Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 45

Oh, please! Not MCR Niles Depot!

Well, I just foundout that Casa Basso was falsely listed on NRHP, but my doubts about this one might actually make me cry. A link I found on the Niles (Amtrak station), has evidence that the station is listed on NRHP(http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/niles.htm)(http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/niles4.jpg), and to look at the station, you'd think it was well-deserved. But as with Casa Basso, there's no listing on NRHP.gov, or NRHP.com. The only difference between those two sites, is the picture. How can we find more evidence, if there is any? ----DanTD (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an odd case. It's listed in the NRIS (and can be found with Elkman's NRHP query tool) as "Niles Railroad Depot", date added 9/19/1979. But the only other information on the record is the address ... no architect, no historic function, 0 acres. And it has a 2009 ref number (09000085). Strange. --sanfranman59 (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Classical Revival architecture

Since many of our articles use it, I thought that I'd give a heads-up that Category:Classical Revival architecture and its subcategories have been nominated for deletion/merging at Categories for discussion. The nominator believes that Classical Revival architecture is exactly the same thing as Neoclassicism, rather than a type of Neoclassicism that appeared in the late 19th/early 20th century. Altairisfar 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Good historic district article examples

What are some of the better NRHP historic district (HD) articles? I find myself trying to find good models to point to, from time to time, and right now for pointing out to a new Iowa NRHP editor. It would be handy to have a set of good ones listed in our featured content section, whether chosen objectively or arbitrarily or to illustrate different ways of organizing.

For a couple that i've contributed to, showing different approaches, i think of:

I know that there are many better ones out there, and many different types of organization addressing different specific challenges. --doncram (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they should be listed in the featured content section, but possibly the style guide as examples? The section I linked to talks about historic district articles. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it would be super helpful as an example for most HDs, but all of Colton Point State Park (FA) is a HD. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for above comments, D and R! Yes, a short list or table of examples for the style guide would be good, including the FA park one.

Some of Daniel Case's from one county are:

Two others by Daniel Case are:

Two more New York state ones by Lvklock:

I wonder about some midwest, southern, western examples. Also any that involve CDP or other demographic info, which to my view are difficult to incorporate, but sometimes an HD's area must coincide with a CDP and perhaps a merged article can be done well, i just don't have any good examples. --doncram (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch and others including i think Daniel Case use a particular way of creating maps, well.

Dudemanfellabra's Meridian, Mississippi city article includes .PNG map created somehow differently than Ruhrfisch etc's approach, i understood, that shows 9 historic districts in the city (at Meridian, Mississippi#Historic districts. The detail is provided at Historic districts in Meridian, Mississippi. --doncram (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Cbl62 has done HDs among other NRHPs in SoCal, including:

--doncram (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Where to put an operational locomotive?

I've cut and pasted the below discussion from Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues/Colorado, because it really didn't belong there, but it fits well here. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Cut/pasted discussion

  • Engine No. 463 is listed on NRIS in Antonito, Colorado. At the time it was listed, it was on static display there. In 1992 it was returned to operational condition on the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad, which operates between Antonito and Chama, New Mexico. At the moment it is in the railroad's shops at Chama undergoing a major restoration. Should we show it in the listings for both Conejos County, Colorado (where it is listed now) and Rio Arriba County, New Mexico (Chama), where it is today and will be some of the time after it returns to operational status? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Since it's likely soon to be moving all over the place, I don't think we can reasonably change its location; we'd need to edit its listing several times per day! Probably best to keep it where it's listed, but to include a note to the effect of "this is where it was when it was listed, but now it moves all over the place." Nyttend (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Not really "all over the place". The C&TS is a 60+ mile railroad, with shops in Chama, so most of the year it will be in Chama. During the summer operating season it will spend some nights in Chama, some in Antonito. I guess my inclination would be to list it like Eads Bridge, but I defer to greater experience.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
        • But still, it could be listed in multiple counties (I don't know: does the railroad go through any other counties than Conejos and Rio Arriba?) in multiple states every day. "All over the place" didn't mean that I thought that it would be hauling excursions to the Mississippi River or anything like that. You have a strong point, however, about listing in multiple places. I think I'll bring this up at WT:NRHP. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

New comments

What do project members think of Jim's suggestion about the Eads Bridge? For your information, this bridge is an NHL that spans the Mississippi River at St. Louis; it connects Illinois and Missouri, so it's on both states' lists. Initially, I don't like the idea of listing it in multiple places simultaneously, since it's only in one specific location at any given time (aside from when it's in the moment of crossing the state line), but as it's frequently in one place and frequently in another, it sounds as if it might be a good idea. Since our listings aren't set up to handle objects that move regularly, I don't think we can appeal to any current examples; this discussion will need to set a precedent, not follow one. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are asking about Eads Bridge, but I'll comment on that anyway: I think it should be included on the lists for both states because it is partially in both states. I have previously expressed the same opinion regarding Bonneville Dam, which spans another state line.
As for the locomotive, it doesn't span a border -- instead, it moves around. In my opinion, it would be best to treat its location like the official domicile of a university student or a member of the military; that is, list it only where it makes its primary (permanent) home, which would appear to be Antonito.
Additionally, though, maybe there would be value in having a list of NRHP properties that move from place to place. I've seen similar issues for ships that have moved to a different port since their initial NR listing... --Orlady (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the lack of clarity; I never meant to suggest that I was asking about the bridge, so you understood me rightly. What I mean about spanning a border is that specific moment when it's crossing the state line, when the front end is in one state while the rear is in the other. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I think they should be listed in multiple locations if it is relevant to each. I have relevant object that travels between two different counties in Wisconsin - the Merrimac Ferry. Right now it is listed in both counties. Royalbroil 04:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to get the facts on the table.

  • We're discussing D&RGW 463, NRIS name Engine No. 463, a narrow gauge steam locomotive which operates on the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad. The railroad is separately on the NRHP.
  • The railroad crosses the state border eleven times between Antonito, Colorado and Chama, New Mexico
  • The railroad and its equipment are jointly owned by the two states
  • NRIS lists the railroad in both Antonito and Chama (Denver & Rio Grande Railroad San Juan Extension)
  • For about one mile in the middle of its 64 mile length, the railroad is in Archuleta County, Colorado. The balance is all Conejos County, Colorado and Rio Arriba County, New Mexico
  • NRIS shows 463 in Antonito, where it was on static display when listed
  • In the ordinary course of things, it will never spend any time anywhere except the two ends of the railroad
  • Since the railroad's locomotive servicing facilities are in Chama, that's where it will be most of the time when not actually in service

My inclination would be to follow the Merrimac Ferry precedent and list it in Conejos County, Colorado and Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, with a note in the right hand column of each. Failing that, I think we should certainly move the listing from Antonito to Chama.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that objects should be listed under the geographical location where the reader might reasonably expect to find the object. For objects like bridges that literally have a foot in two different locations, it makes complete sense to list them in both locations (with a note in each referencing that fact).
For moving objects like ships and trains, I think they should be listed in whichever and how many ever locations they spend a "substantial" amount of time. "Substantial" is clearly in the eye of the beholder, but the underlying point is: if I'm visiting the items on the NRHP in a particular county, would I have a reasonable chance of seeing this particular item? A ferry that spends half its time on one side of the river and half on the other should be listed in both places. A train that makes a five-minute stop at a particular station should not be listed there.
For the current discussion (Engine No. 463), how long does the engine spend in any place? If it overnights in one place and spends, say, three or four hours in the middle of the day at the other end of the line, I think it should be listed in both places. If it spends more like ten minutes at the end of the line, then I don't think it's useful to list it there, because someone looking for it would be unlikely to *find* it there. Andrew Jameson (talk)

Duplicate help, please?

After walking around in Wyoming, Ohio today, I've discovered that one house appears to be listed twice: Twin Oaks (Wyoming, Ohio) and the Robert Reily House. What should be done about them? The houses are both located at 629 Liddle Lane, with the same coordinates, same date of construction, etc. Moreover, "Reily, Robert, House" is listed as an alternate name for Twin Oaks, while "Twin Oaks" is listed as an alternate name for the Robert Reily House. Besides the names, the only differences I can see between the listings themselves are (1) the address — Reily is listed on "Liddle Ln.", while Oaks is listed on "Liddle Lane"; (2) Oaks has an architecture style given, while Reily doesn't; and (3) Reily has an area of 0.6 acres, while Oaks has 0.9 acres. If you put the reference numbers into the Ohio Historical Society's NRHP search page, you'll find that Oaks (75001438) has an entry with a picture (clearly the same building as in Greg5030's photo), while putting in Reily (86001640), whether by name or reference number, yields nothing. Since Reily was listed after Oaks (August 25, 1986 and May 29, 1975 respectively), should I treat Reily as a boundary decrease of Oaks? Both have just one contributing building, so it's not as if a little outbuilding was removed in 1986. All I can guess is that whoever completed the Wyoming MRA (which included Reily, but gave as its alternate name "Twin Elms") failed to notice that the house had already been listed under a different name eleven years before. Advice, please? Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

For now, I would write the NRHP folks and point out the possible error / duplication. Can the Reily House be made a redirect to Twin Oaks, with a note on the talk page? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd merge the two articles and add a double NRHP infobox (similar to one in PRR 4859). I'd only mention each time it was listed without going into why it was listed twice (WP:OR?). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 03:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me - I do think contacting the NRHP might help (not OR if they change it ;-) ) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Which name should be redirected to the other? Both are stubs with almost nothing other than the infobox, so there's virtually nothing to merge. I'm leaning toward redirecting Reily and keeping Oaks as the article, but I'm not sure enough to do that now. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I would keep the older name and make the newer name a redirect. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice; I've redirected Reily to Oaks. Niagara, thanks for the double-infobox advice; you can see that the article now has both infoboxes. I wasn't planning to include anything about why it was listed twice — I only said it here to explain what I thought should be done. Nyttend (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
How about copying this whole section to the article's talk page by way of explanation there? I suggest that rather than linking because this will be archived, but we could relink it after the archiving.... . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Good point, Jim; see Talk:Twin Oaks (Wyoming, Ohio). Nyttend (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The information could be centrally noted at wp:NRIS info issues OH, which documents discrepancies we have noticed in Ohio. I recently submitted a batch of all the Ohio items identified there, to the National Register, for corrections to be made and/or clarifications to be provided. I marked each item that I corresponded with a batch and item number. Nyttend or anyone, you can keep just inserting new items, to be covered in some future batch and/or covered directly with Ohio staff, if the first batch leads to our making direct connections. --doncram (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

disambiguation issues warming up; or create a few thousand NRHP stubs?

I am encountering an editor who seems to be taking a position towards unraveling the system of disambiguation pages showing NRHP red-link entries as well as blue-link articles, in discussion now at User talk:Doncram#Main Street Historic District. I am hopeful that i can talk it out with this editor, or to prevail in a consensus to be created at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation or elsewhere. The issue does keep coming up again and again, however.

One solution to avoid this issue altogether would be to create NRHP stub articles for every NRHP item listed on a disambiguation page. That would be several thousand NRHP stub articles, I believe. But also I have been personally criticized from time to time for my having created a good number of NRIS-only-based NRHP stub articles, although I did so often directly for the reason of settling disambiguation issues and/or fending off disambiguation-focussed editors who would be perfectly happy to rip out the disambiguation structure that has been built up. I have tried to balance the concern of other NRHP editors who prefer for stub articles not to be created based on NRIS information alone, vs. the pressure of disambiguation-focused editors.

I have been serving as the main NRHP editor watching on disambiguation issues, and could use some help and/or suggestions here. Should we run a bot to create several thousand NRHP articles and avoid this? Would several people join up to manually create the several thousand NRHP stubs? Or should the latest challenge be addressed with hope of avoiding necessity to create all those NRHP stubs? --doncram (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I share your dismay regarding the Keepers of Disambiguation Pages -- the folks who object to redlinks on disambiguation pages. However, I'm also one of the people who is seriously opposed to the creation of content-free stub articles that exist only as targets for disambiguation pages. Why not link the disambiguation page to the individual county NRHP lists? --Orlady (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a bad idea to me — why would we want links on our lists to go to disambiguation pages if we can help it? I agree that it's a bad idea to require only blue links on disambiguation pages; as long as we know that an article is likely to be created on a topic, it's helpful to include it on a disambiguation page even if it doesn't yet have an article. Nyttend (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't support creating stub articles for all these NRHPs in any way, shape, form, or fashion. If an article doesn't have enough information to at least be included as a section in another article, it shouldn't be created yet.
As for the disambiguation pages, I support leaving them up even though they have redlinks. If you think about it, all visitors to dab pages should (in theory) be coming from the search bar or URL bar since all links to dab pages should be redirected to a more specific article title. If a user types in Main Street Historic District, (s)he would be looking for a district in a city and may not be aware of the existence of others. If their city shows up in the list of districts as a redlink, they may be more inclined to create the article, whereas if the redlink doesn't appear, the reader will be more likely to look somewhere other than Wikipedia for the information.
Redlinks may be non-appealing to some editors, but I believe they help more than they hurt. A redlink in a dab page is no less helpful than a redlink in mainspace... in fact, I would go so far as to say the ONLY place redlinks should be allowed are on dab pages or list articles. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I support this opinion; that is also how we're handling this in the German WP, where we have many redlinks-only dab pages – it simply avoids later moving articles there and here and enables to link to articles even not created without the imminent need of later fixing in a lot of other articles. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, so we all agree that the structure of DABs that Doncram has labored to create is useful. Unfortunately, this means that Doncram has to REPEATEDLY spend much time and energy battling various DAB editors who begin ripping up the painstakingly created DAB pages. I think what he's looking for is some help/suggestions about how to avoid this in some way other than creating stubs, since there seems not to be support for that. Orladys suggests refining the blue links. Nyttend objects to that. Dude and Matthiasb just support the DABs as they stand, but don't suggest how to keep from repeatedly battling the DAB editors. I'll be glad to help with whatever we can decide should be done. I'd be good with stub creation, but as there's so far not support for that, then we need to figure out some other way of avoiding these repeated challenges. How do others feel about refining all the bluelinks further, and who would be willing to help? So far Orlady is for and Nyttend is against this solution. Any other thoughts on a solution? Lvklock (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
"The concern of other NRHP editors who prefer for stub articles not to be created based on NRIS information alone". Actually, my concern is NRHP articles created on nothing. "Such and such building is on the NRHP in some city." The NRIS give more info than that.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just in the process of ripping out one of these disambig pages myself! After posting a suggestion on the discussion page, I'm planning to strip and redirect the Coca-Cola Bottling Company Building disambig page to a new List of Coca-Cola buildings and structures article I created based in part on the disambig page. Some buildings are noteworthy because of NRHP listing but others are for different reasons. Am I part of the problem?RevelationDirect (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No you're not, IMO. The inherent utility of a disambig page is to inform the reader that multiple things (structures in this case) have identical or similar names. In this case, the majority of the structures in the List of Coca-Cola buildings and structures have names similar to "Coca-Cola Plant" or "Coca-Cola Building," so the function of the disambig page is still served. In addition, a list article provides *more* information to the reader than a disambig page, so I think it would be preferred. However, I think substituting a list article for a disambig page would only work in the limited cases where there are a) many structures b) sharing similar names which are c) closely related but d) few other structures would fit on the list. RR stations erected by a particular RR, for example might be a good fit; churches not so much. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Two thoughts, since this seems to have two threads:
  • As far as red-linked DABs go, I agree that they are very useful. Perhaps, if NRHP Project members agree here that they are useful, we could put a template on the talk page of dabs that contain our redlinks -- a rewording of {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places}} along these lines
WikiProject iconNational Register of Historic Places Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. This page may contain redlinks. Please do not remove them, as they are provided for future articles on NRHP sites.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesUser:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox5National Register of Historic Places articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
We might call it {{NRHP DAB}}. Feel free to edit User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox5 if you like.
  • While I don't like one sentence stubs, even with the infobox, I do think that very short -- one or two paragraph -- articles are a good thing. I have created a lot of them over the past six months and am amazed that in many cases within a day or two there will be a photograph and more data. I believe firmly that creating new articles, particularly with an infobox,is intimidating to many editors who will, however, contribute to an existing one.
. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm for stubs of any kind, they tend to grow into true articles, whereas red links often do not become articles. I'd be all for some sort of bot that creates NRHP stubs, much like the small town creator bots that populated Wikipedia a few years ago, but I realize that I am probably a minority opinion... Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Bill, I'm right there with you. I think many editors overlook the value of even a very short stub article. Articles on NRHP tend to evolve more slowly than articles on say, NASCAR drivers. Expanding a stub is much less intimidating than creating a whole new article. Many editors, especially new editors, are willing to help out in small ways, but aren't looking to write a whole book on a subject. We need to encourage this type of editor. After all, there are only so many of us here and many times more of the casual or new editors. Pages will eventually evolve into good articles, but it will take time. If we don't plant a seed, we can never enjoy the harvest. I say let the bots do their work and stub everything. HornColumbia (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The disambiguation crowd encourages the development of set index articles to get around the disambiguation rules. I'm not entirely clear on what a "set index article" is, but I believe that List of Coca-Cola buildings and structures is a good example of one. Set index articles seem like the way to go with "Main Street Historic District" and similar topics. I don't think they need to be nearly as well-developed as List of Coca-Cola buildings and structures. --Orlady (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I read back at Station1's original comments on the Main Street discussion and found this: "Dab pages are strictly for navigation, so redlinks on dab pages are rarely useful, and never useful without a corresponding bluelink that goes somewhere useful. ... At the very least, please make sure each line has a bluelink to an article with information about the topic (though it seems a waste of time to me); otherwise we send readers to dead ends." So in that formulation, this would be fine on a disambig page:

but this would not:

While I do not share Station1's zeal for deleting anything that doesn't fit that model, I do think it is preferable to point readers to a list or other reference if the main article doesn't exist yet.RevelationDirect (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Doncram has been working all along (for years!) to provide links to the list articles where these NRHP listings appear. It appears to me that Station1's objection has to do with the fact that some of those list articles have been split by geography, with the result that the link no longer points directly to the article where the topic appears (for example, the link might point to the Arkansas list, but the property is now on the Conway County, Arkansas list). If I am reading this correctly (and I might not be!), the current issue could be resolved by updating these pages so that the links point to the list articles where the specific properties currently appear. That's laborious, but it's no less laborious than creating a near-infinite number of stub articles, and I honestly believe that a list article is likely to be more useful than a bare-bones stub, since the list provides more context (for example, it might provide some links to articles about nearby properties). --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, so that's what you meant; I thought you meant that we should change the links in our lists to point to the disambiguation pages. I must have been tired when I read that; I went to bed soon afterward. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, maybe the problem is that I was over-tired (and not very coherent) when I wrote my earlier comment. --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd feel a lot more productive creating stubs (for all the reasons Jameslwoodward and Bill Whittaker mention above) than refining a bunch of blue links destined to eventually be removed when the article is written anyway. Additionally, the blue links will need to be maintained going forward as more lists are split geographically, while once there's a stub the issue is over. With that said, I'm willing to help do either. Lvklock (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks, everyone! Orlady and others are correct that Station1's objection is that the supporting bluelink is not precise enough, i.e. that one linking to a state-wide NRHP list as in:

is inadequate, but linking to more precise county list

is okay. Thanks Orlady for revising the remaining items in the Main Street Historic District dab to be more precise in that way, which Station1 seems to appreciate. Maybe the current issue will pass, if four other dab articles named by Station1 are revised in the same way, namely: Broad Street Historic District, Roosevelt School, Jefferson School, and Washington School. Also I would ask if a few more editors would occasionally do some refining of NRHP supporting bluelinks in other dab pages, to show some progress for the dab-focussed editors (altho progress is being shown all the time, by creation of articles and updating of all these dab pages to drop the supporting bluelinks). Perhaps we could each just make an effort to refine one or two supporting bluelinks, at the same time as making some other dab page change? I would hope that should suffice. By the way, there are some stats and some more info and links about NRHP disambiguation at User:Doncram/NRHP disambiguation. --doncram (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I like Jameslwoodward's demonstration of a different WikiProject NRHP message on the talk page, rather than the usual one which reads, for a dab page like Talk:Main Street Historic District:

"This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. / This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale."

J's suggested wording is:

"This disambiguation page is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. / This page may contain redlinks. Please do not remove them, as they are provided for future articles on NRHP sites."

which is better, enlisting/asking for something useful, namely not to do something bad. Is there a way to ask the same in entirely positive terms? Perhaps could finesse by a link: "If you are concerned about formatting of NRHP items on this dab page, please consult this link" and link to a suitable project page? --doncram (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I like that...the template could be rigged to change the message automatically to the modified version if class=Disambig. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 03:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would be great. Just change the {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places}} template for the dab items.
Also, it occurred to me to ask if a bot can do all the NRHP dab item refinements. Asked at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 34#NRHP disambiguation refinement. --doncram (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Errors on registration forms

I've just begun editing a number of photos from Columbus Commerical Historic District (part of National Register of Historic Places listings in Platte County, Nebraska). In the registration form, available at this Nebraska State Historical Society website, I found an address error: on page 13 of the PDF (section 7, page 9), the Gottberg Garage is described as being at 2801 13th St, when it's actually at 2804 13th St. What, if anything, ought I do about this error? I don't suppose it's an NRIS problem, so I am disinclined to post it to wp:NRIS info issues; but I'm loath to leave the error uncorrected, lest someone incorporate the mistaken data from the registration form into an article. I will note the correct address on the WP Commons description page; but is there something more that should be done? Advice appreciated.

--Ammodramus (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise you to contact the NSHS people. One thing that might help is to write an article on the district: in the article, you could have a section on the garage that includes a little bit about the correct address; see Merrill Lock No. 6, citation #8, for a way that you can cite an image. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
In my experience, address errors are not uncommon. It's usually a minor error, however, as in this case, with the numbers being slightly off. Bms4880 (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been coming across errors within registration/nomination documents from time to time, too, esp. when have visited a site and have perspective from that. Although the documents get higher level review in the nomination process, there are some errors such as inconsistencies regarding layout of a site that are not going to be picked up, except by another person visiting the site and closely reading the document. This is a reminder that the nom docs are wp:primary sources for some information, generally reliable but to be used "with care", while they are secondary/tertiary sources in other matters. Would it be best to include a footnote discussion of the errors, in the wikipedia article about the site? I think that is necessary anyhow, at least wherever you want to say something in the article that is contradicted by the incorrect information in the source. Can anyone recall examples of FA articles where limitations of a primary source are explicitly discussed in the article and/or the FAC review? --doncram (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Note that Ammodramus has created a category for photos of the Garage, Commons:Category:Gottberg Garage. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Charles L. Shrewsbury House

Since the Indiana NHL list is on today's DYK section in the German WP I thought this one would be a fast translation for getting one more link blue but after some consideration there are some issues to be addressed:

  1. The section "history" is rather a brief description of the house itself. The history of the house is missing.
  2. There is a long citation of Robert Windle however it seems to me that this is likely a mistake from combining the last name of the author and the first name of the coauthor of the book cited.

Maybe this could be clarified and improved. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What a beautiful photo by Boucher! I've uploaded the larger version from the LOC. Not quite sure about the "Robert Windle" problem. When I went to http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/ to check it out - the files are no longer available. Probably I should not complain - folks here are pretty gracious about this type of thing - but I think it is a shame what a lousy job my government does with the NRHP program (certain aspects in any case). Smallbones (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Matthiasb, I'm sure that you're correct about the combination of the two names. This edit added both the quote and the Windle bibliographic reference. However, the quote is excessively long to the point of copyvio; I'm about to rewrite that part of the article. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've uploaded an even higher resolution and expanded the description. Nyttend (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Francis M. Drexel School

Francis M. Drexel School on NRHP since December 4, 1986, photographed while under demolition Feb. 15, 2010, a.m.. At 1800 South Sixteenth Street in the Point Breeze section of South Philly. Even though I didn't know this building - this morning was the first time I saw it - it's pretty sad to see a NRHP go down. Smallbones (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC) File:Drexel School 2.JPG File:Drexel School 3.JPG File:Drexel School 5.JPG

Since this just might be in the local news a little, I've written an article for it. Thanks very much, Smallbones! Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability

What is the threshold of inclusion for articles about properties on the National Register? Is simply being on the Register enough or are there additional criteria? Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that there's ever been a formal setting of a standard for NRHP notability. But, in practice, and in line with general notability guidelines, if the US Government says that a place is historic, then it's almost certainly notable. If you look hard enough, you'll almost always find some other reliable source saying it's notable as well, but the US Govt is good enough for me. Smallbones (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Smallbones that all NRHP listings are WP:NOTABLE, but for a very different reason. I'm very cynical about our government's ability to choose correctly, but we would be in a vast morass if we tried to decide that some NRHP listings were and some were not worthy of a WP article. It's convenient, and doesn't cost much, to simply include them all. There's enough discussion of issues among the NRHP project team without trying to decide notability.
As to my cynicism, 75% of the lighthouses in Maine are NRHP and I can't distinguish most of them from those in the remaining 25% that are still standing. Local politics picked the ones that are on the list. Or, there are several thousand steam locomotives remaining in the USA. Around 75 of them are listed, but there are glaring holes -- for example, there are no Big Boys listed. Big Boy is probably the best known single class of locomotives in the world. On the other hand, the Pennsylvania Railroad Museum has most of its collection listed, including some locomotives that would be way down on my list. I don't begrudge the PRM its success in getting listings, but the locomotive people need to get their act together the way the lighthouse people have.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
"our government" generally doesn't initiate registration of properties (except for ones owned by the NPS and other federal agencies). Nominations can be made by anybody and go to the NRHP through state and tribal historic preservation offices. So, unless the Coast Guard or some other federal agency is the owner of the unlisted lighthouses in Maine, it's up to their current owners or other interested parties to nominate them. Unless there's some policy around here to avoid collective action in the real world, it might be interesting for a WP project to do a nomination and document it here.--Hjal (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I would say that all NRHP listings should be in WP, since they are all encyclopedic, whether they meet our definition of "notable" or not. Whether they should be in a separate article depends, I think, on whether there is enough information to create a meaningful article or whether the information available is so brief that it belongs in an annotated list, instead, as with minor structures in an historic district that have no other reliable sources.--Hjal (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the great replies. The reason I ask is because of the article Baca-Goodman House. I created the article and it is very short. Yesterday, a tag questioning its notability was added so I'm looking for guidance on how I should proceed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It meets notability guidelines, but you need to expand the article and explain why the house was placed on the register. I'll see what I can find on the web. Bms4880 (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: This house has a HABS listing ([here) listing, so it's most definitely notable. Bms4880 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Are sure that photo is of the Baca-Goodman House? The 1976 photos (here) on the HABS listing seem to show a different house.
Also, it says the house was built of adobe, rather than stone. Bms4880 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Google Streetview gives the same house if you look up "246 W. Aber, Tucumcari, NM". This pretty well alines with the map in the HABS listing, but in the HABS map, the house looks bigger and slightly more to the east and north. A possibility here: Major parts of the house were torn down (to make way for the parking lot next to it) leaving only the original adobe house without the wood siding that was added later. What looks like stone in the picture may only be rough adobe. Touring the neighborhood in Streetview (a bit tough on the eyes) doesn't give anything that looks close to the HABS photos. Smallbones (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Elkman's generator tells us that the house was listed in 1973 and removed in 1977, so your partially-torn-down hypothesis may well make even more sense than you thought. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
As I was reading the HABS listing, I began to question whether the house in the photo is indeed Baca-Goodman House. The house in the article's picture has a stone exterior with no sign of adobe. When I viewed the photos linked to above, I noticed something in this one. The house west of the photo's main subject is the same house as the one in the article's picture, although it apparently did not have a stone façade at that time. The building associated with the previously mentioned parking lot was built in 1974. Apparently, around that time or soon thereafter, Baca-Goodman house was razed and replaced with asphalt pavement. My city's desire to destroy or let rot away nearly all links with its history will never cease to amaze me.
So, that raises another question. Is there a place here for such a house which no longer exists? →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's still notable, even though it has been demolished. We have a "formerly listed" infobox for just this very thing. I uploaded one of the HABS photos (these are usually in the public domain). Bms4880 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. A structure's notability doesn't disappear because it's been demolished. Structures are listed because of their historical and/or architectural importance; their influence doesn't disappear because they do. After all, Abraham Lincoln no longer exists, either, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that he's non-notable just because he's dead. Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Great. Thank you, all, for your guidance and your help improving the article. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Shortest bridges on the Register?

East Fallowfield Bridge in Mortonville, Chester County, PA (NRHP)
Old Enon Road Stone Arch Culvert

Now that I've gotten Elm Street Stone Arch Bridge and Mill Street Stone Arch Bridge in Pine Hill, New York, out of the way, I wonder if they both might qualify, at a mere 12 feet long, as the shortest bridges on the National Register? Anyone know of any shorter ones? Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You may not be able to prove that these are the shortest bridges in the Register in time, but this seems worth a DYK now. "... that Mill Street Stone Arch Bridge is only 12 feet (4m) long, but is on the National Register of Historic Places?" is about 115 characters. The sentence with the length of the bridge would need its own inline citation, I think. Your photo might work in the DYK box, too.--Hjal (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately they're too old now, and I didn't submit this because I didn't think I could prove it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
12 feet 6 inches, but not as high. I agree with the DYK idea, but think it would be more interesting if the bridge was named after the grandfather of a saint :) Smallbones (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC) [1]
:-) (inside joke between us). Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any detailed measurements, but the Old Enon Road Stone Arch Culvert (Clark County, Ohio) is definitely quite short. It was just listed last year, and Ohio's NRHP system is very minimal (see its profile, for example), so I don't expect that any detailed information will be online. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The village of Cornwall on Hudson, New York, has also submitted an MPS for some of its old stone arch bridges, one of which (Dock Street Extension Stone Arch Bridge) was listed last month. I've been there and photographed it already (given my current backlog, where I'm still working on photos I took back in September 2008, don't expect an article soon), as well as another one I suspect is also in the MPS, and they also might come close. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if there are any "toad tunnels" on the NRHP, as one could argue that that is just a really short road bridge. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_38&oldid=1239442106"