've said above. But I can't see any article with an NHL and NRHP banner in the infobox ever making featured status. The extra bar should be for local landmark status where such exists. And only that. Daniel Case (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to concur, at least partly, with Daniel. Less is more. The NHLs and the NHSs are all NRHPs, and that is or should be well explained in the articles on NHLs and NHSs that you would get to if u clicked on them. So, the extra bar that NRHP2 adds, which lists "National Register of Historic Places", is in fact redundant. And NRHP is mentioned further below within the infobox, twice, in the date added to NRHP and in the NRHP refnum fields. Besides there usually is the big NRHP template at the bottom of the article (not such a great template, but that's another discussion).
But still, about NHLs and NHSs, they ARE separate and distinct. There are places which are NHSs but not NHLs and vice versa. They are distinct, and i currently think it helps to have that indicated with the color bars. Although, as Daniel could point out, there is redundancy perhaps with the date designated NHL, below, and with the NHS established date that should be below (but is missing for Grey Towers, year but not exact date unavailable in the source, I noticed). doncram (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I would actually, after reviewing this, agree that we should use both the NHS and NHL banners if both are applicable, as the overlap between them is not as total as it is between them and the NRHP as a whole. Grey Towers is both, but something like Touro Synagogue National Historic Site (in which, actually, this discussion is moot since it should use {{infobox religious building}} as an actively used place of worship) isn't an NHL (why not? It's only the oldest synagogue in the Western Hemsisphere). I will edit Grey Towers (and, for that matter, Kate Mullany House) appropriately. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we can't do this yet with nrhp2. Can someone fix the template so it only displays the NHL and NHS banners if so desired? Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Dudemanfellabra pwns NRHP2, and likes it showing "U.S. National Register of Historic Places" in every instance. Sorry. :) Tho i think that line is somewhat redundant. At least we don't disagree about anything serious, like gun control or whatever. :) doncram (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's redundant at all. All of the designations are separate: A place can be designated a NRHP, a NHL, and a NHS, but the designations all occur at different dates. Yes all NHLs are NRHPs, and all NHSs are NRHPs, but not all NHSs are NHLs and vice versa. The reason the NRHP bar is included is to indicate that the box is for NRHPs.. If we just showed that the place was a NHL and an NHS, people that don't know how the NPS system works wouldn't know they were NRHPs.. All of the articles with this infobox are NRHPs at least, so they should have that bar. All the other designations contain parentheses showing that the location is "also" ______, _____, and _____, which are subsets of NRHP. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That distinction can be dealt with more date fields in the infobox, as it already is to some degree. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, D C has a point there, like i said he would. :) doncram (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Kappa House

I took a picture of the Kappa House (I didn't even realize it was a NRHP until I noticed this sign yesterday) and I can't seem to find its information in the database. Can someone else take a look at it? Gracias. APK PRAISE JEEBUS 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't find a listing for Kappa House itself in the NPS database, but it may be a contributing property to the Dupont Circle Historic District. Their website says the building was added to the NRHP in 1985 which was the year of the first of two boundary increases for the district. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:St. Anne's Episcopal Church

Please take a look at the above. Another editor seems to be taking issue at what we are trying to do on NRHP disambig pages. Thanks. clariosophic (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

date-sortable date format for old and new list-tables of NRHPs (Elkman, take heed!)

As has just come up in Talk at List of NHLs in NJ, the date format used in most of the NHL lists ([[04 Jul]] [[1961]] etc.) is not correct. I am responsible for the problem, i guess, so sorry, everyone! I thot that format worked, and it does in fact work for me and those wikipedians who have their date preferences set as i do (which may or may not be the most common).

But, the dates in these lists need to be converted so that they are sortable by everyone. I now prefer to use the "dts2" date-sortable template, to use less keystrokes in these list-tables. See List of NHLs in MN and List of NHLs in MO which are done with the DTS2 template, each date in format {{dts2|11|13|1966}}, which generates a hidden sort field and a display field. I prefer this to hard coding the hidden sort field, so that when we edit we don't need to have all the duplication in our faces, and it prevents discrepancies between the hidden and displayed dates, and it keeps the list-article file-size smaller. doncram (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what happens with the existing lists? Tedious amounts of editing dates, or is there some easier way? Lvklock (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been converting the [[month day]], [[year]] formats Elkman's county table generator produces into dts2 format dates by copying the tables out to Excel, doing some substringing and concatenating and then pasting the tables back into WP. It shouldn't take me all that long to go through the 50 NHL state lists, so I guess I'll volunteer for this task.
Elkman, if you're reading this, can you modify your nifty tools so they output the dates using the dts2 template? Sanfranman59 (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Sanfranman59! i see u r already marching thru the states. me, i did it the hard / stupid way, for the 2 i did.... doncram (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the county list generator so it will use {{dts2}} for listing dates. I pasted the results for St. Louis County, Minnesota into the sandbox at this revision of the sandbox in case anyone wants to see how it works. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Excellent ... you da (Elk?)man! --Sanfranman59 (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

{unindent} I made it through the N's alphabetically. I hope to get to the rest in the next couple of days. So far, the following lists have years only in the date column: Arkansas, California, Delaware, DC, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Montana & Nevada. In addition, only one of the sites in the Massachusetts list has a date. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All done ... additional states with only years in the date column: Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin and U.S. Territories --Sanfranman59 (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

NHLs by Fourth of July, or bust

Perhaps we could plan to take some pics of fireworks over some NHLs on July 2 or July 3, to illustrate the DYK? The Washington Monument, however, is an NRHP but it is not an NHL.

Hey, we are within about 100 NHL articles to be started, to completing out all 2,442 or so NHLs in the U.S. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/ProgressOnNHLsByState to see where a few more are needed.

I wonder, what about starting the remaining articles, and celebrating by putting up List of U.S. National Historic Landmarks by state for a DYK to appear on July 4?

It would require us keeping the short intro to that list short until June 29 (or would it be June 30?), and then doing a five-fold expansion of the intro on that day, and nominating it for DYK to appear 5 days later. Knock on wood, i think that would be accepted by DYK editors, who may be looking for something appropriate to highlight on the United States' Independence Day.

Anyhow, there has been an amazing amount of good energy put in, including starting articles, adding sources, adding more than 1500 photos, and comprehensively categorizing and linking. It would be nice to commemorate the completion of a stage with this, somehow, before moving on to getting all the lists to FL status.... doncram (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add to this splitting off currently merged NHLs such as Virginia City Historic District? Circeus (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure. It has been a judgment call all along, when to split a separate NHL article out of another article that already covers it briefly. Over time, i have gravitated towards always separating the NHL out, on the basis that there is always enough info for the NHL to grow into a good article on its own. And, have just now split Virginia City Historic District out of the Virginia City, Nevada article. Please do point out any others. doncram (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A quick check through the Illinois list reveals Fort Sheridan Historic District, Haymarket Martyrs' Monument and Starved Rock (where the problem is that what is designated is unclear in the article). There seems to also be a few cases like Bishop Hill Colony that were automatically generated, but never filled in with the crucial details. Circeus (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, i've now split Starved Rock out of Starved Rock State Park and added infobox and sources. I agree that Fort Sheridan Historic District deserves a main article, to be split out of Fort Sheridan, Illinois, although it did already have an infobox and other NHL info. I'll look at Haymarket again too, but it is painful to do this carving out of related articles, and not necessarily always helpful.
About the under-developed ones that you assume were automatically generated, well, they were all rather painfully developed, manually. I just revisited the Bishop Hill Colony article and developed it slightly more. Certainly many of the NHL articles are stubs, needing development, but if it has a helpful NRHP/NHL infobox, a link to its corresponding NHL webpage, and a link to any available NRHP Inventory/Nomination text and photo sets, which i had put in for that one, then I think it is okay. I mean it is "well-started", though not necessarily "Start" class quality for rating purposes. Some of the stubs started in that way since September 2007 have grown nicely, while others like the Bishop Hill Colony one did not develop at all, but i still consider them "started" well enough.
While on the subject, I know that there are other stub articles with barely any sources (perhaps some of the List of NHLs in ME?), which could benefit from addition of the NHL webpage source and the NRHP documents that i put in routinely. But if someone else created the article without those sources, i still consider it "started". However, the majority of the NHL articles have pictures and these sources and some good development. I was proposing to mark the occasion of getting them all "started". Perhaps my standards are too low? doncram (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So, I started looking at MD, did one stub last night. I don't think stub standards are too low for celebration. I do think fixing all the things that link to things that aren't quite right is prob too ambitious to get done by July 4. Just briefly looking through MD's list, I see Baltimore and Ohio Transportation Museum and Mount Clare Station links to article without Mount Clare Station in title, Clara Barton House links to Clara Barton National Historic Site (prob okay), several ships link to ship article with no NRHP infobox (OK?), Habre de Venture links to Thomas Stone National Historic Site, Hilda M. Willing goes to another link to click to get to article, London Town Publik House links to Londontowne, Maryland, Monocacy Battlefield links to Monocacy National Battlefield (prob fine), Mount Royal Station links to Royal Blue (B&O train), Mount Vernon Place Historic District links to Mount Vernon, Baltimore (prob ok), Thomas Point Shoal Light Station links to article with Light infobox, not NRHP, U.S. Naval Academy again, no NRHP infobox, also pic in list isn't in article. So, I get lost in all these things and it starts feeling way too much like work for me to be doing for fun! So, I'll be glad to help creating stubs. :) Lvklock (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, MD list looks kinda funny....locality column and county column are sort of mixing, also 1st column under Not NHL's is gobbledegook. Lvklock (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping! I think this goes to show that it helps to have other eyes review the NHLs that have been done, for all the states. To try to manage this, I have added a "Fourth of July checklist" column to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/ProgressOnNHLsByState. I pasted in Circeus and Lvklock's comments, and have begun striking them out as the individual problems are dealt with.
I checked off  Done for Alabama, Minnesota, New York, and New York City, because I know that each of those has a separate Start class article for each of its NHLs. Other eyes to review other states would be most welcome! I guess I am asking for a big, quick peer review....
Happily, i think the two states that Circeus and Lvklock comment about have more problems than most states do. List of NHLs in IL is one that i went through early on, back in October, and it doesn't surprise me that there are some problems there. List of NHLs in MD is one of the only 7 state lists that is simply not done yet, but can be finished soon. Those specific problems and more like them, if any more are identified, can be addressed before July 4, I am pretty sure. Thanks! doncram (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

standards for NHL creation drive

It seems a "NHLs by Fourth of July, or Bust" drive is in full swing, with 9 states checked off, and progress made in several of the states needing NHL stubs. We started with:

In total, seems like needed 113, of which about 30 (now 69?) have been done.

Beyond ensuring there are no red-links for NHL articles indexed by the state NHL lists, what is to be done in checking each state in the checklist column of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/ProgressOnNHLsByState is a bit vague.

Further, personally I would like to confirm that the NHL summary webpage link is added into each NHL article lacking one, either as a standalone footnote or to support an NHL date in the NRHP infobox. And, for each NHL article that has an NRHP infobox, I would like to see the NHL designation date included in the infobox (with the nhlsum source). Not sure if this can be done as part of this drive, but i would like to make progress on these.

Lvklock suggests noting and/or fixing (and i comment):

  • Articles that need to be split out of other articles? let's have this be the main focus perhaps
  • Articles without NRHP infoboxes? if it lacks any infobox, i think we usually want to add one, unless it is a GA or FA or otherwise very well developed and would not benefit. If there is a Lighthouse or Ships or other infobox, it still usually helps to add a stripped down NRHP infobox. Certainly note where adding NRHP infobox looks to be helpful
  • Articles tagged for needing citations? if we have yet to add NHL webpage and NRHP docs, let's note them and/or just add them
Unfortunately for the past couple days the NPS Pdf Focus website has been misfunctioning. That makes the NRHP/NHL Inventory/Nomination text and photo references unavailable. It tricked me into stating, in some new articles, that NRHP reference documents are not available, when they probably usually are available. So it's best for now not to try to add these references. doncram (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Articles tagged for multiple issues? sure, note these
  • Articles that still say "is significant for....." (still end with ellipses)? aack, those reflect my past poor attempts to start a lot of articles, should be noted and/or fixed
  • IUCN bar in infobox, but no NHL bar? those would be Protected Areas infoboxes, which often should be converted to NRHP infoboxes, and often the sites should not be considered Protected Areas. I would leave converting these to a separate cleanup drive in cooperation with WikiProject Protected Areas.

Comments on the above would be welcome. doncram (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of people have been helping, thanks everyone! Lvklock has been marching through the state lists, noting problems in the checklist column of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/ProgressOnNHLsByState. Unfortunately, there are lots of problems in some state lists, where there were false blue-links to towns or to schools, when a separate article on a historic district or whatever is needed. Those are painful to resolve, usually, IMO. Also, adding NHL date and source to articles, and adding descriptions into the state NHL list-articles, takes time. So, it remains dicey about whether we can finish by June 27 or 28, when needed for 4th of July DYK. doncram (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I will admit to being a bit discouraged. Is it worth my carrying on with this review? Just adding the NHL designation date and Summary reference to those I've noted in Illinois and Indiana would probably take up most of my available Wikitime for the next week or so, and that's providing the site came back up. Lvklock (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like it might be more like August. But it's still a goal worth striving for, whenever the whole process gets done. Keep going as best as y'all can, folks! --Ebyabe (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The red-links can all be eliminated, and many of the other improvements can be done by July 4, it now appears, again thanks to efforts of many. And I think Lvklock especially has been doing a great job identifying problems that should be resolved for various articles, but probably too many to be resolved by July 4. So, I suggest we do what we can and try to "complete the start" for as many of the state NHL lists as possible by July 4. And give the new C-rating to each such NHL list that has all the articles well-started, all of them split out from towns and schools and battles and so forth where appropriate. And then paste any remaining checklist items into the Talk pages of the remaining NHL lists. The goal would be to resolve as much as we can, so as to paste fewer, shorter lists of issues into the state NHL list talk pages. Can we get 40 state-lists completed in that way, by July 4? doncram (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
40 could be doable.Lvklock (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

celebration planning

Happy Fourth, from a typical PA State Park Grill! (recycled, with apologies)

I proposed celebrating by nominating a DYK to appear on July 4, and shepherding it thru the DYK process. However, given recent experience trying for a DYK on List of octagon houses, i don't expect DYK editors will be all that welcoming. I am not complaining about DYK, it is what it is. But it strikes me more now that DYK can take a lot of effort, and DYK success is not guaranteed to get much exposure. And maybe, especially, it is not fair to try to use the DYK process for celebrating a wikiproject-specific accomplishment. So, i hope no one minds terribly if i do not spearhead a DYK for the List of NHLs by state article, after all, is that okay? Other ideas?

I agree about the DYK. Maybe I'll just celebrate personally by taking the laptop to the beach and watching fireworks over the screen while I finish a state review ;) Lvklock (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

status, counting down...

See the checklist at wp:NHL progress. Lots done, there was more to do than expected. Any last-minute help would be appreciated! doncram (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

DONE!

  1. We created an article for every NHL red-link in the 54 NHL list-articles by area (50 states, plus the District of Columbia, Philadelphia, New York City, and other).
  2. We reviewed them all!
  3. We fixed most basic problems, so 80% are deemed "well-started" by a definition we concocted for the drive.
  4. We added lots of photos! As of July 4, there are 1,769 illustrated articles, out of 2,442 total. On May 12, there had been 1,502. Many of the 267 additions came as part of this drive.

Done, but not finished. As of July 4, a surprising 20% of the articles, 493 NHLs in 20 area-lists, still have one or more such problems to clear. And there are 54 lists and 2,400 or so articles to elevate to featured status! To paraphrase a British war leader, we've not yet reached the beginning of the end, but at least we have reached an end of the beginning! doncram (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_13&oldid=1137371851"