Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40

White Plains, Tennessee

Can someone verify that the White Plains house in Putnam County, Tennessee is located in Cookeville rather than Algood? The NRHP places it in Cookeville, although this page places it in Algood. The census map for Algood and the house's coordinates (36°10′39.49″N 85°27′0.88″W / 36.1776361°N 85.4502444°W / 36.1776361; -85.4502444 (White Plains)) seem to suggest it's located just outside of Algood, but it's really close. Bms4880 (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any direct knowledge of this (you, on the other hand, are in Cookeville and may be able to get some firsthand info), but I think you are onto something there, Bms4880. From the maps, it's clear that White Plains was not within either the Cookeville or Algood city limits as of 2000. Not only is it just a hair outside the Algood city limits, but to get there from Cookeville (by any reasonably direct route) you need to go through Algood. Additional information: the Algood article says that "White Plains" was the original name of that community. --Orlady (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What about not-so-useful archaeological sites?

Do archaeologically-listed NRHPs ever get removed for lack of archaeological value? I was talking with an acquaintance of mine who is very familiar with the history of Logan County, Ohio and trained as an archaeologist; he told me that at least one of the Lake Ridge Island Mounds had been excavated and found to be simply a little naturally-occurring hill with no archaeological value. I want to put this information into the article, but so doing would be an obvious example of original research; but I'm curious if sites like this ever get removed because they aren't what we thought they were? Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the number of properties that have been demolished but are still listed shown on Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues, I think this more subtle problem is even less likely to get attention. After all, the mound is still there and maybe (yeah, sure) the excavators dug in the wrong place. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, they're not there anymore; except for the one pictured in the infobox, I think that they're all gone. Probably the property owners decided that they were in the way (a driveway has been built where it seems that one "mound" was) and that there was no good reason to keep them if they weren't anything more than naturally-occurring knolls. But good point about the demolished-but-still-listed buildings. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Are NRHP nominations in the public domain? upstateNYer 20:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the current practice is this: If you get the nomination form from the NPS website, then yes, it is in the public domain (unless specifically noted otherwise). If you get it elsewhere, then the status is not so clear and we should assume that it is not in the public domain as a general rule. --Polaron | Talk 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no. If the nomination document is the work of a Federal employee, which some are, then it would be in the public domain. Ohterwise, however, the NPS website which Polaron refers to, the PDF Focus interface, has documents and photos that are copyright owned by other parties. In the application process, the applying parties give release to the NPS of the documents and photos for the NPS itself to use in its webpages, but copyright ownership is not transferred. There has been more interest in wikipedia in using the photos, and the copyright status of photos in the PDF Focus system has been repeatedly been clarified in that way, and I believe this extends to the documents as well. Unfortunately, there is a known error of programming in the PDF Focus which attaches the label "public domain" to all documents and photos, when it should show something like "okay to display to the public". The NPS is aware of it, and a staff person informed me upon the advice of their lawyers that the label was about to be changed, but that was a long time ago and it has not been changed. However, an erroneous label by the NPS does not change the actual copyright status of documents and photos in their system. See Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#some but not all National Park Service photos are public domain for some more info, including a link to the NPS copyright policy statement.
In practice, I expect that many states and others who actually do hold copyright would not mind their NRHP applications being put into the public domain. Correspondence by User:Pubdog with the Maryland Historical Society established that it was their belief that the many documents they had created were in the public domain. But, technically, they are not. And, for many applications which are written by professional consultants, I expect that the copyright owners would indeed want to fight for continued protection of their copyrights. User:UpstateNYer, if you are interested in the many NYS NRHP applications which are prepared by NYS OPRHP staff, I imagine it is quite possible that they would agree to systematically release them all into the public domain, but that has never been requested. doncram (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I kind of figured all that, I just wanted to make sure I was right. upstateNYer 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Historic district (United States) GAR notice

Historic district (United States) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidance Requested

I am new to Wikipedia and am seeking assistance. I created a new page User:SCPS70458/Camp_Salmen_House. I could find no specific template to use, so used a general template. I then posted a request for feedback and was directed to the templates for this project.

I have now included the template but cannot figure out how to move the TOC. I also am unhappy with the photo quality. I am not sure what is the proper size to convert to before uploading. The originals are large.

There are a number of National Register places in my area that I would like to work on and this is my learning tool.

Any and all help, guidance and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

--SCPS70458 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. Photos are re-sized automatically, so just keep the large one you uploaded. You (or some other editor) can always update the picture later on. Some good guidelines are to keep the composition of the pic very simple, otherwise detail is lost in the small pic. Also if you can, push the contrast a bit with photoshop or other editor. Of course extensive retouching should not be done, but good foreground/background contrast on the small pics really helps. If you make the pics "thumb" then a user can click on them to get full size. Put enough text in the body and have one pic per several paragraphs. As for the TOC, you need a lead section. To begin, put one sentence before the first "===" section with the article title in bold that summarizes the whole article. Take a look at some existing articles for the syntax (just click "edit this page" on some articles that look good, but do not actually edit them). The other nit is that your link to the Nature Park needs to go in the External Links section, not in-line. Also the MPS should use <ref>...</ref> tags instead of being in line, I think. W Nowicki (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I would further advise setting up an account at Wikimedia Commons, and uploading the photographs to Commons. You can display Commons photos on Wikipedia just like you would display Wikipedia photos. Commons photos are accessible to all Wikipedias worldwide, not just the English-speaking Wikipedia. Wikipedia also has a Commons template that directs users to photographs of a specific subject, so you can display more photographs without having to cram them all into the article body. If you need help with setting up a Commons account and uploading Commons photos, let me know. Bms4880 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Governing Body" in NRHP

Question: The "Governing Body" is often a little off, sometimes way off, for example:

  • Dept of Transportation for lighthouses -- should probably be U.S. Coast Guard
  • US Postal Service for the Castine, Maine, Historic District - 255 buildings

Do we just post what's there? Apply some common sense? Delete it if it looks odd? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Usually, unless it conflicts. I bet there is a post office in that historic district, so the USPS is probably one of the many governing bodies. The Coast Guard would be the most likely option for lighthouses (interestingly, the Coast Guard was a part of the DOT until 2003, so it wasn't too far off). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
My druthers would be to delete it if it doesn't make sense (and even if it does make sense, don't include it unless there is apparent value to the information). The information is likely there primarily due to the fact that the National Register is a government program and its administrators need to be sensitive to intra- and intergovernmental relations. The fact that it's on the form doesn't necessarily make it noteworthy for an encyclopedia article. Also, NRHP noms can be as much as several decades old, so "governing body" entries may be seriously out of date. --Orlady (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The "governing body" field in the National Register database isn't very specific. There are a lot of times where it says "State" or "Local" when there's usually a more specific owner, like the Minnesota Historical Society. (Actually, I just noticed that the Washburn A Mill is listed as being privately owned, but it's really owned by the Minnesota Historical Society.) I think the only time the "governing body" is really accurate is with federally owned properties, and even that is a bit off. If there's one post office in a historic district, the National Register database will list "U. S. Postal Service" as the governing body, even though the other 254 buildings in Castine, Maine aren't owned by the Postal Service. So, feel free to correct the governing body. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. BTW, I had assumed that when NRIS said "Private", it meant, "not Federal", rather than in the more common sense -- that's the standard used in the Coast Guard Light Lists -- they will say "Private" for any non USCG light, mark, or buoy, even when they are owned by a state or local government.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 21:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Bulletin 16a defines what the NPS means by public or private. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

NPS NRHP website is still broken

As I mentioned on September 1, 2009, The Governmnent's NRHP website kept giving off error messages every time I try to search for a site. I'd like to let everybody know that it still doesn't work. I had to once again resort to using NRHP.com to find the reference number for the Vail-Leavitt Music Hall, as I was fixing that article. ----DanTD (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, its working for me. Its been for a while. Do you know if your browser is accepting the cookies for nps.gov? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 15:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, my PC takes in cookies whether I want them or not. I don't know if it specifically blocks out any from nps.gov. ----DanTD (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried NPS Focus at this link? I've found that it works sometimes when the old NRIS site does not. (But it doesn't have the same database information.) --Orlady (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC) PS - Currently I can't search the NRIS database either, apparently because it is insisting that I use the Microsoft Windows operating system (I'm not on a Windows machine right now). --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, the Focus web page is working for me (Windows XP/Firefox). I was just able to find the Vail-Leavitt Music Hall there. But I can't get their old user interface to work. --sanfranman59 (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I found it there too, and a few other sites. Unfortunatley, they keep promising images, but none of them are showing up. All I get are pdf's with the words "This record has not yet been digitized," and the NPS logo. When Orlady told me about the Focus site, and that it's missing a lot of the database info, I wondered if trying it was even worthwhile to begin with.----DanTD (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

NRHP and Google

Has anyone noticed recently that NRHP sites are appearing on Google Maps? For example, in Florida the named dots here and here. It's not every NRHP, but it's interesting. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It was my understanding that Google picks up coordinates that are in the title line of articles (and only those that are in the title line) and shows them on maps. That understanding came from the statement at Template:coord#Purpose. However, Charles Adams-Woodbury Locke House appears on Google maps, but not at the Wikipedia coordinates and the house's coords are not in the article title line (they will be soon). On the other hand, Nixes Mate also appears on Google maps and Google uses the Wikipedia name, which is the official USCG Light List name, not the NRHP name (Nix's Mate Daybeacon).. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This project


I thought that WikiProject National Register of Historic Places was where we write about battlefields. Instead, the project itself is turning into a battlefield.

Could the various warring parties here please get back to writing and researching articles instead of sniping about naming, defining exact boundaries, and all of the other unproductive stuff that's been going on lately?

As an example: Yesterday, I grabbed a picture of Point Douglas-St. Louis River Road Bridge and created an article on it. It's the oldest stone arch bridge in Minnesota -- maybe the oldest bridge of any type in Minnesota. I think it took me half an hour or so to research and write the article, but I did it because I think the bridge is interesting. It dates back to Minnesota's earliest days as a territory, when one of Minnesota's first territorial representatives lobbied to get road funds for Minnesota.

By contrast, here's another article, this one contributed by one of the edit-warring participants: East Broad Street Historic District (Columbus, Ohio). Here's a salient fact from the article: "And perhaps it includes the East Broad Street Commercial Building which is also separately NRHP-listed." Perhaps? This is an encyclopedia. We write facts here, not speculations or unresearched guesses. I found the East Broad Street Multiple Resource Area document. Page 6 of the PDF file says that the historic district includes the north side of East Broad Street from Ohio Avenue to Monypenny Avenue, and the south side of East Broad Street from Sherman Avenue to Auburn Avenue. There are 66 contributing properties in the district, with a variety of architectural styles and a lot of historic integrity. What about the East Broad Street Commercial Building? It's on East Broad Street, and part of the same Multiple Property Submission, but it's located half a mile west of the district's boundaries. A quick read through the PDF or a check through Google Earth could have confirmed this.

I'm frustrated at reading the continued arguments and battles going on with this project. I don't expect everyone to climb down steep road embankments to get pictures and then to spend half an hour writing each article, but when this project attracts contributions that only have two minutes' worth of research besides the text from the infobox generator, I can't help but think that there are other agendas going on besides telling the stories of historic and architecturally significant properties. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Amen, brother. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I've stayed away such issues here. Haven't been able to get any new photos or start new articles, but an NHL at PR should count :-) ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree too, it's very unappealing to current and potential members. Some of the behavior has reminded me of work (and I work at a psychiatric hospital). Altairisfartalk 00:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree, either. I am finding it unpleasant to deal on several fronts within the wikiproject with unpleasant comments and aggressive editing. Comparisons to mental cases have come to mind for me too.
There are several different types of issues getting mixed up here, however. Just one area of conflict is around the creation of new redirects from NRHP HD names to town/village/hamlet articles and vice versa, and mergers/splits of such articles. In this area I identify with Elkman's stated horror about no research being done, but applied to the situation of combative mergers. I have tried to ask nicely the one editor involved in broadening that issue area, to desist. I have tried to get constructive discussion and to limit the scope of the issue to an area where a mutually agreed upon mediator would help decisions be reached. I am dismayed that the editing pattern has in recent days gone nationwide. The invited, informal mediation process is not working, I guess. I would welcome a formal dispute resolution process, or some other actual help here.
A second different area of conflict relates to systematic creation of stub articles statewide by some editors (not by me) and by my creation of scattered stub articles around the nation, as part of the mostly complete process of setting up properly disambiguated names for NRHP places, and then defending that system from random other attacks. The East Broad Street HD article which i created in this version falls into that category. I think Elkman is just not aware of the wider context for this. See current Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Broad Street Historic District and related discussions on the same page about order of entries, for a starter, if you are interested. Relating to those discussions at wt:MOSDAB, and to defend the whole system, it is sort of important to show some development of NRHPs covered in the Broad Street Historic District dab page. I picked the Columbus Ohio one to create specifically because I had just come across the East Broad Street MRA document, a source that I could use in developing that article. Now Elkman is beating up on me as if he is the only one who could find that document. Sure, that stub could/should be better developed, but I had in fact made some effort in it already. And there is a role for stub articles, generally, even without extra reason as applied here. When you others are saying "Amen" to Elkman, I think you are not specifically reading what he is saying. The only within-project problem about that East Broad Street article is the negative commenting about it by Elkman. (By the way, as a courtesy in response to User:Niagara's request, I routinely notify Niagara of any new PA stubs i find it necessary to create. Also, knowing Elkman's views, I notify Elkman of any new MN stub.)
A third huge area of past and potential conflict is about what to do where NRIS information is different than what a local editor believes to be correct. Misunderstandings and conflict among wikipedia editors here has hugely gone down, through use of the compromise system of reporting apparent errors into wp:NRIS info issues. There's a lot to do there, though, to support that system. Getting NRIS changes through seems to require addressing concerns of National Register staff about the wikiproject's covering of archeological sites....
It used to be that the Wikiproject was frequently united against perceived outsiders in response to attempts by others to delete NRHP articles and disambiguation pages, or to remove disambiguation about NRHPs, which happened frequently. But eventually the AFDs on NRHP articles proper have faded away. And the running conflict on disambiguation has mostly been eliminated, or shifted to policy talk pages, by my working with Wikiproject Disambiguation members. And the NRIS info issues are being managed along. I don't really expect for any one editor here to appreciate all that I been trying to do, often expressly to reduce areas of conflict. But also I don't appreciate being a convenient punching bag for people to take jabs at, either. doncram (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe that few people have done as much as doncram to help create and maintain the FRAMEWORK within which all of the articles are created. It's not obvious, overtly rewarding work. It is, in my view, important. I never would have gotten into any article creation or picture taking at all without the list framework set up in New York State. I value the easy, pre-done disambiguation that he has developed and fights to maintain. I hesitate to develop any new HD articles because I'm afraid his adversaries will dump my hard work into some crappy little geo-stub article, instead of allowing a GOOD article about just the HD. I have not been doing much lately, because I don't like the atmosphere either. But I blame the people who run away from the perceived conflict instead of looking at BOTH sides and taking a stand, either way, in order to actually come to some consensus. A whole bunch of you, instead, just yell that doncram should stop fighting. You know what, I think he should, too, and just let y'all live in your isolated neat little areas of NRHP while the rest of the country, where there aren't dedicated editors, just all goes to hell. Then when someone like Polaron comes and starts redirecting your stuff wherever he feels like it, or edit warring when you expand your horizons into some area he has already redirected all over the place, maybe you'll think back and wish you hadn't been so quick to drive doncram away. Isolationism doesn't work well in the world, and it doesn't work well in wikipedia. Lvklock (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Apology needed -- I should have limited my "Amen" above. I agree wholeheartedly that there's a pointless, time wasting war going on and I wish that the parties would disengage and leave fixing problems that might be created to the rest of us. I say "Amen" to that.
I don't, however, completely agree with Elkman that a stub needs to be perfect. I've created maybe 75 lighthouse stubs. In Massachusetts, Swampyank created a great many stubs -- hundreds -- that have become the base for further work by me and many others. Some of his and mine have errors -- some are even dumb. Some of them duplicate existing articles. But they're a base for others to work from. I'm happy now to create articles, but it was 31 months between my first edit and my first new article. So, I disagree with Elkman's criticism of the Broad Street stub. Why not say "perhaps" as a guide for the person who writes a more complete article. Much better to get a rough cut stub in place that editors less sophisticated than us can polish. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
While, I have a disdain for stubs (feeling that a nonexistant article would have a larger motivation for someone to create a quality article than a stub would) and, as such, would like to make every one no longer a stub, but that would be quixotic and impractical (so expanding PA ones is my limit). Creating the necessary dismbigs, and needing to then create stubs to protect said disambigs from deletion, is understandable, and Doncram's willingness to do this is admirable, so I am in no way condoning that.
I am more concerned with the conflict over whether historic districts should be merged (it seems like it transitions from being about issues into one about individual editors). Ideally, I liked to see a simple "yes/no" statement, and a short, one sentence reason why, instead of long, rambling posts attempting to jusitify edit wars.
By the way, Lvklock, would your reference to a "good article" about a historic district mean a short, but decently written article, or the actually class of article, as both do exist. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I can see I'm outnumbered here. Fine. Maybe I should shut the hell up and mind my own business. Next admin around here, feel free to go ahead and block me. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
For speaking your mind and expressing frustration? For finding edit wars over three-sentence articles or even redirects absurd? If half the effort that's going into the revert cycles and wall-of-text justifications for doing so went into creation or expansion of articles for which we already have extensive sourcing, we'd be far ahead and far more satisfied with each other. Acroterion (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I would fervently defend the long and valued history of Doncram's efforts in this project. I've enjoyed working with him over the past few years (even when we disagreed on reference formats) and hope that at some point I'll meet him for a beer on one side of the country or the other. It's not a question of whether we want Doncram involved in the project, we do. It's a question of whether these two (or apparently now three) editors can stop annoying each other and subsequently the rest of us and get back to what most of us love about this project. Maybe I'm looking at it too simply, but each of them are involved in creating the mutual atmosphere and each of them need to adjust behaviors and tone to get us all back on a more even keel. dm (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I wish to clarify my statements above by saying that I too would fervently defend the long and valuable history of Doncram's contributions to this project. When I wrote my first NRHP article a little over two years ago, it was Doncram who welcomed me and showed me the ropes. His enthusiasm gave me the energy to write and photograph all of the NRHP sites that I've worked on. When I made the comment above "I agree too, it's very unappealing to current and potential members...," I actually had three or four different editors in mind, although Doncram was unfortunately one of them. I believe it to be unfair that so much attention has been directed at Doncram; I did not realize that this thread was headed in that direction when I made my comment. Doncram has a vision for this project that everyone may not always agree with, but, truth be said, few of the rest of us have stepped up and gotten things done so quickly, energetically, and with as little appreciation as he has. No wonder some comments have bruised his feelings. I know that the Polaron and Doncram have "some" sort of mediation currently underway, but why can't we as a project attempt to come up with a policy concerning when it is appropriate to merge (and not appropriate to merge) historic districts into their respective locale articles? I feel that we should at least try to record the various options regarding these changes and then have active project members participate in a straw poll (since the extensive discussions here and elsewhere have seemingly resolved nothing) in an attempt find some consensus for where we stand on these HD merges. Just an idea... Altairisfartalk 09:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration request

To anybody interested, I am looking for editors interested in collaborating on Kennywood. I would like to improve this article to good article status, and hopefully later featured. Anybody interested, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! Grsz11 14:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Another question -- Template Usage NRHP Color, NRHP legend. etc.

In the first column of NRHP listing pages (at least a few in Massachusetts), (for example: National_Register of Historic Places listings in Brookline, Massachusetts) we use:

  1. {{NRHP color}} |<small>nn</small>
  2. {{HD color}} |<small>nn</small>
  3. {{NRHPlegend|NHL|nn}}
  4. {{NRHPlegend|NHS|nn}}

(nn being the serial number in each case). The first two produce the right color without any link. The second two also produce the right color, but, in addition, link to the explanation of the colors. Although mindless consistency isn't my thing, it seems to me that we should use either

  1. {{NRHPlegend|NRHP|nn}}
  2. {{NRHPlegend|HD|nn}}
  3. {{NRHPlegend|NHL|nn}}
  4. {{NRHPlegend|NHS|nn}}

or

  1. {{NRHP color}} |<small>nn</small>
  2. {{HD color}} |<small>nn</small>
  3. {{NHL color}}|<small>nn</small>
  4. {{NHS color}} |<small>nn</small>

throughout. Or am I missing something?

Along the same lines, I note that we have the footnote explaining the colors, etc. in some but by no means all of the listing pages. I assume this is just the natural course of improvement and that we should add the footnote when editing pages without it. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For accessbility reasons, the use of color alone in the table is probably not a good idea. It might be better to drop the color and just add a column for the type of property. Even for non-blind people, you still have to scroll through what is typically a long list to see the legend (if it even there). --Polaron | Talk 12:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The use of colors in the templates and the absence of footnotes is a problem for accessibility. Wikipedia:Colours (part of WP:MOS) advises to "Ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information." List articles created using the NRHP list templates do not conform with this guideline, which is a major reason why only one NRHP list is a featured list. --Orlady (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I asked a fairly narrow question -- you've both raised the broader one which I deliberately avoided -- are the colors useful? I find the subtle differences hard to associate with the various designators. I like the method used in the article cited by Orlady as a start, but even it suffers from the inconsistency with which this thread started -- some lines use the color template and some use the legend template, so that some are linked and some are not. If we agree that the change would be useful, then perhaps we should change the legend template to include the symbol and use the legend template regularly. It would mean double symbols in all lists that use them now until such lists were changed, but that's got to be many fewer than those that do not. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You're touching on another issue where there is past history. The system of color coding for NRHP lists was set up in discussion here, including archive 10.5: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Standardizing lists of NRHPs. The idea was to use color in a modestly informative way and provide a unifying motif for the system of NRHP and NHL and NHS and other list-articles, each of which would be primarily of one color but contain entries of other color. A concern was not to be too heavy-handed in the use of color and in big legends. The decision taken back then was to create the NRHP color legend and to link the entry number to that, for just the first list entry of each type in a list, or just for each list entry of a non-usual type in the list. The issue of accessibility and all that was brought up in the Featured list candidacy discussion of List of NHLs in NY, which I had nominated and which failed, and later in List of NHLs in AL which Altairisfar nominated and which passed. There was one FLC reviewer involved in the latter who insisted then on what I viewed as a very heavy-handed approach to explaining colors, with upfront placement of a legend and use of symbols in every colored cell (rather than just including symbol where there was a non-usual type). A heavy-handed treatment is appropriate for many other list articles where understanding the the color-coding is otherwise central to the article, and where color-blind readers would have trouble without it. For the NRHP system, a lighter treatment of coloring is helpful at a higher level for readers/writers considering different articles. The coloring in part makes it clear which kind of article it is. But a lighter treatment is appropriate IMO: a reader of just one article should not be forced to wade through a lot that is not necessary. With this higher perspective, it make sense to apply NRHP blue to a county list-article where there are only regular NRHP entries, and for that to be clear at a glance to readers/editors who have viewed other list-articles in the system.
What is appropriate for the system of NRHP lists could well be revisited in some constructive setting, perhaps an RFC involving people concerned/knowledgeable with Manual of Style, layout, and graphic design issues. There are not written-in-stone FLC standards about this. doncram (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it might be possible with {{NRHPlegend}} to define some text that appears only on a screen reader or on a printout, but not on a screen. This could be done with CSS classes that set "display:none" for screen media. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if there's currently a CSS class that defines different display methods for screen versus printers, screen readers, Braille readers, or other media where color can't be rendered. I've looked through the styles at Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes, but I'm not satisfied yet. My experimentation so far is at User:Elkman/NRHP color test and User:Elkman/NRHPlegend. There may be other people who work on accessibility issues who might have some suggestions. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be neat. I like your color test experiment too. Perhaps simply showing NHL or NHS or whatever into each colored cell, as your color test now shows, could be better than putting in a nonmeaningful symbol like an asterisk which has to be explained in a legend.
More background for Jameslwoodward: the use of NRHPlegend and the footnote is probably mostly limited to NHL list-tables, which were all hand-built following that discussion. Most county NRHP list-tables, on the other hand, were created by use of Elkman's county-list-table generator. Elkman built in the numbering and the NRHP color but exercised his own judgment not to use the NRHPlegend and footnote. The Brookline NRHP list was created based on a Elkman county-level generator-based table, which was then manually split out to form separate town lists. At the same time i or others then further modified the resulting tables to use NRHPlegend and footnote. Most other NRHP list-tables have not been modified that way. doncram (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
s/exercised his own judgment not to use the NRHPlegend and footnote/copied the layout from some other county table that didn't use NRHPlegend because he wasn't aware of it/. Now that I see that {{NRHPlegend}} could be used this way, whereas stuff created with the current generator using {{NRHP color}} and {{HD color}} can't, I'm seeing that I really should have used NRHPlegend. Maybe I can write a second generator that fixes the output of the first generator, but preserves any other edits. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all, and particularly Doncram, for your patience with newbie questions that have been discussed previously. As you explain it, the subtle variation in color makes sense. Since we appear to rarely use the Summary column (a quick survey in four states shows only a handful of entries there, perhaps 1%), might we use that to show listings other than NRHP? Make that column sortable and you get a quick way to see all of each type. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 10:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation update, possible conversions of some dabs to SIAs

To let people in this WikiProject know, I've been representing what I think is our interest in disambiguation style rules discussion at wt:MOSDAB recently, where one or a few editors have been advocating for interpretation and/or new ruling that would require re-ordering many NRHP pages. It would require putting blue-link entries before red-link entries, rather than using ordering of NRHP listings by state then city. It is not an "us" vs. "them" situation. Rather, I represent there that I am informed and concerned about how a MOSDAB rules change would affect a large number of NRHP-related pages in unfortunate ways that would cause higher maintenance and serve readers less well, so that effect should be taken into consideration. I think there is not a big need for others to pile in there; I believe that dab editors' consideration is leading towards sensible decisions which enable NRHP disambiguation pages to remain in geographic order. But because my work on developing NRHP-related disambiguation pages, now over 1600 in number, has led me to create many related stub articles in the last year and because I have caught some flak for that, I want to let some of you know what is going on. I've been a member of, and an unofficial liaison for NRHP to, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation for about a year now.

Also, a current side discussion with one editor whose views I respect, "Older not equal Wiser", a.k.a. User:Bkonrad, brings up question about why NRHP-related disambiguation pages are not sometimes "Set Index Articles" (wp:SIA) instead. Note that wp:SHIPS has a big network of SIAs, each to cover all ships deliberately given the name in succession, which are more related than most sets of NRHPs coincidentally having the same name. In general, I don't want to do more work and create a duplicative system of SIAs for NRHPs in addition to the DAB pages that would still be required in most cases.

However, there are at least a few pages in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles which I have created which I think could/should be converted to being SIAs / list-articles / combo articles. I don't think the disambiguation I set up is wrong, but a single combined article might be better for cases where there are 2 or more houses named the same, for association with the same person, in the same town. For example:

Also possibly, where two similarly named people (probably related) have the same-named house in the same town, perhaps one article is better, for example:

On the other hand, for many cases where there are more than one houses in different states that are associated with one person, I think separate articles + a disambiguation remains best, e.g. as for Rachel Carson House.

Another interesting set of houses is the Lustron houses that are NRHP-listed, currently listed at Lustron House (disambiguation). This could well be converted to being a nice list-article.

So at least for me to respond to Bkonrad, or to have there be a few less short NRHP stub articles around, it would help if some would be willing to help convert some of these. Thanks for listening! doncram (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "Fully illustrated". What about "Address Restricted"?

I raised this question a while ago and there was some discussion. Now that I have just added National Register of Historic Places listings in Suffolk County, Massachusetts to the list of fully illustrated articles, I'd like to ask the question again about "Address Restricted" sites.

While there will be cases where one of us can find the address, particularly if it has been restricted for no apparent reason, e.g. Lyons Turning Mill, or where photographs of artifacts from the site can be found or taken, there will remain sites where neither is possible. One such is Massachusetts Hornfels-Braintree Slate Quarry, which is on the otherwise fully illustrated National Register of Historic Places listings in Milton, Massachusetts.

I got in touch with an archeologist who worked on the site some thirty years ago and was told that all of the artifacts are in [unnamed] private hands. The site itself is a widely scattered series of shallow pits used to obtain hornfels over several thousand years. Even if we could find them, they would be difficult to photograph. So, perhaps we should add such lists to fully illustrated status, perhaps with an asterisk. Failing that, I suspect we will have many lists that can never qualify.

Another possibility illustrates this note. Thoughts?. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't like your "No Address" image, but I imagine you aren't thrilled with it, either. How about an outdoor photo of the Blue Hills and Neponset River Reservations (for example, a wooded landscape)? It also ought to be possible to get a photo of the slate or hornfels found in the area. --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for trying to grasp at straws, but could you talk with the archaeologist and see if you could be shown a single hole? Perhaps the pits are scattered in an area that you could access; as Orlady says, perhaps you could get a general-vicinity image, even if you didn't get access to a hole? If you had a single hole picture, it would likely be quite helpful; while not the best for illustrating the entire area, it would be useful to illustrate one of the many holes. I'm not too much of a fan of using the address-restricted image, because to me it conveys a sense of finding-a-picture-is-impossible. It's not likely, of course, but what if someone was able to visit and photograph a site, only to discover that it had such an image: I fear that the person might be hesitant to add the image, fearing that it meant "don't add an image here". Nyttend (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I just tried removing the Address-restricted row from the table, in an edit of the article to this version. I would prefer that we routinely do this, remove Address-restricted places from the tables that are otherwise calling for the world to identify the place. Providing an actual picture of the place could encourage pot-diggers and help contribute to destroying the site that i think all of us here would probably want to be preserved. We don't want address, coordinates or photos. So remove from the table, and call this a fully-illustrated list. doncram (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not sure I agree across the board. Many of the address restricted sites are now parks or other official places. IMHO, if the only places not photographed are the address restricted, you can go ahead and call it fully illustrated. dm (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that there are, in effect, errors in NRIS where places are listed as Address restricted which are no longer secret, such as some cases where a museum and fences with security and so on now protects an archeological site. We should work to clarify those and make corrections in the National Register about those. But many others were listed with assistance of archeologists who believed the National Register would not disclose their location, and who still want their locations not disclosed. doncram (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of a generic image for address restricted sites. For sites I've illustrated, I added a picture of some landmark in the area where the archaeological site is generally located. They are the Lower Landing Archeological District and National Archives Archeological Site (College Park, Maryland). An inelegant solution, but my goal is to get fully illustrated lists.--Pubdog (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) First, let me emphasize I'm looking for a general solution -- not just Milton. Pubdog's "generic image" is appealing, as long as we don't cheat to avoid extra work. My concern lies with the fact that without some reasonable policy on these, some lists will never be "fully illustrated" and we eliminate one incentive (there are, of course, others) to taking photos.

So, can we say that our policy is:

  1. We will take care to determine if the missing address is an oversight or ancient history and deal with it appropriately -- that is, add the address to the list and take a photo if it is clear that the address is public e.g. Lyons Turning Mill or Borderland Historic District, but not add the address to the list if it is secret for the obvious reasons. (I don't favor removing the site from the list -- today's secret site may be tomorrow's state park and we don't want to lose track of them).
  2. We will do a reasonable search for photos of artifacts or opportunities to photograph them.
  3. If (1) and (2) don't apply, then we'll provide some sort of representative image and make a comment in the list's talk page describing the situation and asking for a better image. --?? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe that in every instance it should be possible to find an appropriate image, whether an image of the place that is identified even though NRIS said "address restricted", a generic image from the area of the site, an image of an artifact from the site (some might be in museums), an image of the rock type quarried at the site (as I suggested in the above example), or an image related to the culture or historical event whose remnants are found at the site. The last category allows for some creativity. For a Civil War fortification whose address is undisclosed, it might be possible to use an image of an old painting of the Civil War battle. For Native American sites, perhaps artistically inclined Wikipedians could create and donate original drawings depicting the cultural group or period (based on museum displays and book illustrations). --Orlady (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Orlady, you're not the only one to favor this idea: User:Heironymous Rowe has created several images for Mississippi archaeological sites. Check out his pictures of the Holly Bluff and Winterville Sites. I'd rather a picture, of course, but in its absence, a good illustration is the best choice. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Those are cool. I was also thinking about the possibility of creating images of lifeways, such as those at this page from the Mashantucket Pequot Museum website. --Orlady (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_33&oldid=1137371775"