Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

Infobox on USS Massachusetts (BB-2)

As part of WP:OMT I am gonna work on USS Massachusetts (BB-2), trying to bring it up to GA-class and if possible FA. There is relatively little to tell about this early battleship though—her most notable achievement is not being at the battle of Santiago de Cuba—and the article is gonna be similar in length to USS Indiana (BB-1). This means the ship and historic place infoboxes are gonna stay right below each other like they are now, which looks very clumsy with them having different colors and widths. I want to ask if anybody involved with this project has an idea how to handle this? I would suggest merging both infoboxes like was done in this article SS Jeremiah O'Brien, but that doesn't look perfect either as the colors still don't match. Yoenit (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes merged. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Destroyed category?

For a while, I've been thinking of creating a category, but I've decided to ask others' opinions first. What do you think of creating a Category:Destroyed National Register of Historic Places for currently-listed properties that are no longer in existence? If we go with my ideal, we'll include the now-sunken Mississippi III (listed in Ohio, but sank after being moored near Pittsburgh), the bulldozed D.S. Rose Mound, and the very recently wrecked Francis M. Drexel School; however, we'd not include the Bridge in Plunketts Creek Township because it's been delisted, various Navajo ruins in New Mexico because they were listed as ruins, or the HESPER Shipwreck Site because it was listed as a shipwreck. Does this sound good, or are there problems? Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about this category as well. Several of the NRHPs in Lauderdale County, Mississippi (most of the non-pictured ones) have been demolished, so I can't take pictures of them. I think most demolished NRHPs are eventually delisted, so my feeling is that the category would be somewhat temporary. I don't think that would necessarily make me opposed to creating it, though. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The "most" is key; the Lockington Covered Bridge near me (site photo) has been gone for twenty years, and Holy Rosary Catholic Church in St. Marys, Ohio was demolished in 1978, soon before being listed! Although my proposal doesn't include places that were destroyed when they were listed, I'd make an exception for Holy Rosary: the original building was listed as if it were still in existence. Perhaps we could also use this as somewhat of a maintenance category, useful for keeping track of buildings that should be reported to the NR officials? Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Would missing/transported boats/trains/airplanes fit in here as well? Smallbones (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm suggesting only destroyed objects and structures; I don't think it would be good to include properties that have simply been moved, since they can always be moved back to the original site. My idea is to include only those listings that have been destroyed. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Nyttend invited me to comment. This seems like a category that identifies apparent errors in the current NRHP listings, out in mainspace. Whether it focuses on just buildings and structures that have been demolished (hence should probably be delisted by states and National Park Service's National Register) or whether it also includes ships that have moved (so their NRHP listing information should be updated in NRIS and elsewhere in state and National Park Service systems), it does seem to be about apparent errors. Calling them "destroyed" seems not to capture it all; it is about being both demolished and still listed (apparently erroneously). If it is acceptable to have a category focussing on NRHP apparent errors (i am not sure, maybe am warming up to), then i do think the category naming should be direct and honest. For example, perhaps "NRHP-listed but apparently no longer existing in NRHP-eligible form".
Also, as Nyttend knows, because he has contributed a lot to it, the wp:NRIS info issues tracking system in WikiProject space tries to list all these cases, and to support correspondence to get the errors fixed. The correspondence is slow; i submitted a batch for Ohio quite a while ago and heard nothing whatsoever back. Perhaps following up a bit more with the National Register and also with a state is necessary. Would the purpose of creating a category system be to document the errors more publicly, to count them up and to use that in public pressure vs. the NRHP somehow? We do already have the Wikiproject space system. Would the categories be hidden or visible categories? It seems more tactful if they are hidden categories. Also it would seem more helpful if they were state-specific from the get-go, because correspondence needs to be organized by state. It is possibly helpful to have a current count for the number in each state, from such categories, to use in prioritizing which states to work on in correspondence. And it would possibly be energizing for some state staffs to work on bring their state's count down. From the contacts i have had with some state reps, they do want to have accurate info and to be serving the public, and I think some would act vigorously to address any countable deficiency like this. I wouldn't want to rub anyone's nose in it too negatively, but it could be motivating in a good way to inform one state that their apparent misstatements are in the higher end of a range. Currently it would seem unfair and mean to blast any one state, or the NRHP as a whole, for the apparent mislistings, as we have not given fair notice in correspondence.
Basically i am leaning in favor of creating these, would support covering ship moves too, would support having state-specific categories as hidden categories and to use those in diplomatic correspondence. We should be able to handle being diplomatic with this stuff, I would hope. --doncram (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I support the category, so long as the "destruction" is well-documented. The de-listed category doesn't cover all destroyed properties, since it can take years for the NRHP to de-list a property. The Lenoir Cotton Mill, for instance, burned in 1991, but wasn't de-listed until 2002. Bms4880 (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You support having it in the sense of a public, regular category? I think that the category, if not a hidden, maintenance-purpose-type category, could verge on being wp:OR. There is no general source we know of that documents NRHP errors, or more specifically, demolished yet still NRHP-listed places. A list-article would probably not be acceptable, IMO, because it would seem like original research, and perhaps seem pushy and promotional about our skill/knowledge as wikipedia editors cleverly identifying these. Let me acknowledge i am not sure about policy/guidelines/practices about the application of wp:OR to a category. The existence and membership of a category could, conceivably, be all original research though. Categories could be used by editors to apply some negative, personally-judged quality. I would want to avoid the appearance of that. Just thinking out loud, though. --doncram (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why such a category need contain any original research at all. A fair amount of NRHP properties are notable enough that their demolition is documented through reliable sources. Granted some are not, but if there is some utility in establishing such a category, I don't think OR worries should stymie its creation. Andrew Jameson (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
We already have categories for destroyed buildings, and I don't believe that they're any matter of original research. I'd like to apply this category to any NRHP property that would reasonably fit into Category:Demolished buildings and structures in the United States or the corresponding categories for destroyed locomotives, sunken ships, etc. Consider the Port Jefferson School, which is already in the demolished buildings category; it would be a good example of an article that would fit in my proposed category. I don't think that this should be primarily a maintenance category: it can work that way, but it can definitely be useful as a normal category as well. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Would this include demolished structures that have been removed from the registry. I wonder if we need like a "Former NRHP" category regardless of the reason but this may be a different cat than the one we're discussing here.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there is something OR about this - how do we really know they are destroyed? Well in some cases it's in the newspapers, but for the most part you go to the address, check the coordinates, wonder where the wrong turn was, double and triple check and then say "it's destroyed." It's very much the same process as in the address change question discussed above. There are certainly some strange things that go on here, e.g. The Jewel Tea Company Building went through the listing process while the demolition paperwork was going on, it got listed, then almost immediately torn down. In Center City Philadelphia I couldn't find any demolition documentation for what seemed like very public projects that demolished several sites. It's a lot of work to document NRHP "errors." I don't think we should be trying to show up the bureaucracy here - ultimately if they get pissed off at us they win. On the other hand they get paid to do this, and if we convincingly show that something is destroyed, why should they be pissed off at us about it? Smallbones (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute. "Showing up the bureaucracy"? "If they get pissed off at us they win"? What are you talking about? Why on Earth would people at the NPS get "pissed off" about documenting demolished properties? Presumably there is some procedure required for de-listing a structure, just like there's a process for listing one; it's just that the paperwork hasn't caught up yet. (As an aside, does anyone know what the criteria/process for de-listing? Does demolition automatically imply de-listing, or is there some conceivable circumstance where a demolished structure could pass a review and remain listed?) Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me. I was overstating Doncram's statement above (for effect, sorry). It sounds like AJ and I agree in substance. The NRHP has some flaws, which are probably more because of the way the legislation is written than anything else. It's interesting that we can interact we them, but I think we have to take what they do as a given. Complaints about their operations would basically only have zero or negative effects. They should also take what we do as given. We're just folks looking into things that interest us, and trying to make some sense out of it. Smallbones (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that the "destruction" of buildings in this proposed category should be documented in a secondary source. If you go to the site, and simply don't find the building, that probably qualifies as OR. Bms4880 (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've seen the new buildings at the site of the Venice Building in Cleveland, Ohio, but I don't have any evidence to support it on any page where WP:OR is applicable. For that reason, I listed it at WP:NRIS errors, since that's not an encyclopedia article, but I've never added anything about its destruction to National Register of Historic Places listings in Cleveland, Ohio. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I got a sense of deja vu when I saw this discussion, probably because Category:Former National Register of Historic Places already exists. I think the word "former" is a good choice for this topic, as it doesn't require any determination of whether the proper was actually "destroyed." However, because the National Register of Historic Places is a list (not a plural noun, as is implied by the category name), over a year ago I proposed renaming it to a name with a real plural noun in it, but the discussion closed as "no consensus". --Orlady (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh? To me, Category:Destroyed National Register of Historic Places are structures which are a) destroyed, and b) currently listed on the NRHP. Category:Former National Register of Historic Places are structures that have been delisted. Far from being synonymous, there is no intersection between the sets. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Orlady, I agree that "Former National Register of Historic Places" and "Destroyed National Register of Historic Places" aren't the best names, but I can't think of anything else. My suggestion for "Destroyed" was meant to be patterned after "Former", since that's an established usage. I'd be happy to support a proposed rename to something else, as long as it describes the situation accurately.
On my talk page, Nyttend suggested renaming the "Former" category to "Formerly on the National Register of Historic Places". I think that's brilliant. As a corollary, how about considering "Destroyed and on the National Register of Historic Places"? --Orlady (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Ignore All Rules ?

I've got the impression that what some other people (as well as myself) want to do is - if they go to a site and the building is not there - and after lots of checking put in the article or list that the building is destroyed. This is simply common sense. How can we not tell are readers that the building is not there, when we know that it is not there? The flip side is that in many cases doing so would be WP:OR. I don't think that we can finesse our way around this. Perhaps the statement in WP:OR about things "challenged or likely to be challenged" might help, but I suggest taking the bull by the horns.

Should the destroyed-state of a building not documented by the NRHP or others be ignored in Wikipedia? Of course not! Can the statement that a building has been destroyed be OR? Of course it can be. The spirit of the OR, RS, and V policies is that others, with a bit of effort, can go and check what you write. I think that in most cases of destroyed building, this spirit can be easily satisfied. Anybody can go to the address and coordinates given and see if a building is there. In short a simple statement of destruction is in most cases easily verified. This position is consistent with the longstanding policy WP:Ignore All Rules, in particular Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means#Use_common_sense.

Common sense should also dictate that we are very careful about this. We know that the addresses and coordinates given by the NRHP are sometimes out of date or otherwise flawed. Sometimes street addresses are out of order, or buildings are way back from the street behind other buildings on private property marked "no trespassing." Addresses are changed, buildings are moved, Interstate highways are build in front of some buildings, cutting them off. But for the most part if you are standing in front of a given address and there is no building there, that fact is verifiable and is not likely to be challenged. I say we accept most OR-IAR declarations that the building is not where it is supposed to be. Ultimately, it's just common sense. Smallbones (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A common-sense interpretation of Wikipedia policy suggests that an article should not state that a property has been destroyed unless a reliable source indicates that it was destroyed. Similarly, it should not be placed in a "destroyed" category unless its destruction is documented. Often, local news media (a local newspaper or TV station) will have reported the destruction. --Orlady (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
To what extent do photographs (which are exempt from the OR prohibition) of the vacant site qualify as proof? As an example, the Historic District at Black Moshannon State Park had six latrines built by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) when it was listed on the NRHP, all shown clearly on maps. I have done a lot of searching and can only find one of them now. Or Picnic Shelter 6 in the park was also CCC-built and listed on the NRHP, but the current shelter is clearly a modern replacement. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
How do you know they weren't moved, or intentionally dismantled and placed in storage? Bms4880 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Chances are good that the latrines and picnic shelter were destroyed. However, regardless of the facts, when a Wikipedian personally searches the site, that's a clear case of original research. If that Wikipedian were to contact the park management and get confirmation regarding the status of those structures, then write a contributed article (quoting the park manager and providing photos of the site) that gets published in the local newspaper, the published article probably could be cited here as a source. --Orlady (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to get pictures of all the contributing structures in the park's three historic districts, and had the NRHP maps from the three nominating forms, as well as the very detailed official park map. Over the course of several visits I went to where the maps said each structure should be, but most of the latrines were missing (only this one was still there and it looks at least heavily restored), Shelter 6 looks very modern compared to the other 7 CCC-built shleters, and now that I think about it, one of three former pump houses was also missing (with a modern restroom facility at or very near where it had been). I don't see this as OR, merely being thorough in trying to get photos. The modern map does not show any other shelters or any latrines. I doubt that the disappearance of the latrines would be a story even the local Pennsylvania papers would run, though you never know. Would naming the category something like Category:Missing National Register of Historic Places work? Even if they are instorage or moved (which I doubt happened here), they are miossing from where they are supposed to be. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I should quit while I'm a head, but I gotta say that's the best latrine shot I've seen in a long time. And I'm trying to imagine the headline on the local news story on the latrine demolition. Maybe "Historic out houses meet the wrecking ball" Were the originals built as solidly as brick shit houses? Please invoke the following rule for the rest of the day WP:Ignore all Smallbones. Smallbones (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
If you like that latrine, you should see this one built of stone at S.B. Elliott State Park ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Love that latrine shot! It even beats out Jack Boucher's File:Chichester 2 seater.jpeg. Smallbones (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Orlady and BMS clearly state the plain reading of WP:OR. But I think the plain meaning of IAR trumps this, in most cases. At some point, the verifiability of an address becomes so obvious that we are doing our readers an obvious disservice by implicitly saying that the building is at the location when we damn well know that it is not there. When the rules get in the way of making a better encyclopedia, ignore all rules - that is a core policy. Some sort of common sense should overcome what can be seen as a pedantic reading of the rules. I suggest we use judgement, if anybody has any reason for challenging a statement that a building has been destroyed - they should be encouraged to do so. Discussion of this should be encouraged, all sides heard, and btw I'm not questioning anybody's good faith here or calling anybody pedantic, just that we need to openly discuss common sense's application in this case, and get a basic consensus. I hope that consensus includes allowing plain statements that a building is not there, in cases when it's obviously not there. Smallbones (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, if a building, structure, etc. is missing, i.e., not at the coordinates/address where it should be, that does not necessarily mean it was destroyed. Adding it to a "destroyed" category is making a statement of fact when you don't for sure what happened to the building. I agree, we shouldn't tell readers that the building is there when it isn't, but we shouldn't tell them it has been destroyed when we don't really know what happened to it. Bms4880 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Grand Opera House (Meridian, Mississippi)

I would like to direct your attention to a move proposal at Talk:Grand Opera House (Meridian, Mississippi). I suggested it be moved a few days ago, but apparently either no one watches that page or no one cares haha. The building is no longer known most widely as the Grand Opera House since it has been renovated in 2006. Most people in daily conversation refer to it as the "Riley Center," but I think most sources online refer to it as the "MSU Riley Center" or it's long name, the "Mississippi State University Riley Center for Education and Performing Arts." I don't really know where to move the page, but I know it should be moved. I think all of the titles should be redirects, but I don't want to create the redirects until I move the page so I don't have to fix them afterwards. Any input would be appreciated! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So... about that OR issue and destroyed structures

This arises from the previous topic on a "detroyed" cat, but I split it off because it's a seperable point, and neither topic necessarily depends on the other. Now then:

When is pictoral evidence "acceptable" or "not acceptable" Original Research? Case in point: The Phillip and Maria Hasselbach Dingledey House. A picture of the house, as well as its address, can be found at the State of Michigan Historic Sites Online. Going to Google's Streetview confirms that, yes indeed, that house is located at that location. Except it isn't. Here's the site now (compare with this Streetview--note the location of the blue "Heathmoore Apartments" sign).

So, with a combination of reliable sources and my own photo, I am absolutely, positively sure that the Phillip and Maria Hasselbach Dingledey House is not there anymore. However, I can't find any reference to its demolition (or its being moved...) anywhere. So should the reference to its demolition be stricken from the article? Reworded? More to the point: Does it make any sense to include an image of the site (which consensus has determined is allowable, and indeed encouraged, OR) and NOT address textually why the image doesn't actually include a house? Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The article could state that the listed address is now the site of an apartment complex (and provide a picture of the site), but it shouldn't say it has "been demolished" unless you have a source saying that the house was demolished. --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I can get on board with that. Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Could "Orlady's rule" lead to some strange wording, e.g. "According to the NRHP the house is located at 111 Main Street, but that lot is now empty" in the text, and "Empty lot with rubble at 111 Main Street" in a caption. Isn't a plain statement of the apparent facts better than twisting ourselves around to meet rules that, in some cases, need to be ignored? In any case guidance on how this would work would be helpful. Why isn't my first example sentence considered OR? Smallbones (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The example article now says "The house is no longer at its listed location; a small commercial complex now occupies the site." That's a plain statement of facts. --Orlady (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. But how can I tell when a plain statement of facts will be considered OR, and when it won't be. A couple of examples: At Francis M. Drexel School there is a picture (in the footnotes) of a jackhammer sticking through the front of a falling down building - is saying the building was demolished OR? Note there are sources on this, and to some extent they contradicted what I thought I saw on "the" day of the demolition, but unfortunately they are not reliable sources. Also I've labelled 5 or 6 buildings as "demolished" or "destroyed" at the National Register of Historic Places listings in Center City Philadelphia. And there are relevant photos. Should I only have labelled them "Not there." I'm serious - this is a problem I've run into a lot - and I just need some idea on how it ought to be handled. Smallbones (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Orlady's point is that plainly describing the photographic evidence should neatly fit within the OR exception carved out for images. Moreover, it avoids potential inaccuracies. Considering my example (the Phillip and Maria Hasselbach Dingledey House), it's barely possible that the house was moved to some other location rather than demolished. (As a precedent, other historic structures--although not NRHP properties--in nearby Livonia have been moved to Greenmead Farms.) So, to be scrupulously factual, I'm positive the house is "not there," but I'm not positive it's been demolished. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, this helps a lot. "Plainly describing the photographic evidence" is one of the keys, and "I'm positive" vs. "it's barely possible" is another. Plainly describing the Francis Drexel photos - I can say that it was demolished (but that's a very rare case). I'm positive that the center city 1890s skyscrapers were demolished rather than moved, because it is not even "barely possible" to move a 20 story brick building through the streets of Center City Philadelphia - certainly not without making the national and international news. I'd think that the 2nd sentence might be viewed as some as OR, but if others agree to what I see as common sense, I'll quit being pedantic about the application of WP:OR. Thanks. Smallbones (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
A web search makes it clear that Drexel School was demolished, although the sources I found are mostly non-RS. --Orlady (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] With Merrill Lock No. 6, I've said "The lock master's residence, located downstream of the powerhouse, was removed at some point after the property was listed on the Register." My NR nomination form says that there were houses on both sides of the powerhouse when the property was listed, but this photo (which I'm using as the source) shows that it's plainly not there. "Removed" doesn't specify what happened to the house; it simply says that it's not there anymore. Even if it burned down, the resulting pile of rubble has been removed. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The rule against OR calls for verifiable facts and allows those facts to be in a single book in an obscure library somewhere. Stretching that only a little bit says that if another editor can go to a particular address -- not a library, but the address given for an NRHP site, and verify that the building is not there, then there is no OR -- it's a verifiable fact. I have used this for photographs and articles on several such sites that are gone, such as Winfied House. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 10:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course one should always search very hard to find a published source first, if nothing else to get the date or other history behind the demolishion. But by the normal English definition of "original", if many people have seen that the site destroyed, then one more editor seeing it is not "original". So my thinking is that if the site is a fairly well known easily accessable area such as a city with a known address, it should not qualify as being original research to note it is no longer there. Certainly verifiable in the normal English sense of that word too - the rules do not say "verifiable on the Internet". The question is for those location undisclosed sites or ones out in the boonies, when it becomes much more "original". W Nowicki (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Beth Israel Cemetery

I recently expanded the Beth Israel Cemetery (Meridian, Mississippi) article, and I believe I've done as much as possible to that article based on the inadequate amount of source material out there. I've suggested the page be moved at the talk page to a page detailing the entire congregation (which has more sourcing) instead of just the cemetery. User:Doncram has already weighed in on the matter, but I'd like some other opinions. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just curious— you requested the nomination forms on May 29 (Saturday) and received them yesterday??? What's your secret? When I request nomination forms, it usually takes them two, sometime three weeks, depending on the archivist. Bms4880 (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I have no clue why it takes so long for you to get a reply.. Every time I've ever contacted the NPS, I get a response within 24-48 hours. Do you provide adequate information in your emails? Usually it's good to include the name of the site, the city/state in which it is located, and the reference number.
On an unrelated note, here is an excerpt from an email they sent me:
It seems that we only have access to download large-volume information to the FOCUS site during certain periods, as it is maintained by a different IT office. We continue to digitize our materials at a fast pace, but they reside on our in-house servers until we can perform one of these scheduled massive downloads.
All of the nomination forms I requested were available in pdf format on an ftp server, so I asked them why they couldn't just take the extra step and upload them to NRHP Focus. I've always wondered that since every time I've asked them for nom forms, they've sent them to me via email in pdf format. That clears that up! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I see. They have the ones you're requesting digitized in pdf format. The ones I've requested apparently aren't digitized, so they snail-mail me the hard copy. Bms4880 (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I've had the same happen to me - sometimes mailed, sometimes digitized. It's a crap shoot. Einbierbitte (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I Can Haz Some Automated Help, Plz?

I don't think this is the right place to ask this, but I don't know what the right place is, so bear with me. I just noticed that the city of Detroit has changed their website from http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us to http://www.detroitmi.gov. I've used information from the city's Historic District Commission (they have a one-page sheet online for most of the city's historic properties and districts) in multiple articles, and so have other people--about 250 places, in fact. However, the http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us links are now dead. The HDC pages now appear under the same format at http://www.detroitmi.gov, so ~ 250 articles on historic properties need alteration, switching http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us to http://www.detroitmi.gov (as in this diff or this diff). Is there any way to do this quicker than laboriously searching for each instance of http://www.detroitmi.gov/historic? Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can't arrange a bot to do it, there's another way that is painful, but not as hard as doing it by hand.
  1. Do a Wikipedia search on "http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us". It gives 580 hits.
  2. Copy the whole list into Notepad to remove the links
  3. Copy the whole list from Notepad into Excel.
  4. Pull off only the article names. (number the lines 1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3... then sort. The 1s will be the names)
  5. Hand that list to AWB and tell it to make the change you need. Running 580 items through AWB will take a couple of hours, but it's not killing. If you need help making the list, just ask. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, for web citation that are used a lot, I suggest creating a template, as it is faster to write the cite and makes this problem trivial. You might do that for these. See, for example, {{cite uscghist}} and {{cite uscgll}}. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I started a Bot Request; if that doesn't work I'll try the AWB. Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi ... a few weeks ago User:Juliancolton did a similar replacement for me to replace URL www.marylandhistoricaltrust.net → www.mht.maryland.gov. He did an outstanding job, but I keep finding articles where the replacement didn't get made. For whatever reason, using the search method indicated above, I've found 375 NRHP and related articles that use the old URL. Since I'm not a registered user, if I gave someone the list as formulated above, would someone be able to AWB?--Pubdog (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
HI ... never mind, I completed this manually.--Pubdog (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

More cool historic district names

Trapps Mountain Hamlet Historic District, which I just finished expanding. You'd almost think it had something to do with The Sound of Music. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe the location of a historic production of a Shakespeare play placed in the Alps of Austria instead of Denmark? W Nowicki (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Given that the Bard gave Bohemia a seacoast in The Winter's Tale, how do we know that he didn't intend for Hamlet to be set amidst chalets and Alpenhorns? --Ammodramus (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Century Flyer

There is a new listing in Conway, Arkansas for the Century Flyer. It is a 24-inch guage miniature train (See here ) on the grounds of a hospital. Googling around I found similar trains with the same name. I was going to write the article and title it "Century Flyer (Conway, Arkansas)" to head off any future DAB problems. Any thoughts? Also, for any members of WP:Trains - does this train fall under your project? Einbierbitte (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. I created the article Century Flyer (Conway, Arkansas). The street name is misspelled in the NPS Weekly List. In the list it's "Siebenmorgan" instead of "Siebenmorgen", if anyone is noting mistakes in the NPS database. Einbierbitte (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm adding note about the street name to wp:NRIS info issues AR now. I noticed in some of the other wikipedia articles that searching on "Century Flyer" yielded, that the term seems to apply to engines for roller coaster trains sometimes (and sometimes for flat land trains). There's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters on some of those other articles, which seems relevant to add as a project tag to to this one too. I think you could add that wikiproject in marginal cases and/or notify them, and let them decide if they cover flatland miniature trains too or not. I like what you're doing here! --doncram (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I left a note at WP:Roller Coasters. Thanks. Einbierbitte (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FAR of Mount Rushmore

I have nominated Mount Rushmore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian theatres

Not sure what to make of the NPS's most recent featured listing claim, that the Egyptian Theatre (Coos Bay, Oregon), is one of only four known Egyptian style theatres. Given that wikipedia has at least five others:

Tho maybe the Peery one has been renovated too much to qualify as an original one from the fad following 1922 discovery of King Tut's tomb, but still there are more than four surviving from the 1920s i think. --doncram (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Geneva Lake Historic Places

I have done some arm twisting and I found a bunch of free images taken on Geneva Lake in the Lake Geneva, Wisconsin area. I wonder if anyone can look up to see if these images are historic places from the National Register of Historic Places listings in Walworth County, Wisconsin. I found a reference that says a bunch of these residences can only be seen from the lake (I won't trespass, tee hee). The set of photos can be found here. I uploaded the boat image while working on an upcoming mail jumping article and found these images from the same source. Royalbroil 22:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fun! Pic three ("Lake Geneva Beach") features The Riviera (Bing aerial view). It's *possible* the last pic ("Lake Geneva mansions") is Bonnie Brae (Bing aerial view), but it's not clear if Bonnie Brae is the pictured structure or the one next door (my money's on the one next door). Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool template I found

I found Template:Lengthlink while browsing around earlier today, and I think it would be a great addition to our "Recent articles" section.. You input the name of the article and the length, and it returns an image of a bar color coded based on the size of the articles. The longer the article, the more green the bar is. This would be awesome to see which new articles are doing well and which ones need more expansion IMO. The only drawback is that the page size has to be manually input, so the bar won't automatically update. Does anyone know of a way to query the size of an article (such as in another template), so that this could be a self-sustaining system? I know of this script, but I would really like to be able to do this without javascript if that's possible.. maybe like a WP:MAGICWORD or something? Any ideas? If not, it may be possible to extract the code from that script that gathers the page size and adjust it to fit our needs. Anyone interested? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I just figured out how to do it using a magic word I didn't know about before. The code is at User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox and is exampled below on the May 2010 list of new articles found at WP:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/New articles. What do you guys think?

--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I like it. I say add it. Bms4880 (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I wish it displayed honest efforts at new articles like Orson Everitt House and William B. and Mary Chase Stratton House differently then one-sentence laziness like this:
No objection to adding it; it just isn't distinguishing non-articles like I hoped it would.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way the tool can factor out the size of the infobox? That seems to be inflating the count for all articles. 25or6to4 (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I actually added in code to give small stubs that have an infobox (with very little other content) at least a "1" rating, so we could easily spot NRHP articles without infoboxes (they'd be "0"), but I can remove this boost if that's desired. Basically the rating system goes in increments of 2000 bytes up to 20k, which was an arbitrary choice based on what I thought a 10 rated article should be on average... if the boost is removed, Kenton Historic District would be a 0, and the other two you linked to would be 1's. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the boost (and edited your comment to show the ratings of the other two articles.. hope you don't mind), and now they are distinguished. The list above changed a little as well, though I don't think there's too much different. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I moved the template into mainspace now and replaced the calls above. The template can be found at Template:alr (ALR = "Article Length Rating") along with documentation. I'll add it to the front page now. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Public Domain Template?

As the National Register of Historic Places is a federal agency, that makes all their content in the Public Domain. Although attribution is not required for public domain, I am thinking about creating a template for this, similar to Template:DANFS. (You can see what it looks like here.) Thoughts, ideas? Avicennasis @ 18:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Example: Template:NRHP-PD. Avicennasis @ 19:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Under what circumstances would this "template" be used? You really couldn't use in any article that use information from the nomination forms, as it has decided that those usually are not written by federal employees, most often state agencies or private organization prepare those (see here and here). The database itself is public domain, which we've made use of (having finished listing out all the properties). The database is, however, mentioned as the source in the lists (see List of RHPs), so couldn't see using the template there either. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 20:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I had not thought of that. The fact the the nomination forms were on file with a GovOrg does not over-ride the original author's copyright claim. Barring that, I am not sure I see a use either. If no one else can find a purpose for it, I'll CSD it. Avicennasis @ 20:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also as was brought up several times, the pictures too as well as forms are usually taken by state or local employees so are not necessarily in public domain. As opposed to, say, Library of Congress ones that usually are PD. W Nowicki (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_41&oldid=1140217024"