Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53→Archive 55

Speaking of Santa

Santa Fe 3759, in Kingman, Arizona, Christmas, 2005
Christmas Tree Lane in Altadena, California
plus one not on the NRHP

We're sadly lacking in Christmas pix, these are recycled from last year. Maybe somebody could go out and shoot some for next year. Mine may not foot the bill, coming from the Virgin Islands. Ho! Ho! Ho! Enjoy and Merry Christmas! Smallbones (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Kearney County Courthouse, December 2011

Here's one from this year: the NRHP-listed Kearney County Courthouse in Minden, Nebraska, which bills itself as "Nebraska's Christmas City". Minden started lighting the courthouse square in 1915, when the city fathers decided to impress a state G.A.R. convention by illuminating the route from the railroad station to the square. Weather interfered, as weather has a way of doing in Nebraska, and the lights were repurposed for a Christmas display. Pleased to report that they haven't yet put a Santa Claus hat on the infantryman on the Civil War monument. Ammodramus (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Meridian City Hall, Christmas 2011

Not nearly as decorated, but this one is definitely from this year. Here's NRHP-listed Meridian City Hall lit up for the holidays! Originally built during the Great Depression, the building has been under restoration since 2006 and is nearing completion. The image is thanks to local photographer Nathan Culpepper.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect NRHP NYC Subway Station listings

I already posted this on the NY issues board, but there are incorret NRHP parameters used on the 145th Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line) article. While that station is historic enough to deserve NRHP status, all the documentation shows that the actual 145th Street Subway station with NRHP status in Manhattan is 145th Street (IRT Lenox Avenue Line). ----DanTD (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE - To be honest, I'm not so sure about 86th Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line) either. ----DanTD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

userbox for National Historic Districts

See you have a userbox for # of historic districts visited, would be cool to have one for those who actually live in one!  :-) Nikki (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Demolished" heading in infobox

I was putting together the article for the Ironwood City Hall, and it turns out that the structure has been demolished for over 20 years. It seems to me that the infobox ought to recognize that, so I added a banned using the "designated other" parameter (see the article). So, question: is this a good idea, and if so, is it worth adding a specialized parameter to the infobox (like "delisted"?) Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so — the infobox is specifically for information related to why it was listed on the Register and a summary of information about the building as/when it is/was standing; thus I don't see a note of demolished as belonging in the infobox, either with a special parameter or with the "other" parameter. Nyttend (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
There's actually already a |demolished= parameter which holds the date of demolition. I just put it in the article and took out the banner.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Nice! I did not know that. Thanks! Andrew Jameson (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Reading the documentation helps :P. There are parameters for rebuilt date, restored date, and company/person by which the property was restored as well. Those could come in handy in some articles.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

How to handle burned ships?

As far as placement on lists is concerned, how do we deal with burned ships that don't exist anymore? I decided to take a trip to Sandusky, Ohio today (National Register of Historic Places listings in Sandusky, Ohio will be extremely close to fully illustrated when I finish uploading my photos of almost 110 different sites), and to my surprise, I couldn't find G.A. BOECKLING (side-paddlewheel steamboat) at its location. The public library reference desk told me "no" when I asked if it were normally berthed there, but they didn't explain what had happened to it. Figuring that it had been moved to a different port, I checked Google, which provided this NPS document that refers to the burning of a ship G.A. Boeckling at Sandusky, Ohio. What do we do with it? We normally leave properties on lists that have been destroyed by fire, unless they're delisted (e.g. Lockington Covered Bridge, burned in 1989, appears on our Shelby County, Ohio list), but when movable structures such as ships get moved, we change them (e.g. Donald B. we list in Switzerland County, Indiana, even though NPS lists it at its former location in Brown County, Ohio). At the same time, we include the shipwreck Mississippi III in the list for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, even though it sank after it got moved there from Washington County, Ohio.

All this is to say: since it appears that there's not a trace left of the Boeckling, the situation seems to be unique. What should we do with it? Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd leave it for now, but put a note that it burned. Maybe, if it's final resting place is known, it could be noted in the NRIS info issues and eventually updated in the database. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Not optimistic that the info issues would help in this case — the report is also from 1989, so NPS knew 22 years ago that it had burned. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I have a similar problem with the Tarpon Springs Sponge Boats MPS. I could only find one of the boats. I asked around, and was told that the rest were destroyed, but not exactly how. I've not been able to find any information anywhere whether they were sunk, burned, scuttled or what. Now that most of the Florida NRHPs are photographed, and I ain't roadtripping so much, maybe I can uncover the details. Ironically, the only unillustrated things on the Pinellas County list now seem to be all destroyed.
You might consider contacting Ohio's version of the National Register. They might know more. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 02:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
You mean my SHPO? Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Yep. The people here got back to me pretty quickly when I informed them about some destroyed buildings that I had proof for, and were quite nice. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 00:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly sure where this is going, but remember the State of Pennsylvania (in Delaware) "The boat foundered near its dock on the Christina River in 1970. In 1979, it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places.[1] In 1988, the upper decks were destroyed by a deliberately set fire, and in 2005 the hull was removed and scrapped as a hazard to navigation, all without the ship being raised." Smallbones (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

However, that ship was listed as a shipwreck; specialists in underwater archaeology (yes, it really does exist!) might be able to find useful information there. Since everything except the keel of this vessel was always above water, I doubt that the situation would be the same. Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Homecroft Historic District

I added an image and a reference but I think someone should take a look at this article. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yuck. Total copyvio; fixed now. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Um, it's NPS-created content; why do you say copyvio? I don't see this text in the nomination form. This is not to question your work; it's definitely a better encyclopedia article now. A pity that the photo isn't in the district; looking at the nomination, I've just realised that the photo site (Banta Road) is a block north of the district's northern boundary. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Oops; you're right--it was a copy of a US gov-created text, so not a copyvio at all. Andrew Jameson (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Delaware & Hudson Railroad Depot - Ticonderoga

In trying to supply refnums to the county/city table, I could not find this one in the FOCUS or other standard sources. I did find it in the Elkman Infobox Generator as 88002206 - owner objection. I got this number from National Register of Historic Places.com indicating listing in 1988. The National Register of Historic Places listings in Essex County, New York indicates that it was approved April 9, 1992. I could not easily find it in the 1992 NRHP list. I have given the number and owner objection in the comments of the county table. Maybe someone with more familiarity with New York State NRHP could look for it or delete it if it is not approved. KudzuVine (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Olympia, Washington sites

In trying to find the refnums for sites in Thurston County, Washington, I found four that are problematical that I did locate in FOCUS/NRIS or the Elkman inbox generator. Again, I found the refnums in National Register of Historic Places.com. The places are: 1) Allen-Beals House, refnum = 99000438, Elkman's database says it is "Pending/listed;" 2) Donald Building, refnum = 87002646, Elkman's database says it is "Owner objection;" 3)Hotel Olympian, refnum = 87002647, Elkman's database says it is "Owner objection;" and 4)Kearney House-YWCA Clubhouse, refnum = 99000439, Elkman's database says it is "Pending/listed." If this is true, they are not (yet) listed. I tried to them in the WISAARD state tool. I found Allen-Beals House and Donald Building on their map, but could not find any more information. Perhaps, someone more skilled can figure it out. If they are not on the Register, the Owner objection places could be put in separate category as was done for Delaware & Hudson Railroad Depot - Ticonderoga in National Register of Historic Places listings in Essex County, New York by User:Sanfranman59 for the above item. But what do we do with Pending/listed?KudzuVine (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I too came across several sites that were in Washington state tables but that are not actually listed on the register. I'm guessing that whoever put together the Washington state tables may have relied upon NRHP.com. We now know that the lists there don't distinguish between listed sites and sites that have been nominated, but have not been listed for some reason (often owner objection). I'm planning to do a thorough review of the Washington tables. Would anyone else care to pitch in? --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Semester is starting my time goes to near zero. I am being encourage on my talk page to clean-up my Thurston County work so I will probably do that in the near future. Is there anywhere else to check to make sure that these sites on not on the NRHP?KudzuVine (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Schomburg Center

I am editing the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, a library listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Which navbox should I use? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Usually we just use the generic {{National Register of Historic Places}} navbox, but if there is a more specific one, i.e. one specifically for NYC, use it. For more information on common project practices, see our Style guide.
From that page, it appears all our navboxes are located in this category. Navigating to sub-categories, it looks like {{National Register of Historic Places in New York}} would be the preferable one. Really, it's up to you, though.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Color accessibility

Hi everyone - I recently put up a featured list nomination for List of National Historic Landmarks in Michigan (the review can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in Michigan/archive1). As part of the review, a user who works with accessibility issues has pointed out that standard colors used as differentiators in NRHP/NHL listings (detailed at Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend) do not meet accessibility guidelines. Here's the exact quote from this reviewer:

"We also need to be aware of the effect of colour contrast on viewers who may not have the same colour responses as the general population. The standard called 'Web Content Accessibilty Guidelines' (WCAG) gives us guidance on what colours we can use as background against a given text colour. There's a useful tool at http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html which shows that 'NHL color' (i.e. #87CEEB) and 'NHLD color' (i.e. #00CED1) are marginal for black text with the small small point size used, but the latter fails even the lower AA standard if the text is wikilinked (colour is #0645AD). I understand the desire to retain a project-wide colour scheme, but the scheme really needs lighter or less blue colours if they are going to be fully accessible. I'm not suggesting this is anything you can rectify individually (other than abandoning the NRHP scheme in favour of the default wikitable colours), but it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia if examples of our very best work don't match up to world-wide standards for accessibility."

I am not going to change this list to be out of sync with the rest of the lists, but I am hoping that as a project something can be done to bring the colors into standard with accessibility guidelines, so that all of the lists curated by the project meet the guidelines. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This same idea came up with Template:Designation a while back. The solution that came out of consensus was to use outlined rows instead of fully-colored bars in infoboxes. This implementation can be seen in {{Infobox historic site}}. Should the NRHP infobox use this style as well?
This solution may work for infoboxes; however, it does not work in a table setting because the outlines overlap, making it look horrible. I can't find the diff that showed this, though. I feel like the resolution to this problem is somewhere in this direction.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This came up with navboxes a while back, and the solution was to add a preference setting that overrides all CSS-based color settings in favor of whatever scheme makes it more accessible for the reader. While I think it only works with navboxes at the moment, I see no reason it can't be extended to infoboxes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this the same ship?

In going through the removals from the NRHP, I have come across a listing that I'm not sure about. The S.S. John W. Brown is currently listed in the Baltimore listings with Ref#97001295. On the Same day listing, There is also a removal listing for the John W. Brown at Newport News for ref#85000399. I'm assuming these are the same object, but want to double-check with everyone else. 25or6to4 (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the same ship. She was in the Reserve Fleet in VA and then transferred or sold to the Baltimore group. I seem to recall that the US Govt listed her in VA and then when she went to Baltimore delisted her so that the Baltimore group can relist her. Einbierbitte (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Why couldn't they just do a "change of address" bit? 25or6to4, please continue to be careful about properties that have been delisted and were later relisted; this happened with the Kent Jail and the Gramelspacher-Gutzweiler House (Dubois County, Indiana). The latter case is particularly difficult — the nomination form and the earliest list both speak of it as being listed in 1978, and the nomination form refers to a delisting (you'll note that NRIS gives a listing date of 1983), but I never did find a notice of delisting anywhere. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The same thing happened to the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, Whittier. Luckily all the delistings and relistings were covered in the weekly updates. Einbierbitte (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Preservation efforts for Tranquility Base

Interesting article from the New York Times yesterday on the efforts to preserve, and possibly grant formal status of some kind to, the Apollo landing sites on the moon.

I've often wondered about this myself. I don't think anyone would disagree that the Apollo 11 site meets all the criteria for NHL status, but apparently the NPS rebuffed efforts by students at New Mexico State to do so (apparently the concern is that it might violate the Outer Space Treaty's provision that no nation claims sovereignty over any portion of the moon or any other celestial body. It seems like it would be eligible for World Heritage Site status as well, but apparently UNESCO only lets nations list sites within their own borders (even in sort of fudgy cases like Jerusalem Old City and its walls, which was proposed by Jordan, and was within borders Jordan was still claiming at the time although it had been under Israeli administration for a dozen years or so (and still is)).

But, that hasn't stopped California and New Mexico from listing Tranquility Base in their state-level registers. Apparently all they need is some connection to the state (Texas can't, as theirs is limited to the state itself). And NASA itself, which normally doesn't do much to preserve its history (as any look through our articles on certain space-related NHLs such as Neutral Buoyancy Space Simulator will attest) is actually getting interested. They have to balance the preservation interest with their own impulse should we/when we return to the moon to collect some of the objects and see how well the material has held up (Apollo 12 was purposely landed near one of the Surveyors for exactly this reason). So for the time being NASA has asked that any visitors to the moon, human or robotic, keep at least 75 meters (246 ft) from all the Apollo sites save Apollo 17, where a 225-meter (738 ft) limit is requested due to the tracks Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt left in their lunar rover. This was apparently prompted by the Google Lunar X Prize, which offers a $1 million bonus to a team that gets its spacecraft to a historic site on the moon (See here for the controversy).

This is an interesting issue in preservation given that we, as a species, have now put landing craft on practically every inner planet (we did land one on Mercury, didn't we?) and now some of the moons of the outer planets. And I would imagine free spacecraft would qualify as well, if not Pioneer 10 (first outer-planet probe; first manmade object to leave the solar system) and Voyager 1 (farthest man-made object from Earth). Since we're not the only country to have done this, I think this should be addressed at the UN level. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

However, to me it seems rather pointless to list the free spacecraft — it's going to be rather hard for anyone acting with federal funds to reduce their historic integrity, and I don't expect to see NASA attempting to get tax credits for historically sensitive restorations of said spacecraft. Nyttend (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Useless stubs?

Category:Stubs at this moment (may not be the same when you look) contains 49 items all or most of which are minimal stubs for NRHP places. In each case the stub provides less information than the county listing (compare: Joseph Mandl House "is a house located in Jerome, Idaho listed on the National Register of Historic Places." to the list at National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Jerome_County,_Idaho which includes date of listing, street address and geog coordinates.

Such stubs seem to be positively unhelpful, and I suggest that they should be made into redirects to the listings unless there is any prospect of them being expanded in the immediate future. PamD 10:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I would rather see people expand them than redirect them. Based on the NRHP database we now have it shouldn't be too hard for someone to create a web tool to pre populate {{Infobox NRHP}} or even generate the whole stub with more information. That would be a better start. Multichill (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
These pages at least serve as starting points for expansion. Making them redirect pages would, in my opinion, just make the already-complicated page structure more confusing. I personally have expanded some stub articles within the last few months, and I don't doubt that others have too. A stub page is better than no article at all, although I don't advocate creating them. Chevsapher (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure it is "better than no page at all"? If it wasn't there, the reader would find the county list with more information! PamD 14:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
PamD, you just stepped into a long, book-length debate over the NRHP sub-stubs that heats up about once every year. I agree with you, these articles should never have been created with such minimal information, and I consider them an embarrassment to this project. I am no fan of the "somebody might expand it later" argument for creating sub-stubs, and I feel the effort spent generating these things would be much better spent creating a smaller set of longer articles with more meaningful information. However, that's just my opinion, and if we push this issue, it will lead to a debate that stretches across 80 paragraphs and will involve at least one frustrated mediator. Bms4880 (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. Another stub-sorter, more patient than me, has cleared the 49 stubs (though I venture to say less thorough than me, as they haven't added the {{Idaho-NRHP-stub}}, just {{Idaho-struct-stub}}!). I'm glad to see someone has added an infobox to at least one of the batch, and will now let the whole thing lie ... until perhaps another swathe of timewasting turns up to be stub-sorted! Good luck with it all. PamD 20:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Put in over thirty NRHP infoboxes into articles using the Elkman tool. This gives them refnum, coordinates, etc., but it does not solve the problems of one-sentence stubs. KudzuVine (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
In turn, it shouldn't be too hard for us to take the information from the infobox and turn it into a paragraph in the main body of the article. (Builder, date constructed, style, location, etc.) This also goes along with Wikipedia's policy. Although these articles still won't state much and will still be stubs, they will be much more informative than their one-sentence ancestors. Chevsapher (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It'd be a good thing to turn infobox information into real prose. However, a caution is indicated. We've found and documented lots and lots of errors in the NRHP database that the Elkman tool queries. An editor writing a "real" article (Start-class or better) and consulting multiple sources is likely to spot those errors and correct them. Unfortunately, an editor prosifying infobox information without checking up on it probably won't; and the better-looking an article is, the more likely it is that errors in it will be picked up by other sources, making it harder to detect and correct in the future. (Obligatory link to relevant XKCD cartoon.) If error-checking isn't happening, then I think it's better to leave one-source stubs looking like poor neglected WP orphans, as a warning to readers not to rely on them too much. Ammodramus (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
+1.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I've just found a lot more: Swampyank has decided to create a pile of substubs for almost all of Ohio's churches, leaving us with pages such as St. Paul's Sunday School and Parish House. Some of them I've had to delete because they're outright wrong (created even without paying attention to NRIS data such as the listing name or number of contributing properties) and thus unintentional hoaxes. Having expanded dozens or hundreds of NrhpBot stubs in Ohio, I can testify that they're never expanded, except in a few limited cases: (1) People add unsourced information that I have to remove when I write a decent article; (2) People add copyvios that I have to delete; (3) We have a duplicate article that is expanded by merging into a larger article under the common name; (4) I have the time to expand it. Nyttend (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Swampyank doesn't confine his antics to Ohio. He's also responsible for a plague of substubs for churches in South Carolina, e.g. Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church (McClellanville, South Carolina). Looking at his contribution history for the date of that article's creation, I see five minutes or less elapsing between each new article. The man must be a powerful fast reader, to be able to research an article that quickly...
One thing I note about his substubs is that he doesn't address the reason for a church's notability. He mentions the fact of the notability, which is proved by their inclusion in the NRHP, but not the reason for it—excellent example of Carpenter Gothic architecture, second-oldest surviving AME church in South Carolina, Francis Marion's daughter was married there, or whatever. If this isn't a violation of Wikipolicy, then it seems like it should be: it'd be like an article reading entirely 'Abraham Lincoln was an American politician from Springfield, Illinois. He was listed in Time magazine's "100 Greatest Americans".' With a citation, of course.
I've been mentally drafting a talk-page note appealing to his better nature and asking him to quit with the substubs, but his userpage suggests that I wouldn't be the first to try. Suggestions? Ammodramus (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears swampyank has been in my neck of the woods as well: Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church (Knoxville, Tennessee). I have proposed numerous times that sub-stub creators at least mention the reason for the building's listing on the Register, but to no avail. Bms4880 (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Ammodramus, perhaps you could appeal to obvious errors, such as St. Paul's Sunday School and Parish House (it's not a church building at all, but a building that was both a rectory and a religious school) and suggest that he stop mass creations because they result in errors. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Similar cleanup eyes needed...

Could someone please look at and vet List of Masonic buildings in the United States, both entries and linked articles? There are a lot of stubs, small articles, etc., that to me only seem to speak to existence rather than notability, but I don't know enough about buildings and architecture to know what features would make a building's style notable. If they could stand to be prodded or AfDed, I can do that, but I need to know which articles I can do that with, and which are OK as they are. MSJapan (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania - call for submissions

Forwarding this - discussion in next section

Early registration is only $35 for 3 days for Wikimedia contributors

which includes lunch and lots of extras, but not hotels of course. Smallbones (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Call for Participation - Wikimania 2012

To submit a proposal, visit: http://wikimania2012.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions

Important Dates Deadline for submitting proposals: 18 March 2012 Notification of acceptance: 8 April 2012

Overview Wikimania conferences provide unique opportunities for the wiki community and its sister projects (including Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wiktionary, Wikispecies, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikimedia) to come together, share their common goals, and develop better ways to work together on an international level. The Wikimania 2012 program structure is designed to create multiple opportunities for conference participants to actively engage with the subject matter, the environment, and, most importantly, each other. Washington, D.C, can play an important role in Wikimania 2012 as a locale that gathers interest in government, culture, media, and academia around the general goals of the Wikimania conference series.

In accordance with these goals and themes, the program will include traditional conference offerings such as paper presentations, tutorials, panels, and poster sessions; provide lounge space and breaks throughout for participants to gather; and innovate with an unconference day for attendees to design their own schedule and participation around common interests. Submissions will be reviewed and selected in advance by the program committee. Attendees are welcome to present in the open space track of the conference, regardless of whether their submitted presentations were accepted.

The eigth annual Wikimania will be held between 12th and 14th July, 2012 in Washington D.C. For more information, please visit the main site.

Presentation length Due to the extensive amount of program submissions received in the previous years, we request your presentation be a maximum of 25 minutes, including time for questions. You may request more time, though shorter individual presentations are more likely to be accepted.

This does not apply for keynote speakers, panels, or workshops. 70 minute presentations must be submitted either as panel presentations to include at least three presenters or as workshops with a clear lesson plan.

Tracks Tracks are used by Wikimania to organize submissions and diversify audiences so that presentations of competing interest do not have time conflicts. Five tracks are proposed:

Wikis and the Public Sector The Washington, DC, location for Wikimania 2012 provides a special opportunity for those working in the social good, policy, government, nonprofit, and disaster response arenas to share their experience with collaboration on a local, national, or international level. Wikis and complementary technologies are proving to be critical in times of crisis and in ongoing work with citizen participation in government, as well as in long-term goals for education, public policy, social entrepreneurship, and development in the global south and throughout the world. This track will explore the ways that Wikimedia projects and related activities can be used to support citizens worldwide.

GLAM: Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums This track aims to support current outreach to Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums and build enthusiasm for continued work in this area. Presentations and panels will demonstrate effective outreach techniques and results from ongoing activities as well as envision the future path for these efforts. Topics of particular interest to this track may include: wiki technology as a tool for cultural preservation; use of wikis by museums and libraries for information management for the public good; legal and copyright issues; use of content in GLAM projects, education, journalism and research; conflicts between different laws that apply to the same wiki system simultaneously. This track may also incorporate ?field trips? before, after, or during the evenings of the conference to visit Washington, D.C., organizations.

WikiCulture and Community Why do people contribute to Wikimedia projects? How might the community grow and expand while retaining its inherent cultural ethos? This track will explore the sociology of wiki culture and community and provide a forum for practitioners and researchers to share insights and best practices for community management, engagement, participation, and conflict resolution. The assessment of different wiki cultures and demonstration of clashes and effects of those interactions between wiki communities and chapters is relevant to this track. A special focus will be a discussion of gaps between different community groups, most notably related to gender and age; within this context, submissions related to female and teenage participation, representative roles within the community, and the use of wikis as a tool for different gender and age group dialogues, are strongly encouraged.

Research, Analysis, and Education The scope of research and analysis on wikis has grown significantly in recent years, and wikis are rapidly being introduced to educational institutions in the course of teaching and more formally through the Campus Ambassador Program. The scholarly atmosphere of the selected venue creates a special opportunity for researchers working in this area to present papers and panels to a well-informed audience. Subjects associated with the research component of this track can include a diverse range of topics including: technical development, philosophy and the humanities, communications, community management and collaboration, information science, and a broad range of other areas. The practitioner side of this track can include: expert participation and inviting expert contributions; Wikiversity and other higher education wikis; wiki sources deployed and implemented in academia and research practice; approaches to the improvement of collaboration in research institutions and universities; and contribution to content quality, among other areas.

Technology and Infrastructure Technology and infrastructure play essential roles in the success of Wikimedia projects and other uses of wiki technology. This track will incorporate research and practice to showcase technology applications and theories, demonstrate new uses of existing and evolving technologies, and focus on applying technologies to meet user needs and improve the overall user experience. Issues and areas particularly of note in this track include: OTRS, MediaWiki development, semantic wikis, wiki-based Augmented Reality (AR), the use of QR codes, Wikipedia on mobile devices, Wikipedia offline, User Interface Design, WikiLove, Liquid Thread and related technical focus points.

Lounge Space Presentations All proposals and presentations will be welcome in the Lounge space of the conference, whether or not they are accepted in this initial process.

If you have any questions, please contact:

Tiffany Smith Program Committee Chair, Wikimania 2012 tiffany.lmb.smith@gmail.com

Thank you very much for your consideration, and we look forward to seeing you at Wikimania 2012 in Washington, DC.

http://wikimania2012.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions

Move request dealing with disambiguation

Hopefully this won't degenerate it another project-wide conflict, but this could affect the disambiguation policy here. I've requested a move of Horseshoe Curve (Altoona, Pennsylvania) to Horseshoe Curve (Pennsylvania). The discussion can be found here. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 20:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

NRISref formatting

Nytend and I were discussing this on my talkpage. This template creates a link to a NPS site. However the site does not itself contain any info on a NRHP. Because of this I was removing them (being unknowing that is) and I'm sure I'm not the only one that has been confused by this. It is searchable and has a downloadable database. NRISref uses a date format I detest (though I know it's one of the acceptable standards). Is there a way to change it? Template documentation is mute on this...to be more explicit, the Template:NRISref displays dates as YYYY-MM-DD. Is there are way to make it display in this format January 22, 2012? Also the date it displays is the database version date and it doesn't display a retrieved date at all. These sorts of issues are a big deal at GA and FA and somewhat at DYK, ie, date format consistency and referenced sites that do not themselves have any info on the topic. If these can't be changed I might just put the info in cite web format. Tks. PumpkinSky talk 11:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

1) I have no opinion on the date formatting, although I'm not quite sure how the current format can be both "one of the acceptable standards" and "a big deal at GA and FA" at the same time. 2) I disagree that the database needs a "retrieved date." The database is not like a web page, where the information may be altered at any time with no notice. It is more akin to a textbook, where new editions are published at various intervals. When citing a textbook, you references the edition number, but you don't note the date you read the book. Similarly, with a database, the version date should be sufficient, and the access date is not needed. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
To change the date formatting, use the |dateform= parameter. Setting it to "dmy" gives 23 January 2012, "mdy" gives January 23, 2012, and both "ymd" and "iso" give the default 2012-01-23.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
@andrew-what's a big deal is if the refs use different date formats, not the date format in and of itself. If no retrieve date is needed, that's okay. Dudemanfel-can that be added to the documentation? PumpkinSky talk 17:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Added to the template doc file. Feel free to tweak.PumpkinSky talk 00:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
dateform= does not work. See my attempts to fix Kluge House. PumpkinSky talk 02:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
It was simply a typo: PumpkinSky meant to type "mdy" but accidentally used the invalid option of "myd". Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
DOH on me! Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 02:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

HABS files on Commons

A botmaster named "Multichill" is going through and deleting multiple HABS sub-categories on Wikimedia Commons, and replacing them with a generic "Historic buildings" category. Does anyone know if there was a discussion on this? Bms4880 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bms4880, talk is at several places: Commons:Template talk:PD-USGov-Interior-HABS#Template needs to be split, Commons:Category talk:Historic buildings in the United States, Commons:Commons:Batch uploading/HABS & Commons:User talk:Multichill.
This is all preparation for the upload of a rather large amount of images (300.000?).
Your friendly botmaster Multichill (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

New system for tables

User:Multichill has proposed above a new system for setting up our (county) tables. It sounds good (so far), but I'm concerned that not everybody understands the change and what it might mean. Also, I'm not sure that Multichill has a complete understanding of what we want from our tables, and some of the quirks that we might have.

I ask everybody concerned with our tables (that's everybody here isn't it?) to join in and help describe what we want and need from our tables. But first I'll just copy some of the advantages he has stated above. Smallbones (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The advantages of the system:

What we need, quirks, and questions

  • We have a system of tables that breaks down the 85,000 or so US NRHP sites into:
    • State lists
    • County lists
    • And sometimes sub-county lists if the county lists are too large.
  • The lists are updated every month with additions and a few deletions.
  • There are overlapping lists, e.g.
    • The NHL lists (by state) have sites that are all (except for 4 in DC) on NRHP county lists (but sometimes with different names) and the NHL format is different from the NRHP table format.
    • Each (?) state has an overlapping list of NRHP bridges and canals.
    • Some historic districts (HDs) and Multiple Property Submissions (MPSs) have separate lists. The HD lists are not on the County lists, but the MPSs are.
    • Some particular topics (e.g. Masonic buildings, Odd-Fellows, Elks, etc.) have lists that include some NRHP sites, HD sites, and other sites identified as historic.
  • There are questions about the maximum table size caused by long loading times. It used to be that over 100 sites in a county caused concerns, but now it might be 200 sites (as technology improves)
  • Question on whether we need the first column with the site number (but useful when dividing lists)
  • A big need (or an intense curiosity) on our progress. How many photos to go in the US, in Montana, in XXX county? How many red-links? How long would it take to get such info. If I want to go tomorrow (nice weather) to YYY county, can I get these lists myself, or do I have to wait a week?
  • Some photos on address-restricted sites, we don't want and put a special graphic on, but other address-restricted site pix we do want, and others we just leave blank. How would that affect the above question?

I'm sure there are other questions and quirks. It wouldn't be fair to Multichill to expect him to know all of these unless we tell him, so please add on! Smallbones (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Great job of summarizing where we are Smallbones and thanks for taking on that task. Just a couple of things to add/clarify:
  • In general, the state/county/city lists are updated weekly, not monthly
  • The row numbers are also useful for quickly knowing how many listings there are in a table, which helps with the tables that tally the number of listings in a state by county and in the US by state. --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm having trouble following the examples; but the things that concern me are the automatic processes: automatically categorizing Commons images, and automatically adding coordinates to them.
Most of us are well aware that there are bad coordinates in the database. Even if the errors were corrected, there'd be situations where we'd want to put in our own coordinates rather than the database's. To come up with just two examples, we might be uploading photos of individual structures within a geographically large site (an HD, a major battlefield, or the like); or we might be uploading a photo of a historical marker describing the site but not at it.
I've had plenty of situations, as well, where I did not want to use the official NRHP name as the name of a category. The official name might have been ambiguous, for example; or the site might have been better known under a different name.
I'm afraid that these automatic processes could become a rich source of irritation and error. I'd prefer that they not be introduced; or, if they must be, that they be designed so that an editor can quickly and easily shut them down. Ammodramus (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Automatic processes are meant to assist us, not annoy us. It can be enabled but it doesn't have to.
Automatic addition of coordinates will only happen if an image is not already geotagged. It always contains the source of the coordinates so you are able to hunt down errors.
Automatic categorization at the moment is only used to do the first pass. Take for example the Netherlands. Images start in Commons:Category:Rijksmonumenten. The bot only works on this category and will move images to subcategories example. If you don't put images in the root category, this bot won't work on them. multichill (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Maps! Ooh, bots and other automatic processes making more maps! Maps of kinds of places. Maps of photographed places. Local maps of photos wanted! Ooh, I want maps, especially on my smartphone when wandering in unfamiliar neighborhoods seeking unphotographed treasures. Yes, the coordinates in Wikpedia are objective, while most coordinates in Commons are POV, all for good reasons, but most photos have no coordinates. Presumably the automated coords would be placed low in the Commons, photo page so other bots would give priority to other coords in case of conflict. And of course they must say they are of objects and not where the camera sat.

Yes, automatons often apply categories stupidly in Commons but usually those are more easily found and corrected than pictures escaping notice due to undercategorization. So yes, I hope a way can be found to go forward with this project, not so hastily as to spread great confusion (for example by unwise categorization within templates) but without unreasonable delay. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks User:Smallbones for compiling this list. For bullet 3 under overlapping lists, my experience has been that The MPSs lists are not on the County lists, but the HDs are. I'd love to see an intermediate MPSs listing.--Pubdog (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The individual sites of the MPSs are listed in the county lists, as are single listings for each HD. Nytend and Ebyabe and probably some others have put in articles/lists of MPSs that are linked from the individual MPS sites in the county lists. I think the purpose of this is to avoid having individual articles on sites where the NRHP nomination only has one or two paragraphs on each of the MPS sites. In a few cases there might be an individual article linked to the MPS article, so I guess you could say it's an intermediate list. HDs are another matter. Other than the regular sites that are also in the HD, there is only one entry on the county lists for an HD. HD articles, which sometimes develop into lists are pretty common. BTW, a few weeks ago, I ran into a HD that is part of another HD (not a simple boundary extension) in National Register of Historic Places listings in Montour County, Pennsylvania. I sometimes think the NRHP makes these things up just to confuse us. Smallbones (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The older "Danville West Market Street Historic District" covers the western half of downtown, and the newer "Danville Historic District" covers all of downtown, so I guess a simple boundary extension to "West" would have really confused everybody! If you can deal with the PHMC website (I have multiple delays because I use a Mac and it requires the use of an unsupported Mac version of internet explorer) you should be able to verify this from the nominations, but the way I read it, the courthouse- the major building in the center of downtown - is not included in either district. Hope this clears up everything. Smallbones (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I too have seen instances where some HDs are "swallowed up" by later, bigger HDs. Very curious.--Pubdog (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Weird; I don't remember encountering that before. Perhaps it's something in the Eastern Seaboard states? The closest comparison that I can remember visiting is in East Liverpool, Ohio, where exactly one bank building is in both the East Fifth Street Historic District and the East Liverpool Downtown Historic District. Smallbones, I'm confused what you think I've done; as far as I can remember, I've never added MPS-related bits to the "comments" column — am I remembering wrongly, or are you talking about something else? Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure I got the details wrong, but I was thinking about Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches and the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 50#MPS and TR categories. I do like the idea of separate lists/articles for some MPSs, and at some time in the future will probably try it out for School buildings in Philadelphia and Fire stations in Washington, DC. Intermediate may not be the best term. Smallbones (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Progress

I went ahead and converted part of the lists. On the first pass the bot converted the list in a template based format and tried to extract the reference number from the linked article. For the second pass I downloaded the full NRHP database and converted it to Mysql (the source is MS access). I imported this database at the toolserver (p_erfgoed_nrhp_p for anyone who has an account). In the second pass the bot tried to find reference numbers. For each item I use the state, county and date to find one or more items. If either the address or the name match exactly the number is added. This worked quite well. Some numbers:

  • Number of items in the NRHP database: 85847
  • Number of NRHP items in the big monuments database: 40874 (that's {{NRHP row}} with the refnum set)
  • Number of items in both the NRHP and the big monuments database: 40789 (a join)
  • Number of items in the NRHP database, but not in the big monuments database: 45058 (a intersection)

The gap between 40874 and 40789 can be explained by the fact that the NRHP database seems to be a bit outdated (all items which are in the big monuments database, but not in the NRHP one are recent). Some nice things:

All updated on a daily basis (each night UTC). multichill (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding that an awful lot of the table entries generated by the bot are missing refnums. Isn't a lot of the functionality described above dependent on refnums? If so, there's an awful lot work to do to get all of the refnums in the tables. --sanfranman59 (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Currently I have two ways of adding refnums:
  1. Linked article contains the reference number
  2. Match it with the nrhp database, this only works with exact matches and the county needs to be set
At the moment I managed to match about 44.000 items, that's already more than 50% and I have plenty of pages left to work on. I guess this number will rise more and more once I convert more list and add counties to already converted lists. After that I can problably produce lists per county of items in the nrhp database but not in our lists making it easy to find the missing refnums. multichill (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to make it clear: Don't spend too much time on hunting down refnums yet: The bots will probably take care of a lot of them. multichill (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for the prompt reply. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Now I can use some help, see #Update 11th of December. multichill (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

formerly listed subtables

I noticed errors implemented by the Botmultichill bot in changing the presentation of "Formerly listed" sites. In this edit for Downtown Davenport and this edit for North Dakota, there were incorrect changes of the displayed text from "Delisted Date" to "Listed Date", for the section of Formerly listed properties. That's an error, to completely change the meaning to the opposite of what is factual. Multichill, notified, has commented that there is code in the bot to seek to avoid such errors. Multichill, could you please comment on how your bot seeks to address these cases (searching on what string, etc.)? Perhaps the "Formerly listed" sections are coded with different titles or otherwise are not uniform enough, across pages, for your coding stratgegy to work. Can you provide one or more examples where your bot did transform them into something correct? In particular, do you have a different row-template that you seek to put in for these rows?

Perhaps a manual editing campaign is needed to search the set of NRHP list-articles for instances of "Formerly listed" or similar phrases, or use of "NRHP-delisted color" template. "What links here" applied to the use of "NRHP-delisted_color" template yields 50 or more NRHP list articles that probably all have Formerly Listed sections, by the way. Would we need to visit all those manually?

I do in general admire Multichill's effort to transform NRHP list-tables into versions that are more easily translated into other language wikipedias. Has anyone else noticed this problem for formerly listed subtables, though? --doncram 19:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed my bot incorrectly editing formerly listed sites headers too. This shouldn't be too hard to clean up: I'll just look for == Former .... == {{NRHP header)things too change, but how do you guys would like to have this header? I see different approaches. I would propose to just have {{NRHP header}} with "delisted date" and the {{NRHP-delisted color}}. What do you think? multichill (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if they will all have "former" in the section title. Summit County, Ohio is another one messed up by the bot (and not fixed by me) which i find by checking a few in the "What links here" link above.
I personally think the date column should just say "Dates" as it does within National Register of Historic Places listings in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and allow editors to put in parenthetical "(listed)" and "(delisted)" after the one or two dates that can be given in a cell. That's the way i have set up many. Some have explained out the listed date over in the comments column; i happen to think it's compact and best to put all the relevant dates in a "Dates" column. There is no official WikiProject style guideline for this, I believe. Can anyone else comment on this style point? --doncram 23:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I like having both the listing date and the removal date in the table. Like doncram, I've been putting both in the same column. I think I usually make the column heading "Date Listed/Removed", but "Dates" is fine with me as well. It actually might be best to have two date columns so one could sort on either, but that means more work when transferring entries from a "Current listings" table to a "Former listings" table. I'm not a fan of using the term "delisted". The NPS uses "removed" as the verb for these actions. --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Created {{NRHP former header}} and my bot is now replacing obvious mistakes. You might want to tweak the template to meet your wishes. multichill (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
As best as I can tell, the new templates don't accommodate having both the listing date and the removal date in the same column. The 'NRHP former header' template has 'Date listed/removed' in the column header, so I thought it should be possible to enter both dates, but I can't figure out how to do it. Help anyone? Can the header template be further modified to allow two date columns? I guess that would also mean that we'd need a new row template also, huh? --sanfranman59 (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I took current practice for the design. Of course it can be change to two columns, but yes, we would need to make a row template too.
I'll try to do some sandboxing later this way to see what's possible. Multichill (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I completely missed this section. Getting lost in this whole thread... I've been slowly adding delisteings comparing the yearly forms and the database downloaded from the nrhp site. I've been sticking with putting the delisting in the added/removed column, but ran across a way to put both dates in the column in National Register of Historic Places listings in Williamson County, Tennessee. Maybe this would work instead? 25or6to4 (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

article tables lacking a city column

The bot made an edit to National Register of Historic Places listings in Lowell, Massachusetts, attempting to change a single row in the table to use {{NRHP row}}. A number of things were broken in the edit (multichill, please look at how it botched the citation). Note that this article's table does not have a "city" or "neighborhood" column (a feature other sublist articles I know of share), so the whole table would have to be converted to avoid breaking formatting. Magic♪piano 14:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The missing column makes the bot act up. Should be hunted down by now at User:Multichill/NRHP to skip#Cities. multichill (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot not converting NHS and other less common NRHP types?

I've come across a couple tables now where the bot didn't convert NHS listings to the new NRHP row template format. Is that intentional Multichill? The process that I use for renumbering rows in long tables requires each listing to have the same number of row elements. If a row or two in the table are formatted the old way while all of the other rows are formatted the new way, my system doesn't work very well. Is there some reason that we shouldn't be using the new row template for type=NRHP and type=HD? --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This is intentional for the first pass. Want to be a bit conservative. I now match on NRHP, HD, NHL & NHLD. I'll convert the NHS' in the second pass (this week?). multichill (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I did another pass. Seems to have caught most of them. multichill (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

when neighborhood column not wanted

(moved from separate discussion item "Table help")

Can someone remove the number column I don't see a point and the "neighborhood" column, they are all Davenport now on here CTJF83 22:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The number column is standard; it's a foolproof way of sorting (better than the alphabetical sort of the name column, since with numbers we can sort by last name) and a good measure of how many sites we have. Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Re the number column, I completely concur with Nyttend on this. We've discussed the value of having that column on several occasions in the past and have always decided to keep it as standard. No one knows better than I do what a pain it can be to update the row numbering when inserting a single row in the middle of a long table, but the benefits outweigh the inconvenience. I've got a method for relatively quickly renumbering long NRHP lists that involves copying the table into Excel, manipulating the data there and then pasting it back into the Wikipedia editor. I can renumber just about any length list in about 30 seconds or so. If you'd like me to renumber a list for you, feel free to post a request on my talk page.
The Neighborhood column can be useful in some cities. I see that there's an article about neighborhoods in Davenport. Is this not a useful way to identify the locations of NRHP sites in the city? If not, feel free to remove that column. --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The Neighborhood/City column cannot be removed in lists that use {{NRHP row}} unless that template is modified. (Is this the right place to request that be made possible, similar to the showcounty option?) Magic♪piano 13:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
We should. The column is useful in most city lists, but since the list in question is just downtown Davenport, they're all a single neighborhood. I removed every line from every NRHP_row template, but in preview the line still appeared; we need to request modification. Nyttend (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong with the information that the NRHPs in the Davenport list are located in Davenport? And why introcuding two different standards. (What would make later list rearrangements more complicated.) --Matthiasb (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
In this case, they're all in the same neighborhood of Davenport. This isn't introducing a different standard; for years we've removed this column from the old table in cases where it's not needed. See National Register of Historic Places listings in Sandusky, Ohio for an example: Sandusky is a small enough city that a neighborhood column isn't amazingly useful for it, so we simply got rid of the column. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This is/was also true in some of the sublists for Middesex County, Massachusetts, where the towns are small enough that the column isn't really useful; see e.g. National Register of Historic Places listings in Concord, Massachusetts. Magic♪piano 13:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
(comment composed for Talk:Multichill, applied here instead:)
Hey, this is a serious problem which applies for a number of NRHP list-articles besides this Downtown Davenport example, namely any NRHP list-article that is focused on just one neighborhood, where it doesn't make sense to repeat the neighborhood in every row. The Downtown Davenport list-article, like others, was probably split out of a bigger table for all of the city, where it did make sense to have neighborhood appearing. The {{NRHP header}} and {{NRHP row}} might both need to be adjusted, to allow a user to suppress display of the neighborhood entry (which actually appears to be the field labelled "city=" in the NRHP row).
I think it would be preferable to allow an editor like Ctjf83 to choose to suppress neighborhood column display, rather than requiring one to blank out the city= field in every row entry. For one reason, suppose if two separate one-neighborhood lists are combined back into one two-neighborhood article, where you do want to show neighborhood again. But, currently, even blanking out that field won't help: that would just make a blank column display, i think.
Multichill, can a parameter be added to the NRHP header template, which would allow suppression? I am not sure if this would be easy, because the following NRHP rows have to understand the header is set differently. --doncram 17:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
That's impossible AFAIK. multichill (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Can we set a hidden css class for the column? It would still be there for the bot, but not displayed. --Aude (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be an option, somehow, in the template to set it as hidden column --Aude (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
How would we do that Aude? multichill (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
We could add display:none css styles to both the header and row templates, which is a hackish way. A more proper solution might be a site-wide hidden column functionality, and have come up with two solutions (css only, jQuery): Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#Hidden table columns. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Implemented the hiding, see #Improved templates. multichill (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot stripping out cites for dates listed, and sometimes dates themselves

On National Register of Historic Places listings in Orleans County, New York, there were two issues related to the listing date field (I had, last fall, been working on developing this for a possible FLC, so I'm, uh, a little interested in seeing this resolved).

  • It stripped out the citations I had for those dates, and couldn't handle the remaining dates, leaving just "None".[1]
  • I hand-restored the dates using the ISO 8601 format. However, when I restored the cites, the cells ballooned to easily the largest in the table, way larger than necessary. Is this a bot problem or a template problem? I can't tell.

Since I feel that any of these lists we put up for FLC, should someone decide to do so, will need to have the dates of listing cited (and it's easy to do so), this should be resolved.

Also in that vein, I had added alt text to the images that has also been stripped out. I think I can add a field to {{NRHP row}} that would allow them to be restored, but if someone else who's better at template fixes than I am can do so, all the better. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That stripping wasn't supposed to happen. I improved the template to handle these cases, see #Improved templates. multichill (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Counties

Hi everyone, I could use some (bot assisted) help with Category:NRHP list missing county. Every listing contains the county. This is used to find the right refnum and for the statistics. I already added a lot of counties myself. This is the strategy:

  1. Pick a page - National Register of Historic Places listings in Middletown, Connecticut
  2. Find the county - Middlesex County, Connecticut (please keep it in the [[<county>, <state>]] format)
  3. Do a bot replace - replace.py -lang:en -regex "\|county=\s*\r\n" "|county=[[Middlesex County, Connecticut]]\n" -namespace:0 -page:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Middletown,_Connecticut
  4. Review the edit and press ok - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Middletown,_Connecticut&diff=prev&oldid=465290971

multichill (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What you did in that Middletown, CT list looks fine. Are you suggesting I or someone else could run that script somehow? Is it even possible for me? Please explain more. I and others have used AWB; is AWB an option for this? --doncram 20:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I finished most easy ones in Category:NRHP list missing county. Now we're left with:
  • Alaska: Census area/boroughs/changes ahum, needs to be done manually. This list can be used for reference.
  • Parks: Most parks are in multiple counties so that needs to be figured out manually too.
If it's manual it's probably best to add the reference number right away (to prevent double work). multichill (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Boundary increase/decrease

Boundaries of historic districts change every once in a while. How to handle these?

  1. Include all listings (original and updates)
  2. Make the first listing leading and include updates in the description
  3. Make the last listing leading and include previous listings in the description

Opinions please. multichill (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad you're noticing that there is an issue. I have wondered what on earth the bot is doing, when adding NRHP registration numbers, because the correspondence between NRHP-listed places and numbers is not 1:1.
I don't know what you mean by "include all the listings". If you mean insert new rows for each boundary increase or decrease, then, no, that is not what we have done, and I am pretty sure in general our consensus is that we don't want that. We have one row for each NRHP-listed place. It can have multiple dates associated with it, and the location info and the descriptions may have been edited to describe the complexities. Also, I and some others have, in many list-articles, gone to some trouble to present clearly the multiple listing dates, and descriptions, for the boundary increases and decreases. You need to be aware that there are some boundary decreases, in fact, maybe that has not come up.
Has the bot been replacing dates and location information by what is in the NRIS database? I sincerely hope not. Multichill, could you please clarify what, besides registration numbers, the bot has been adding from the NRIS database? --doncram 22:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Nothing. multichill (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, good, thanks. There really are a lot of cumulative fixes, relative to NRIS info, that we have accomplished. --doncram 20:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
About the boundary increases, decreases, is it best to list the multiple reference numbers in the reference number field? Also, note some boundary increases giving a new reference number in NRIS are also giving a new, expanded name for a given district. Hopefully our development of articles reflects, or will reflect, the multiple names and multiple reference numbers in their infoboxes. I was making it a point to start stub articles for places having such complexities, but not all cases have been sorted out (by constructing a stub article that clarifies, giving multiple reference numbers).
Could a bot go through the existing NRHP articles to identify where there are multiple reference numbers in the infobox, and use that to guide semi-automated updating of the reference number field in the list-articles? --doncram 20:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The few instances I've seen of this in the list articles has been option 2, where the date of the original listing is cited in the date column of the table, and any increases are cited in the description. That also to me seems to be the preferred option. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall a discussion of standardizing how we enter this information. Perhaps now's the time? I've changed my practices in this regard over time. My current practice is to note boundary increases/decreases in the Location column as such:
123 Main St.
Boundary increase (listed December 12, 2011): 125 Main St.
I used to enter this information in the Description column, but it seems to me that the Location column is the most appropriate place. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I expanded the templates a bit to be a bit more flexible (see #Improved templates). What I would propose:
  • We use the original listing for the "refnum" field
  • We use the original date for the "date" field.
Additional dates and increases can be put in the "date_extra" field and/or the "address" field (whatever you feel like). multichill (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oregon

Oregon is definitely the state causing me the most problems. Everything is different in Oregon (compared to the other states). I keep a list at User:Multichill/NRHP to skip#Oregon. If somebody could help with these that would be nice. Some of the problems:

  • Name column contains extra information
  • Date is in non standard formating

multichill (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oregon is in fact different than any other state, because there is a strong WikiProject Oregon that has done things its own way, in many respects. That is basically fine for them to have done. Some evidence of different-ness is reflected in long Talk page and/or archives of Talk page at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon. The editors' concerns there included that the NRIS database had inaccuracies which they could identify by comparison to the Oregon state system (which also turned out to have errors). All known discrepancies were resolved in a longish process.
But, it needs to be pointed out that there are known errors in the NRIS database, including about NRHP registration numbers. The known errors are mostly detailed out in a series of state-specific pages linked from wp:NRIS info issues. Many Oregon specific issues are detailed in particular at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues/Oregon. Note there are many NRIS errors where NRIS erroneouosly includes or excludes an item from a given Oregon county. We do not want a bot re-implementing NRIS errors that we have known about and fixed in wikipedia already. --doncram 22:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Why do you think the bot would add errors, it wouldn't dare to do that! ;-)
Anyway, I expanded the templates a bit (see #Improved templates) and now I have suitable places to store the references. multichill (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Update 11th of December

I converted some more lists. We now have almost 70.000 items with a reference number. Some statistics:

  • Total NRHP listings in the main NRHP database: 85847
  • Total NRHP listings in our database: 67191
  • Total NRHP listings in both main and our database: 66890
  • Total NRHP listings in the main NRHP database, but not in our database: 18957 .

I made a list of items not yet in our lists. This can be used to shorten Category:NRHP list missing refnum. We could probably use some tooling for that. Doing this manually is an awful lot of work. multichill (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what these databases are supposed to indicate (because I haven't been following your process as closely as I should; sorry), but I'm familiar with a lot of the Michigan entries on your list of items. Many (most, or possible all) of these are entries having articles whose names do not precisely match the NRHP name, for various reasons. Some of these reasons are fairly standard: appending a disambiguating city name in parentheses, for example, or substituting an em-dash for the NRHP's double-en-dash. Would listing these "standard" name changes be helpful? Andrew Jameson (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
In general i want to support this initiative, and am willing to do some tedious manual editing to help out, as probably are others here. We've done many big technical cleanup campaigns before, could pitch in to get all the reference numbers added, splitting remainder to do by state, say. --doncram 20:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm reaching the limits of automation here so some help would be very nice.
Category:NRHP list missing refnum now contains 1592 items. Combined with this list you can work per state. At Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Reference numbers I added a short explanation on how to find the reference numbers. multichill (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I did Florida last night, then read this. :) This has a side benefit, as I've found some Florida articles that don't have NRHP infoboxes. Also, while updating I noticed refnums from certain weeks were missing. Not new ones, but from 1996. Perhaps they're not getting picked up? Anyway, keep up the good work, y'all! :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 19:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I also noticed it's not converting National Monuments to the new format. Is the bot only converting basic NRHP sites and HDs? --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 19:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Oops, found the problem, I updated the wrong regular expression. Now changed the right one and now fired up the bot to work on the already converted pages. multichill (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
There are currently 1 pages needing one or more refnums, in Category:NRHP list missing refnum (that number will update occasionally, is to be compared vs. 1,532 total as of 12/18. I knocked off a couple, will keep at it. It seems new listings are the issue, mostly. I find that google searching per one of Multichill's suggestions, e.g. "site:nps.gov Cassidy House" works best to find the relevant NRHP new listings page. --doncram 22:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I found that the refnum was missing for sites duplicated across different counties, at least in Texas. Helped me find a duplicate I missed! Texas has been updated. 25or6to4 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Improved templates

Based on the input I got I improved the header and the row templates. For the header I added the "nocity" field to hide the city column. For the row template I did several changes:

  • I added the "name_extra" field to add text after the name column. This can be anything, for example a reference
  • I added the "alt" field to add an alt text to the image
  • I added the "date_extra" field to add text after the date column. This can be anything, for example a reference
  • I added the "address_extra" field to add text after the date column. This can be anything, for example a reference
  • I added the "nocity" field to hide the city column

For an example without the city and some extra fields set, see User:Multichill/sandbox. What do you think? Do you like it? Did I miss something? multichill (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems ok to me, but I don't understand why the "name_extra" and "address_extra" fields are necessary. Can't I just enter a reference or additional text to the end of the name or address field? I've been doing that with the address field for boundary increases that have been listed the last few weeks and it seems to work fine (e.g. University of Montana HD boundary increase listed 12/1/2011. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
That won't work for the name field. It's a nice field to put references in too. It just adds some flexibility without loosing functionality. multichill (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I removed the extra adddress field. This way it was redundant. multichill (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

template to do the numbering

Thanks for improving the templates, but further improvement is needed. In particular, it doesn't make sense to go on with tables that require tedious manual re-numbering of the listed items. It doesn't make sense to propagate that system on to Wikipedias of other languages; it doesn't make sense to keep doing it here. When, I am pretty sure (because there are smart programmers around), it would be feasible for the header and row templates to take care of it. In particular, I saw a "nocity" solution by User:Aude before which nested his/her version of the row templates within the header template. That worked to allow for the suppression of the city/neighborhood column without requiring "nocity=1" to be added to every single row of a table. I think it would also work to allow for a program to count the rows. This would be a big gain for us in the English wikipedia NRHP project, an unexpected payoff from the templatizing initiative. --doncram 16:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thought of another feature that would be really great. Could the county and state totals be set to automatically update with new listings? That is, have a function count the number of listings in each county, and propagate the info upward. A hinky bit, though, would be listings in more than one county or state. Still, if such programming could be added eventually, it would be one less manual task to worry about. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 18:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess both could be solved with bots.
So say you add something to a list you add it add it as pos=new. Bot comes along a renumbers the list. Not sure how difficult it is to update the totals. I try to work project based so for regular maintenance you might want to look around. multichill (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico has complexities, more so than Oregon, because Puerto Rico does not have counties. Editor Mercy11 was raising some issues. I'm trying some edits at National Register of Historic Places listings in western Puerto Rico. Please discuss Puerto Rico complications here. --doncram 21:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

At Multichill's talk, Mercy11 posed that "I also notice that the new format is not Puerto Rico-friendly: in Puerto Rico there are no "counties" instead there are municipalities, and towns/cities always go by the name of their corresponding municipalities (that is, although they are geographically different, they are both always named the same, with the city/town always being a subset (geographically speaking) of its corresponding municipality). It appears the new table is unflexible and does not acccomodate this requirement. Another Puerto Rico-unfriendly feature I bumped into has to do with the Town/City column header, which appears unflexible as well: in Puerto Rico Municipalities break down into "Barrios", just as in the States counties break down into city/towns, but the table cannot be made to read "Barrio" as a column header." To reply to part of that, "Barrio" can be made to appear, as demonstrated by my changing "City or Town" to something else in an edit at the western Puerto Rico list-article already.
However, although I contributed to much of the original table-izing of Puerto Rico, I am not clear on distinction between municipalities and the city/towns. I think the "county=" field should just be filled with the relevant Municipality name. But should that link to an article about the municipality or an article about the similar city, if different? --doncram 21:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That's correct: in Puerto Rico every municipality uniquely maps into a city/town and every city town uniquely maps into a municipality of the same name. Also, a municipality is headed by a mayor and a legislative assembly and so is its corresponding city/town. You might then ask, what then is the difference between a municipality and a city/town? The difference is that a municipality is made up of several barrios, some of those barrios are rural and some are urban. Since there is only 1 urban area within a municipality (with 1 or 2 rare exceptions which can be ignored for NRHP purposes) that urban area is what is named the city/town of the municipality, and goes by the same name as the municipality where it is located. Think of it this way: In Puerto Rico counties may have 1 and only 1 incorporated town. And while there may be other (smaller) urban areas in the rural areas of a Puerto Rican "county", if any one of those smaller urban areas wished to become incorporated with its own mayor and legislative assembly, it would have to become another county first. Hope this clears things up a bit.
From this, it follows that for every "county" (municipality) the NRHP features will all have the same city/town under the city/town column header. As a result it is silly to have a "city/town" header when it will be the same throughout the "county" table (see HERE for an example, and note that for the Ponce "county" the city/town is always the same, namely, Ponce) Due to this idiosyncracy it appears that for the case of Puerto Rico, the logical thing to do is to change the city/town column header to read "Barrio".
"I think the "county=" field should just be filled with the relevant Municipality name." >>>Correct.
"But should that link to an article about the municipality or an article about the similar city, if different?" >>>> It should link to the article about the municipality, which is the article about the city, which is the article about the town (that is, the same name is used for both the municipality and the city/town). (See THIS article's first line which states "Ponce is both a city and a municipality in the southern part of Puerto Rico", and this is teh case for every other municipality and city/town in Puerto Rico.
The question you missed asking was, what should go into the "city/town=" field? I propose that for Puerto Rico this field read "city/town (or barrio)=" and that it be populated iwth the barrio (ward) name where the feature is located. The reason is that if we don't add the barrio name then we would end up with redundant information for all the Puerto Rico NRHP features. (See: Barrios of Puerto Rico)
With that said, I would also prefer that the ref number were displayable on the table. I can see at least 2 advantages to doing this: (1) The refnumber is the key to the whole table, that is, it is the one single field which, acting only by itslef, uniquely identifies any NRHP feature, if a field is that powerful, it sould have a spot on the table, and (2) it could be used to cross-check if an error in the ref number has been made by sorting the refnumber column.
Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Mercy11, thanks for responding here.
The NRHP works with "STATE", "COUNTY", "CITY" & "ADDRESS" (example) to identify locations. For all "non-standard" parts of the USA (Virgin Islands, Guam, Alaska, etc) the county is a actually a mapping to something else. The mapping for Puerto Rico seems to be that the county is filled with the municipality and the city with the bario. Probably best to stick to this list for the "county" and "city" fields. multichill (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Why? why is it best to stick to that listing, when in practice it will only lead to a mess and confusion?
As I believe said earlier, for Puerto Rico town and municipalities are nominally one and the same, which means that Camuy, Hatillo, Isabela, Maricao, and Quebradillas (to name the errors in only the first of 12 pages in your listing) are NOT cities nor towns in the county of Aguadilla.
In any event, I am not sure you know precisely what you state: You say: "for Puerto Rico the county is filled with the municipality AND THE CITY WITH THE BARRIO". But this is precisely the problem, namely, that the CITY field is not being populated with the barrio (and even if it was, someone with need to program the new table format just developed by yoiu guys so that the *HEADER* will in fact read "Barrio" and not "City/Town".) Thanks,
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Map of the 78 municipios of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
So we use the municipality to fill the county field? These seem to be clearly defined. Multichill (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but that issue is already discussed and settled. What remains is the header, which currently reads "City/Town". In the case of PR, I am proposing it should read "Barrio". See HERE for an implementation of how the fields under such "Barrio" header would read. Mercy11 (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
So the header would look like this? That's all fine with me. So to sum this up:
  • County field of each entry will contain the municipality
  • City field of each entry will contain the barrio
  • Each header template will be like {{NRHP header|city=[[Barrios of Puerto Rico|Barrio]]}}
Did I miss anything? Multichill (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think you missed anything. Just one question though: Is your intention to go ahead and modify the headers for all the other remaining municipalities??? If it is, I would advise against that for now. I think the change to include "Barrio" in place of "city/town" at the column header would need to be done piece-meal. (I supplied all the barrios for the Ponce municipality because I am familiar with the exact location of all the features in that municipality, but I don't know the barrio locations of all the other municipalities.) I suggest we leave them showing "city/town" in the column header and, since we now have the proper header template format (via the new Ponce listing), it can be used as an example to change each municipality as each one's full set of barrio locations are obtained. This is my suggestion on this. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't plan to change anything besides adding refnums. I'll leave the restructuring up to the locals :-) Multichill (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Refnum meaning

I just realized how the refnums are constructed. Yeah, I know, I'm a genius. :) The first two digits are the year of listing. Example: 88001822 was listed 1988-09-08. I guess the last digits are the order of listing in that year. Though if it's listed in January, sometimes the first two digits are the year previous. Thought this info would be good to have on record for the refnum project, doncha know. :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 17:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the first two digits and the sequence number is for the year it was accepted as a nomination by the NPS rather than the year of the listing. That's why the first two digits is often the previous year for listings announce early in the year. Sometimes there can be a long lag between the acceptance of the nomination and the listing. I've encountered new listings that have refnums that are several years old. --sanfranman59 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like they open a new can of numbers each year. Some things don't get listed, that would explain the gaps. multichill (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you're right. I've now run into a few that were NRHP-listed in May, and the refnums start with the last two digits of the year previous. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 22:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The reference number is used by the NPS to track nominations. (Of course the refnum is useful to our project.) The number is assigned once the nomination is received by the NPS. The first 2 numbers are the year it was received, followed by a one up numbering system. Because of the time delay between when a nomination is received and when it is listed, many of the listings in January and February of a given year were in fact received late the previous year. There are gaps in the refnums because not all nominations are subsequently listed. Many nominations are sent back to the originator for further information and never returned to the NPS. Some nominations only ask for a 'determination of eligibility' (usually as part of the Section 106 process) and are not intended to be listed. Other nominations are turned down because of an owner objection. The original ref number is retained, so that when a nomination is fixed to the NPS's satisfaction, or when owner rescinds his or her objection, it can proceed to listing even after a number of years. Some examples that come to mind are the Campo de Cahuenga and Snoqualmie Falls where the ref numbers are several years prior to the date of listing. Einbierbitte (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Just ran into a nice example: Joseph Crockett House has refnum 83004587, but was listed at February 11, 2011 (list & source). multichill (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Also see the University Courts HD in Bloomington, Indiana — it has a number of 93000179 because of a failed nomination (owner objection), but it was renominated in 2007 and didn't have to face objection that time. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing refnums progress

In a week we had quite some progress:

Total listings from 75.000 to 83.000 listings
From 8000 to 2500 listings without refnum
From 1500 to 800 pages with missing refnums

That's partly because I improved a bot, but mostly due to the combined hard work of several users. Thank you for that! If we keep this up we should be done in January. multichill (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Down to under 300 pages. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 00:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Done! Great work everyone! --sanfranman59 (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Huzzah! --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 21:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Awesome job everyone, but I'm afraid we stil have some left, see Category:NRHP list missing county. Anyone wants to help to finish this up? Multichill (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Did we come to a consensus on Puerto Rico, since it doesn't have counties? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 18:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't keep us from adding refnums. ;-)
I just proposed to use the municipality, see above. Multichill (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Who wants to help with the last ones in Category:NRHP list missing refnum? http://toolserver.org/~multichill/temp/queries/erfgoed/NRHP_Puerto_Rico.txt helps a lot. Multichill (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 Done category is empty. Thanks everyone for helping out here! Multichill (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Correcting some refnums

So we're (almost) done adding a reference number to every listing. I know that some lists contain mistakes because this list is still rather large. I did some queries to hunt down this errors:

  • Incorrect refnums - A refnum should be a number of 8 digits. If that's not the case it will show up in this list. For historic districts we expansions we have multiple listings. I think it's best to add the original refnum and listing date and add the additional refnums to the description.
  • Duplicate refnums on the same page - No two listings should have the same refnum. Some listings have the same refnum or link to the same article. That causes my bot to add the same refnum multiple times. I'm first focusing on dupes on the same page. Later on we can have a shot at dupes across multiple pages. That's more complicated because this is often intentional (listing spans across multiple counties).

I hope you guys want to help solve these puzzles. And by the way: For the people who wonder how I make these lists, just replace the .txt with .sql to see the query. Multichill (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Found a couple duplicates which were valid. A couple locations that span counties might actually show up on the same list if that list shows multiple counties. 25or6to4 (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
What pages? I'll filter these out in the query when they're fully checked. Multichill (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas, Counties H-J, National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas, Counties K-S, and National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas, Counties T-Z. #s 04001290, 06000823, 66000820, 76002052, and 79003020. 25or6to4 (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Filtered out these Texas lists and updated the list. Already a big improvement has been made. Multichill (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Could use some help here. My strategy:
  1. Open http://toolserver.org/~multichill/temp/queries/erfgoed/NRHP_dupes_same_page.txt and http://toolserver.org/~multichill/temp/queries/erfgoed/NRHP_missing.txt in two tabs
  2. Pick a page with dupes. One of the entries is probably correct, the other one(s) you can find at the missing page
Multichill (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been combing through the images on Commons that are categorized as NRHP listings in Oregon and have come across a bunch of refnums that are missing leading 0s (e.g., refnum 00001234 is entered in the NRHP template as just 1234). This clearly doesn't suit our needs, so I've been correcting them as I've encountered them. Multichill ... is it possible to generate a list of images on Commons that have an invalid refnum in the NRHP template? I think the invalid refnum reports you've created for us so far are based on the NRHP lists on Wikipedia and not the files on Commons, right? --sanfranman59 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

County & City-specific NRHP pics

Am I the only person who has been sorting out NRHP pics in specific counties and cities that are in the commons? I found close to 200 that have been incorrectly placed in the National Register of Historic Places by county meta-category, that I can't keep up with all the counties and states they belong in. I've created scores of NRHP by county categories for nearly a third of the states, and there are still tons that need to be done. And furthermore, why can't the National Register of Historic Places in Louisiana by parish category be linked with all the other NRHP in Foo state by county categories? ----DanTD (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't do much with other people's uploads, other than specifying the dates (e.g. taking building images out of "Built in the United States in [year]" and adding them to "Built in [state] in [year]), but I'm always careful to add my own uploads to county categories if they exist. I'll frequently create new county categories if I have a bunch of images that belong in a county that doesn't have its own NR category, or even a city category if necessary; see Commons:Category:National Register of Historic Places in Sandusky, Ohio, which has over 100 members: I created the category last month because I was about to upload over 100 different images of NR-listed places in Sandusky. As for the meta category, that's a bot error. As for Louisiana — the template is based on a metatemplate; the code is {{metacat|county|topic=National Register of Historic Places|topic2=Louisiana}} It's set up to create a navbox with links to [topic] in [topic2] by [parameter 1]. The template doesn't list Louisiana because it's set up to display links only to extant categories, and there is no Commons:Category:National Register of Historic Places in Louisiana by county. You could ask for help at the Commons VP, but I don't know if this is a fixable problem. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Got it fixed. I created a soft category redirect from National Register of Historic Places in Louisiana by county to ... by parish and now it works. I have always been subdividing by county or large community within a county. I see that Wisconsin never had Category:...Wisconsin by county parent category. Royalbroil 05:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. And you ought to know that I just created a Commons:Category:National Register of Historic Places in Ohio by city category this afternoon. So far Cleveland and Sandusky are part of it. ----DanTD (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Re. DanTD's original request: It looks like quite a few of the problem files are in Iowa. I'm working on those right now. Need to fix the Iowa category structure first: it didn't yet have Commons:Category:National Register of Historic Places in Iowa by county, which I've created and am presently moving county categories into. Once that's done, I'll deal with the misplaced files in the metacategory. Ammodramus (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, that was a nice idea, but too many of the filenames don't mention the state. Just going through and doing the files in the metacategory from the bottom up. Ammodramus (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that you also created Commons:Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alabama by county too, but only moved one county-category there. I did the rest. I've added a few new categories tonight myself. I need to find more NRHP in Michigan by city categories to make, so I can mode Detroit there, and some for NRHP in Colorado by city so I can move Denver there. Since there's also an NRHP in South Dakota by county, there ought to be one for NRHP in North Dakota by county too. ----DanTD (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks—I was going to move the Alabama county categories once I'd finished moving all of the files misplaced in "NRHPs by county". However, the library closed before I could get it done. I notice that for several other states, the "NRHPs in X County" category is directly under "NRHPs in (state)", with no intermediate "NRHPs in (state) by county". I assume that eventually, that intermediate category is going to be created for all states. Ammodramus (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) I do this type of work periodically over at Commons. The last couple of weeks, I've been focusing my efforts on images of NRHP in Oregon. Right now, I'm working my way through about 150 images that were put in Category:National Register of Historic Places in Oregon rather than in the proper county category. While I'm at it, I'm adding other relevant categories related to the type of structure (house, church, hotel, etc.) and year of construction. If you're not aware of it, the Oregon Parks and Rec Dept has an incredibly useful search-able online database that has virtually all of their NRHP nomination forms (complete with photos). I just wish that my state of residence had such an amazing resource. Given the dismal fiscal condition of this state, I'm not holding my breath that anything such thing is in the offing. --sanfranman59 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Schools and NRHP infoboxes

In working through the backlog of NRHP pages needing NRHP infoboxes, I have a question about schools in general. My current school is Archmere Academy. Without reading the NRHP documents, I have no idea if the building in question is related to the current page that discusses the school. Archmere Academy is probably not the best example because it could easily refer to a specific building. Elkman infobox generator lists a site called "Archmere" and gives the name "The Patio," as an "other name." "The Patio" is mentioned in the actual Archmere Academy webpage. But in general, school buildings on the NRHP have become a lower-level school, e.g. high schools become middle school, or apartment buildings, condominiums, opera houses, etc. The page that refers to the existing school only shares the name. It may be in a different locaton. What should we do about the infobox? It does not seem right to put the NRHP infobox on a page that may or may not be the NRHP site? Schools are not the only type. Courthouses, and other buildings get repurposed and the original tenant moves elsewhere. KudzuVine (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

To answer your implied question, NRHP designation is for the building or structure, not the institution that occupies the site. If the institution moves or becomes defunct, the NRHP designation does not follow the institution or disappear; it stays with the site. There are all sorts of NRHP properties where the NRHP "name" does not match the current name of the property - churches, for example, change ownership with surprising frequency (as an example I'm familiar with, only three of the 19 churches in this MPS are still known by the same name under which they were submitted to the Register).
To answer your actual question, I think it would be sufficient, when applying an infobox, to check that the location of the NRHP property and of the institution still match. In your example, Archmere Academy is listed as being located at 3600 Philadelphia Pike, which matches the address given in the NRIS database. The NRIS database isn't always accurate for various reasons, so an address match isn't necessary to confirm the correct property location, but when both the property name and address match an existing place, I think that's sufficient to establish identity. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with nearly all that you said. The implication is that if an institution is linked to a a NRHP school or other building in the county table but does not use that building, it needs to be delinked. Thus Central High School (Some City, Some State) should be linked to something like Old Central High School (Some City, Some State) through piping. Then the current Central High School page and its talk page have any NRHP category removed. KudzuVine (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I remember encountering this situation with "Piqua High School" at National Register of Historic Places listings in Miami County, Ohio; there's a current Piqua High School, while the NR-listed building is now apartments, so we changed the link to Old Piqua High School. By the way, Smallbones might be familiar with Archmere, since it's vaguely near him and he's contributed a lot of photos for New Castle County; I'll ask him for input. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm somewhat familiar with Archmere Academy and agree that the article is a mess. The photo there is not really the building of interest, but the nomination http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/92001143.pdf (for "Archmere") includes the 36 acres around the "Patio" an Italian Renaissance Florentine courtyard with white limestone Corinthian columns (pretty different than the photo!). I'm pretty sure that the newer Academy buildings are separate from the Patio, but built around it or nearby. BTW schools, especially on large campuses can be especially difficult to photograph - they don't like strangers with strange stories about Wikipedia who might perhaps photograph the kids. I might suggest a separate article with a creative name - perhaps "Patio at Archmere" - but it is a judgement call and one that will be repeated for many schools in similar situations. For conservation of effort - I'll suggest that we NOT separate the articles - unless somebody sees a very good reason and is willing to do the work themselves. The flip side is that once somebody separates the articles, we not spend the effort to argue about whether he/she violated consensus.

I'll try to get there on a weekend (no kids-I hope) and take a photo. I'll also lookup an even more confusing related situation I ran into for comment. Smallbones (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The building of the Julia R. Masterman School is one of the former buildings of Philadelphia High School for Girls and NRHPed as "Philadelphia High School for Girls", which is somewhat associated with Central High School which has had at least 4 locations (pretty sure I got the right one for NRHP). The Pennsylvania School for the Deaf has a similar history with the next-to-last campus NRHPed, and the previous campus HDed, but they moved into another NRHP building, the old Germantown Academy, right next to the NHL Germantown Historic District, with the G Academy being pretty notable and having its own article about its own history and new suburban campus. All I can suggest is try to be as clear as possible, and slog through it the best you can. Rules or guidelines might make it even more confusing. Smallbones (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The Patio at the Archmere Academy
FYI, nomination form and photos. I'd like to suggest that you get an image looking along the driveway from the west, through the main gates (see page 43 of the photos page); that will give you a rather monumental view of the front of the house as it was likely meant to be seen — the gates themselves were originally ranked as contributing and somehow got left off the list of CPs, but they still are a substantial part of the view and would help with a picture. Having read the nomination form, I believe that "Patio" is the name of the central house, rather than what we think of as a patio. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Will do, but you're not actually suggesting that I should read the nomination forms, are you? Smallbones (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Architects, MPS, Thematic Resources and NRHP infoboxes

There are a number of architects and architectual firms on the list of needing NRHP infoboxes. I have started deleting the Wikiproject NRHP templates with the need for the infobox, e.g. Henry L. Blatner, Edwin Fitch, Peter J. Barber‎, Babb, Cook and Willard, .... Before I go further, I thought I would check if people object. I can restore these if the consensus is the need for an NRHP infobox, but then someone needs to show how the infobox is to be used for an architect as the principal subject.

Similarly, there are a few MPS and thematic resources on the list, e.g. American Indian Rock Art in Minnesota MPS, Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources, tthat indicate the need for an NRHP infobox. Although these are often directly related to one or more NRHPs, I cannot see how we fill out an NRHP infobox.

Your thoughts please. KudzuVine (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Link for this list, please? I wasn't aware that one existed. The infobox is useful on some MPS articles (for example, it might not be a bad idea to add to Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches, if only we had more text above the table), but I don't see it being useful on the two that you list, since they're essentially just groups of substantially different properties in a certain area that don't have any strong themes tying them together. No infoboxes for architects, of course. However, they should be included in the scope of this project; the assessment scale includes suggestions on how to rate architects for importance, and we wouldn't have that if they weren't included. FYI, please watch out when you remove these templates, or you'll have unexpected results on other templates. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
If we want to include them in the NRHP Wikiproject, an option is to just mark "needs-infobox=no", which should remove them from the - I think. That would keep on the wikiproject.
I don't know of list of MPS and Thematic Resources. I found these two near the top of the list in Category:National Register of Historic Places articles needing infoboxes KudzuVine (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
What I meant was "the list of needing NRHP infoboxes"; I didn't know we had a category for that. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Category:National Register of Historic Places articles needing infoboxes - there is a link at the top of this page in the "To do" box on the right. 782 more to go!
I change "needs-infobox=yes" to "needs-infobox=no" on the Wikiproject NRHP template on the talk page for American Indian Rock Art in Minnesota MPS last night and the Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources earlier this morning. They have not been changed back so far. I was concerned that there was a BOT that check the articles and changed the Talk page indicating that they will need a NRHP infobox. Has not happened yet. I will get to revert the architect's pages so that the respective talk pages have the "need-infobox=no." Then they won't go on the above list. KudzuVine (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The category filling up is mostly my fault. When I was doing importance assessing, I added the "need-infobox=yes" on articles that looked to need them. If the parameter is removed completely, it will remove the article from the category. Though if you want to change it to "need-infobox=no" to indicate it's been looked at, that's not a bad idea. I have added infoboxes to MPS's in the past. see any of the National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submissions in Florida for examples. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 21:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:NRHP history will have interest in putting on events related to women's history related to NHRP places. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that there is a wonderful list of about 40 NRHP sites - with attached articles - provided by the NRHP at Women's History Month March 2011. They might even update this for 2012 :-) . The Patsy Cline House definitely needs an article! There's also an overall NPS website and an overall US government site.
Since the resources are easily available, I've listed this on Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month and in our To-Do List (ending date March 31). Smallbones (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania Panel or other participation July12-14

I'll suggest that WP:NRHP get a panel discussion together for Wikimania of about 70 minutes, and make a submission by March 18.

It should probably be very basic is some aspects for newbies, and could probably relate to Washington DC as well. Perhaps 4 speakers - addressing issues that are dear to their own hearts, but probably along the lines of photos, article write-ups, data availability, project organization. We could also try to recruit somebody from the NPS, HABS, or NRHP to come to talk with us. There might even be a possibility that we could do something at one of their sites, e.g. they could invite us to their offices, present several people, and then we do something that the GLAM folks call on editathon.

I'd guess most people on the East Coast and the Midwest could get to DC pretty easily and it would be good to actually meet the people I only know by their usernames.

Could we get some sort of indication of how interested you are and how you might want to participate? e.g.

  • Smallbones (talk) - I could help organize, but wouldn't want to do even half of it myself; could present on photos and how to get lost finding NRHP sites; could try to contact NRHP folks if nobody else can do it.
  • Sorry, no way that I could do it — my grad student's budget wouldn't support it, and I'll have five-day-a-week language classes this summer. I attended the editathon at Wikipedia:GLAM/TCMI/BackstagePass2, so I'd be happy to contribute whatever little input I have from that, if you'd like. If you want help, you might also ask LoriLee — one of the USA's most experienced GLAM people, she put together the event I attended, and she's largely responsible for the high-quality Oldfields article, an NHL in Indiana. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Anybody who's interested should contact me directly on my user talk page or via e-mail. I'm sure we'll get something going. I do hope nobody is against this type of presentation. Smallbones (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Trujillo Homestead gets NHL designation

On today's new listings, Trujillo Homestead in Alamosa County, Colorado has been designated an NHL due to its ties to New Spain (something no doubt dear to our current Secretary of the Interior, who also does). This is the first of the most recent batch of listings I mentioned last month to get the nod.

I have updated the entry in both the county NRHP list and Colorado's NHL list, but we still don't have an actual article. Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Arizona

I've just finished a run through Arizona, in the course of which I took a hatful of photos in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise counties. I'm now in the process of editing and uploading them to Commons, but am running into difficulties.

Does anyone know if there's a place where I can find nom forms, or at least photos and/or descriptions, of NRHP sites in Arizona? Santa Cruz County is presenting some very large problems, since the city of Nogales, Arizona has apparently changed its house numbering system somewhat recently, and most of the addresses under which properties were nominated are now wrong or even nonexistent. I shot several buildings that were on the right streets and that "looked historical", but I'd need to confirm them with photos from nom forms, historical-society websites, or the like. Similar situation in Willcox (Cochise County), where one address was apparently nonexistent. I shot a house on the hypothesis that someone had accidentally hit a key twice in entering the address, but I'm not going to post the photos and call it an NRHP site without some verification. In any case, I'd like some confirmation beyond the bare addresses, since we all know that the NPS database isn't altogether error-free.

Would appreciate advice on this from a Southern Arizona authority. Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing relevant at WP:NRHP help. My only suggestion is that you use one of the email addresses from the NR page at the Arizona SHPO's website. Nyttend (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It's possible that this Flickr set may have some images of the places in question, although they too may be of incorrect buildings. It's also possible that you can just search for information about the places one by one.. I found several in my home county like that before they were all online.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg

Hi, the article Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg has two infoboxes, one being {{Infobox NRHP}}. Could somebody please examine this article, and determine whether the NRHP can fairly be embedded into the main infobox? It's unclear to me as to whether they refer to the same building, or a different one. Whilst doing this, please eliminate one set of coordinates from the title, because there are two overlapping sets there, and since they are different, both are illegible. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There are about 6 buildings on campus - the original one is the NRHP site and in the middle - but it is not owned by the seminary anymore. Embedding infoboxes is never simple, but this is the worst I've seen. I think the fault lies with the university infobox which is just way too wide. And then there is the Luthernism box. If you want to see an ugly embedded infobox see the version I self-reverted. I went back to the pre-NRHP-infobox version, but the problem in my view is the text - not about the seminary, not about the historic site in general, but just about the battle of Gettysburg. It should, of course, be about all three. And it doesn't need 3 infoboxes, maybe not even 2. I don't think it needs 2 articles - one for the site and one for the seminary. What it needs is a complete re-do. Any volunteers, Red? Smallbones (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I was the source of the separate NRHP infobox. The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg does not deserve one because it is not the NRHP. Embedding it with the entire institution would give the incorrect idea. Old Dorm (Smucker Hall) is the NRHP. Therefore I gave it a separate infobox. Perhaps it needs a separate article that someone could write or a greater description in the text. The current revision has the problem of a circular link that refers back to the article. But I don't wish to get into a revision war. At least no one has (yet) edited the Talk page as now needing the NRHP infobox! But that may eventually happen KudzuVine (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not actually bothered how many infoboxes the article has: but I have often noticed the use of |embed=yes in {{Infobox NRHP}} so that two infoboxes give the appearance of just one. I respectfully decline the invitation of Smallbones to re-do the article, because I have nothing in the way of sources for this establishment. My main concern was the illegibility of the coordinates at upper right - see here - which I had noticed because the extra set of coordinates was causing the article to show in this report, item 8. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I made the mistake of not removing ", title" from the infobox. With the nrhp infobox gone, it should not be a problem. KudzuVine (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States

The planning is starting for Wiki Loves Monuments in the U.S at Commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States and its talk page. The "Photo Contest" will run for the month of September with any picture uploaded during September being entered (as planned now). There are a lot of "new folks" involved, which is probably the main point - this is meant to help bring in new editors and photographers just as much as it is meant to bring in new photos of sites.

Help from experienced hands will of course be a key to success. Please stop by and get to know the page and the project - with lots of new people and photos coming in you'll likely have to do it sooner or later!

Would anybody like to suggest goals - numeric or otherwise? Or possible contests/challenges? Do you know of anybody who might want to offer prizes?

Now is the time to get involved.

As always,

Smallbones (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just tried the link, and got a page-does-not-currently-exist message. Ammodramus (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
fixed --Traveler100 (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Require coordinates in lists

This is a technical proposal, not a policy proposal — it's comparable to how we "require" refnums in our lists to ensure that lists don't end up in Category:NRHP list missing refnum. What do all of you think of requiring every entry to have coordinates or end up in Category:NRHP list missing coordinates? I'd suggest a single exception: we could use a parameter such as "unavailable" for cases in which NRIS doesn't provide coords and we can't figure them out from the address; this could encompass both address-restricted sites and sites where the location simply isn't clear enough. For an example of the latter situation, see the Dr. John Parson Cabin Complex in Daggett County, Utah, which has the wonderfully precise location of "Southwest of Bridgeport". Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Places that have vague geographic locations in NRIS often have better descriptions in the nomination papers, unless they've been redacted for one of the usual reasons for doing so. Places with vague locations can always be coord-inated to a large area, as large as the county or community if need be (although it should be pointed out in the notes that the coordinates are approximate when they're added). Categorizing lists (and articles) lacking coordinates sounds like a good idea. Magic♪piano 13:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree with your second sentence: listings shouldn't have coordinates unless we're quite confident that those coordinates point to the listed property or to one of the listing's contributing properties. In this situation, a marker at a random spot in Daggett County (since Bridgeport is/was in the county's northeast) would not help and could be rather deceptive to the person who thinks that it's the actual location of the cabin complex. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Works for me. I put quite a bit of effort into determining coordinates when adding new listings to the tables and I also always try to add coordinates for listings that are missing them whenever I come across them. --sanfranman59 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I have to go with Nyttend on this. First because I suck at coordinates. Second, becasue when I know that coordinates are wrong I have to get other people to correct them, and hope they get it right. From what I remember, the Union Savings Bank (Patchogue, New York)'s coordinates were way off, and when I tried to get it corrected, they were brought closer, but still not right(they're right now). If we're going to get coordinates on anything(articles, pictures, lists, whatever), we've got to get them right. ----DanTD (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Since I have just been adding many, many missing nrhp infoboxes, we must be sure to not flag ones that are in articles with coordinates. I have embedded many nrhp infoboxes in lighthouse, school, bridge, park, etc. infoboxes. Many of these have coordinates already. So I took them out of the nrhp infobox if they were in the Elkman Infobox Generator because we show all the coordinates given at the top of the article. This can be a jumble of conflicting overprinted numbers. Secondly, an nrhp may be at a large institution such as a College or Universitywith coordinates. If the article has a subheading about a particular nrhp building, it seems appropriate to remove the coordinates from the nrhp infobox to again prevent a jumble of overprinted at the top. If there was a way to prevent the coordinates printing at the top of the article that would overcome this objection. But it will still leave hundreds (thousands) of nrhp articles on this proposed list. KudzuVine (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
KudzuVine, the coordinates in the NRHP infobox are good for showing the map if one is not already in the other infobox. If you'd like to show coordinates/map in the nrhp infobox, but you don't want the coords to jumble in the top corner, use |coord_display=inline.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Tried it and it displays map and does not affect the top line. KudzuVine (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
KudzuVine, I'm simply talking about requiring them for {{NRHP row}}, not articles — either you misunderstand me or vice versa. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, that is fine. I think we should cleanup the need for nrhp infoboxes (484 to go!), before we do anything with requiring coordinates. KudzuVine (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you again referring to Category:National Register of Historic Places articles needing infoboxes? Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I added the tracker category. I suspect some of the entries actually have coordinates, but these are located in the address field. Let's see if we can move those. Multichill (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Problems with embedding NRHP Infoboxes

Here are some other problems that I have had. Maybe someone knows a work-around.

  • Convert template for area does not work in an embedded NRHP infobox in the following parent infobox: Park, Bridge, Station, University, Stadium, Theater, Observatory, Zoo, Protected area, Museum, Prison, and Cemetery. It does work fine in the unembedded NRHP infobox in the same article. It also works as an embedded NRHP infobox in the following parent tables: Historical area, School, and others. When it did not work, I commented out the area entry in case anyone solves the problem.
  • I have been unable to embed the NRHP infobox in the parent Airport infobox. The NRHP infobox only occupies the left hand side and does not stretch across the Airport table. I have put the NRHP infobox as a separate, unembedded infobox. KudzuVine (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
For the convert problem, this is not a bug with the NRHP infobox but rather the convert template itself. The convert template is a very expensive one, and it goes like 9874932742 levels deep in transclusion. The extra transclusion of making the infobox a child (which is how embedding is achieved for the NRHP infobox) breaks the template... No clue why it breaks some and not others, though. A remedy that always works is to specify the precision that you want the convert template to display, which eliminates about 10 transclusion levels or something. This can be done by putting an extra parameter for the number of decimals you want displayed, e.g. {{convert|1|mi|km}} won't work, but {{convert|1|mi|km|1}} will work correctly and show 1 decimal point: 1 mile (1.6 km).
As for the embedding problems in {{Infobox airport}}, it appears that this infobox is not meta-compatible, i.e. it does not use the generic {{Infobox}} template. While this may be the case for other infoboxes you listed above that still work, the problem with this one is that its width is 4 columns instead of the standard 2. For non-standard, non-meta-compatible infoboxes that contain more than two columns, it is necessary to add a |nrhp= parameter and put the NRHP infobox in that, like the one in {{Infobox windmill}} (although this is not a non-standardized infobox.
Does that answer your questions?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
At Template talk:Infobox#Infobox historic site I determined that 17 transclusion levels were saved by specifying the precision. Since there are a maximum of 40 available, this is a significant proportion. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip on {{convert}}. I tried it and it worked. But I really don't understand the "|nrhp = parameter." Can you be more specific or link to an example? KudzuVine (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
First example I could find is the short article about Boyd's Windmill. It uses a windmill infobox with an NRHP embedded in it. It does this by using a |nrhp= parameter which is coded into the windmill infobox itself. This is kind of a poor example because the parameter isn't really needed for the windmill infobox since it only has two columns. For infoboxes with more than two columns, though, the parameter must be added in to the code of the infobox itself manually like it has been added into the windmill infobox.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The {{infobox windmill}} template has the |nrhp= parameter added in this manner. Essentially, this takes the content of the |nrhp= parameter, wraps it in a table the full width of the infobox, and displays it as if it were a single row in the infobox. Then you can have something like this in an article:
{{infobox windmill
|name=Foo Mill
...
|nrhp={{infobox NRHP
|embed=yes
...
}}
}}
--Redrose64 (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Newbern–Dyersburg (Amtrak station) shows both convert working and {{infobox station}}. That closes all my problems in this section. KudzuVine (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

New nom gives clues as to what survived Irene in Prattsville, NY

On New York's latest list of nominations to consider for submission to the NPS at the Historic Preservation Board's next meeting in a couple of weeks, there's the [2] John Martinus Larawy Inn in ... Prattsville. Yes, the same small town that was almost washed away by the flooding after Hurricane Irene at the end of last summer.

The nomination does acknowledge this:

On August 28-29, 2011 the house was inundated by several feet of water caused by the catastrophic

flooding associated with Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. Buildings to the south and west of the inn were completely destroyed by the flood waters and all surviving structures in the community sustained significant damage. As a result of this event the first floor of the inn was completely destroyed. All walls were stripped to the structural members to allow for reconstruction of electrical wiring and to remove mold growth.

Although the building’s first floor has lost its finishes the original center hall flanking room plan as well as several Greek Revival window architraves and the finely detailed stair remain intact.

Emphasis mine. I am a little concerned that that group is a way of acknowledging that some other listed properties in Prattsville did not survive. Certainly Prattsville Commercial Building, built into the Schoharie Creek's east bank, would face tough odds. You can see some photos of the damage as it affects the nominated building in the nom. And other photos in this stream at Flickr show you Prattsville as it was in October.

Google, and by extension ACME Mapper, is now using post-storm satellite photos for the area. Based on where the map shows it as being, the Commercial Building may have been the only one there to have survived.

The Prattsville Reformed Dutch Church looks safe ... it was in the downtown section where the flooding wasn't as bad. As is the Zadock Pratt House.

I still haven't been up there since the shortest route there from where I live still has a bridge out. But when I can I'll report back. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Canterbury Castle (Portland, Oregon)

I have nominated Canterbury Castle (Portland, Oregon) for Good status. Feel free to look over the article, make sure it meets WikiProject NRHP preferences, formatting, etc. Hopefully images will become available very soon to add to the article (a fellow WikiProject Oregon member has contacted a Flickr contributor for permission). Looking forward to working on additional NRHP sites soon. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Haymarket affair Good Article reassessment

Haymarket affair, which is listed as part of this WikiProject, has been nominated for a community reassessment to determine if it meets the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. Please add comments to the article reassessment page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Coords in lists

John of Reading has updated {{NRHP row}} with an override for the coordinates missing; simply add |nolatlon=true to prevent the category from being appended to an entry where we can't add the coords. I suspect that this will allow us to remove lots of pages from the coords-missing category. Down the road, if you find coordinates for a nolatlon=yes site (e.g. NRIS lacks coords and the address is vague, but the nomination form tells you precisely where it is), please remember to remove the nolatlon=yes parameter, so that we can notice if the coords get vandalised or mangled by accident. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Worcester, Massachusetts

Can someone look at this page and fix? I see only the listings to Shaarai Torah Synagogue, after which there appears to be an error which I can't find.....Thanks in advance.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There are too many transcluded templates.
<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 157570/1000000
Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 634877/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
-->
See Wikipedia:Template limits. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Strangely, I can see this page just fine, but not National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston, Massachusetts (which dies at listing #226). There are several NRHP listing pages (these two among them) in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded that presumably need splitting for this reason (if not WP:LENGTH). (In fact I just proposed splitting the Boston list, see its talk page.) Magic♪piano 18:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The Worcester page was fixed earlier today with this edit. However, the problem at Boston is the same: too many templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Detroit is doing the same thing. That seems problematic. Andrew Jameson (talk) 09:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Pvmoutside "fixed" the Worcester article by subst'ing the row templates. I think these long (200+) lists should be split; this is what's been done with other geographies that have many listings (eg NYC, Philadelphia). Magic♪piano 13:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Y'know, I think it's these edits which have caused the pages to go over the template transclusion limit, which has caused this trouble. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The only thing in that edit that would have possibly caused a template include limit to be reached was the lowercase parser function (no other templates were transcluded). I just tried removing it, and the lists are still screwy. The only plan of action I see is to split the lists. I just briefly looked through the NRHP row template code, and I tried to remove several template transclusions, but (strangely) that didn't seem to work. I'm frankly stumped as to why what I did didn't work, but in light of that failure, I see no other way to avoid this problem than to split the lists.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Besides the {{lc:}} there are also a {{#ifeq:}} and a {{#if:}} which each contribute. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Do parser functions contribute? I was under the impression that they didn't.. and when I removed lc:, the number of rows shown on the pages didn't increase by even one, as it should have (removing lc: caused ~200 fewer transclusions). Same thing happened when I tried removing two subtemplates.. nothing changed. That's what I found "screwy".. not sure what the problem is.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
National Register of Historic Places listings in New Castle County, Delaware joins the list. KudzuVine (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like whoever wrote the BotMultichill bot has an error in code somewhere since it appears that is causing the New Castle DE problems (Dec 8, 2011). The Worcester listing was messed up in the same way, so I went back to the listing before the bot was used, and then restored anything worthwhile after. Only solution I could think of at the time........Splitting the list will require a little bit of thought......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a bot error — the bot converted the rough code tables into fully-formed templates, and MediaWiki has a maximum number of templates that it will permit to be transcluded on a page. It's purely a human error of allowing the page to be too big. Splitting these lists is standard practice for our wikiproject; that's why the New Castle County list doesn't include Wilmington, for example. Worcester County won't be that difficult, because we have the towns themselves; we can simply split out lists for the towns (and cities, if there are any) with the largest number of listings. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The Worcester County list is not the large problem, it's the Worcester city list (277 entries). Splitting it will require knowledge of Worcester's neighborhoods or other meaningful dividing criteria. (The Worcester County list has a nav template in its footer that isn't rendering. Most of the communities on that list have 10 or fewer entries.) Magic♪piano 12:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. Looking at the map, it seems that we could divide into north and south, with the dividing line being Massachusetts Route 122; I-290 would be a more prominent east-west divider, but the result would be a western list with far fewer entries than the eastern list, while the north/south split along MA122 would result in vaguely similar sizes for the two lists. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed most of the template logic, but I still see problems. That's rather strange because the template is smaller than before and back them it wasn't causing any problems. This might have to do with the never Mediawiki version (1.19), but that's just a guess. {{Coord}} is probably the heaviest template in there. I have to see if some improvements are possible there. Multichill (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Please restore the logic; besides the normally helpful functions it serves, its length helps us to realise which pages really really need to be split now. Nyttend backup (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I split National Register of Historic Places listings in southern New Castle County, Delaware from National Register of Historic Places listings in New Castle County, Delaware, not quite done yet (and Mon-Weds I'll be out of touch), but I hope to finish it tomorrow. Smallbones (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC) finished Smallbones (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Old high school vs. new high school

Listed in the NRHP is Nogales High School in Nogales, Arizona. There's a Nogales High School (Nogales, Arizona) article, wikilinked on National Register of Historic Places listings in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, but it's a one-sentence stub with school infobox about the current high school, which is not located in the historic building. How should we handle this situation? Should we create a new redlink for the historic school in the NRHP-in-SC-Co list; and if so, under what name? Leave the current link, on the assumption that someone, someday, will put material on the historic building in the article about the current school? For now, I've illustrated the Santa Cruz Co. list article, but not the article about the modern school. Ammodramus (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

See Schools and NRHP infoboxes. I have handled these in several ways recently. If there is an section on the old high school, I have put the NRHP infobox there. But in many cases such as Columbus High School (Columbus, Georgia), I marked the county list, National Register of Historic Places listings in Muscogee County, Georgia as Old Columbus High School (Columbus, Georgia) and indicated that the current high school does not use the nrhp building. If I can find a reference for the occupant of the nrhp building I mark it as done is National Register of Historic Places listings in Bonner County, Idaho, KudzuVine (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
See Miami County, Ohio and Old Piqua High School. Nyttend (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The article on the current school didn't have anything on the old building, so I created an Old Nogales High School (Nogales, Arizona) redlink. Ammodramus (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned that a redlink will just result in yet another stubby-stub that will never be expanded. As another (I think better) option: Create a section in the current Nogales High School (Nogales, Arizona) article for "Buildings"... in which you would discuss the fact that the former building is listed on the NRHP. This section could be used as the anchor for the NRHP info box, and a link for the various NRHP lists. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Is that possible at this point? Arizona has virtually nothing online about its NR-listed sites, so it may be impossible without requesting the NR nomination form. Better to leave it as a redlink. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Think beyond the NRHPs documentation... I could be wrong, but I would expect there to at least be some local Nogales newspaper articles that could be used to establish when the school changed buildings and why. I would also expect there to be local sources that discuss the efforts to 'preserve the old school building' and list it with the NRHP. The NRHP nomination documentation is not the be-all-and-end-all of sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Duh...but given the minisule attention that most NR-listed sites get in the online media, the chances of reliable sources being online is small. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but schools (and school building projects) tend to get much more coverage... especially in local media. Local school boards usually have to get some sort of voter approval before they start expensive new building projects, so I would expect at least some media discussion that could be used to write a small paragraph on each of the buildings. Also, there is no reason to limit yourself to on-line sources. Try contacting the Arizona Public Library... they may be able to locate hard-copy newspaper articles that covered the topic, and scan them for you. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Only if Arizona is substantially different from Indiana and Ohio — local schools don't get that kind of online coverage here. Your APL suggestion is no different from contacting NPS for the nomination, which is generally more useful than a few news stories anyway. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that my original post gave the wrong impression regarding the extent of my interest in this site. I have no intention of researching it; it was just one of fifty or sixty sites that I photographed while in Arizona. When I placed one of the photos in the "NRHP in Santa Cruz County" list article, I discovered that we had a blue link to an article that didn't actually treat the historic building at all. That was the thrust of my question: in such a situation, should we leave a possibly misleading blue link in the list, or should we create a redlink specifically for the historic site? Ammodramus (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Architect template

Hi: You might be interested to know there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_2#Template:Infobox_architect about the architect template.--Pubdog (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

File:We Can Do It!.jpg

I just noticed that File:We Can Do It!.jpg is associated with Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park by having a NRHP site number on the image file. It looks iffy to me - the original image seems to have been displayed only in a Westinghouse factory (in Pittsburg?) for a couple of weeks during WWII, rather than at the California site. Not that I'm adament about removing the number, but are there accepted standards about when to label images with NRHP numbers and where to discuss the issues? BTW, is it acceptable to put a single number on multiple images of the same site? Smallbones (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The image definitely is not a National Historical Park; it represents the NHP well for list purposes, but this is one of the very few times when the bot tagging didn't work as well as a human would have. I can't imagine why not to put the same number on multiple images, as long as all of them depict the site with that number, since if we have five pictures of the same house, they're all equally representative. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, Nyttend has removed the NRHP number from the file, and I pretty much agree. May I generalize to say that this page is the proper place to discuss any issues of these numbers on files, and that the proper place to put the numbers is on pix of buildings or land, rather than pix of objects, maps, and other associated material? Smallbones (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Can't imagine a better place to go. Objects can occasionally be appropriate (example), plus I believe that they'd be useful if we illustrate a shipwreck with some things that have been recovered or if we illustrate a prehistoric archaeological site with some of the artifacts that were discovered there. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Unique identifiers

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unique Identifiers has been created in response to the "UID interface to Wikipedia" section currently at WP:VPR. Since the scope includes all groups of articles with unique identifiers, it's relevant here because they would care about NRIS reference numbers. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of private houses

I have been looking at NRHP articles that do not have pictures to see which ones I could do. Some of them are however private homes. Are there any guidelines or even laws on publishing to Wikipedia and uploading to Commons pictures of private residence in the USA? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You may photograph and upload anything that is visible from a public street. Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, just because you can does not necessarily mean you should. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The relevant policy is probably best described at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States. Not all places are visible from a public way, of course. Magic♪piano 21:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
That has to do with the copyright issues. The poster is seeking guidance as to whether it's legal in the first place to take a picture of a private residence. Which, as we know, it is. But see what I'm going to write below. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Public streets or sidewalks are OK but do not hold the camera up to shoot over a fence, and never shoot through a window, even if it is open. If the homeowner has made even the vaguest attempt at maintaining privacy, then the photographer needs to respect that. I've been confronted even when standing on the sidewalk, so it helps to know your rights. I've also been warmly welcomed when I write ahead to ask for permission and a tour. Rklawton (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
You could also try what Ruhrfisch did. He contacted the owners of the Clemuel Ricketts Mansion and was able to visit and get a bunch of photos of the house, inside and outside. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point — if you politely ask permission, you'll often find willing property owners; for example, the owner of the Carl Potter Mound happily drove me back a half-mile-long lane through his woods to get to the site. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have had very good experiences contacting people associated with the subjects of articles - Pennsylvania park employees have read near-final versions of articles to make sure we haven't written anything in error. Or PennDOT provided a bunch of free pictures of NRHP bridges in Pennsylvania after I was in contact with them about Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3 (I believe that Finetooth initiated that contact). (Technically the Clemuel Ricketts Mansion is owned by the lake association - I contacted people who had access to the house. They also told me about a biography of Col. Ricketts I did not know of, which provided some useful information, and took me to the Ricketts family cemetery, which I doubt I could have found on my own, or accessed as it is also on private land). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
As Rklawton points out on his talkpage, Bert F. Krages, a photographer and lawyer, has a lot of good advice at his website [3]], and specifically has a freely printable discussion of photographers' rights [4]. I carry a copy in my camera bag, mostly for reference in case of a confrontation with security officers rather than homeowners. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
My rule is that yes, it's legal, but be discreet because people in the neighborhood can get so touchy sometimes, and if they call the police you probably won't get arrested but you probably won't want to come back to that town again for a long time.

I've been confronted about three times while taking pictures for this project. The first was a neighborhood in Yonkers that's a historic district I'm going to be writing about soon. Some woman confronted me from her open window and made it pretty clear she didn't want me around. I took a picture of the houses across the street (not hers) and left. Second time was the Melius-Bentley House, where, in order to get a view of the house over the fence, I didn't hold the camera up but instead climbed the rock ledge across the road. She was OK with me doing it because it was a historic house, but clearly resented the intrusion (it's in an isolated rural area) and I don't feel like going back there anytime soon, although I did get the picture (it's going to be a while before I upload it, at any rate).

Lastly was different ... I went into the lobby of the Suffern, NY, post office, which I'd already photographed from the outside and written the article. But I wanted a picture of the bas-relief described in it. The woman in the teller window told me, after I'd gotten a couple of pictures of it, that I couldn't take pictures there because it was a federal building. Not even if it was paid for with my tax dollars and listed on the National Register of Historic Places, I asked? No, she said, which of course was absurd. She even told me I couldn't take a picture of the outside (which, again, I already had).

She was polite and courteous about it, so I left amiably, but I was planning for several days to write a letter to whoever was in charge of that region of post offices complaining about it (cc'ed to the appropriate people in Congress, of course). I didn't, after I stopped being mad about it.

One place I really would be careful, though, is historic school buildings that are still in use as a school. Do not photograph them while they're in session, if you can absolutely avoid it, even though it's legal to do so. For understandable reasons, people get really emotional where the safety of their children might be threatened, and you don't want to be in that situation. Twice I have been asked why I'm taking pictures of school buildings, and one wasn't even in use anymore. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I second that: I design schools for a living, and often have occasion to be around a school with a camera, but I always check in at the office, tell them I'll be taking pictures and never include children in a picture if I can help it - and that's for images that I strictly use for work. For anything uploaded to the Internet, no kids, ever. Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Since I have yet to take pictutes of schools, I'll keep this in mind. I've never had anyone chase me away for taking pictures of post office buildings though, but private homes? Well, in April 2011 I decided to take a picture of one in Sayville, New York, that I previously felt self-conscious about taking in 2010(File:Joseph Wood House; Sayville, New York.JPG). It's kind of blurry, but I was in a rush. Granted I didn't let that stop me from taking pictues of historic houses in Long Beach, New York, and the only people who inquired about my activities were the ones at File:226 West Penn Street, Long Beach, NY.JPG, which is the headquarters of the Long Beach Historical Society. I did a few others in both Suffolk and Nassau in both years, but the Joseph Wood House in Sayville, and the former Bellport Academy were two places I thought I'd get in trouble for trying to take pictures of in 2010. ----DanTD (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am new to all this and quite confused, but could someone help me with this problem, I looked up my own home which is on the NRHP and found that someone had photographed the wrong address, and mistakenly listed my house as having been torn down.they posted pictures of my neighbors barns. so the entry is completely wrong. how can I correct this? anyone know? Cookie pierce (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You came to the right place. The NRHP nomination form is linked on the article page or I suspect you have of copy of this as well - so you can summarize, paraphrase, or even quote this to insert any information you'd like. And since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, you can take out any info you know to be false. I didn't recognize the photographer, but you can certainly remove the photo from the article (go to the "image =" line). Request: can you include your own photos - exterior, interior, details, barns, maybe even pastures with sheep if the house is in the background? We'll take them all. Last thing is renaming the neighbors barn pic at Commons - I'll see if I can do that. Any questions - just ask here. Smallbones (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I've asked for the picture file to be renamed at Commons and removed it from the article. Smallbones (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I've had one instance where the owner objected to a pic and identification. It was the Joseph D. Lyons House. The pic was removed and article modified accordingly, despite the pic taken from the public roadway. No need to tork anyone over this, which is supposed to be fun and educational!--Pubdog (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
ok so I still need help making changes to an article. I looked up my own house, which was listed as being torn down. I managed to erase that information and insert that the house was still standing and owned by members of the family. BUT I tried to post pictures taken recently, but couldn't because I am too new to wikipedia and frankly I found the instructions to request someone else post to be hopelessly confusing. Could someone help me? Could someone post the pictures of the house?Cookpie (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a list of informative documents at Help:Contents/Images and media. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I just spent another wasted two hours trying to upload one picture, and no success, I have no idea what licesing to choose and it keeps deleting everything I type into the form. also wikipedia seems to want me to become a full time member by insisting that i do ten edits etc. I have no interest in getting this involved in this project, I just want to post a couple of pictures of my historic house because whoever posted it originally got it all wrong. Isn't there a easy way of doing this? I am not computer savey, I don't know how to write code this process is too difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookpie (talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Military facilities

I'm negotiating access to Fort Lesley J. McNair in DC. In common with Fort Myer and Henderson Hall (Arlington, Virginia), the stipulations on photography encourage photography as long as prohibitions on images of gates/entrances, quarters or barracks, motor pools, ammo storage, food prep areas and utility systems are observed. They also want a week's notice, as far as I can tell (I'm still working on clarification). Since some of the quarters and gates are historic in character, that's disappointing, but it's best to have explicit and written permission and a clear statement of limitations on a military installation. Even with permission, it can be difficult: I've been stopped (as in blocked in by police cars on the road) on an installation where I was working and had official, documented permission to do what I was doing: the word had not made it around to security. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're able to succeed, I'd appreciate any tips that you could give. I attempted to negotiate access to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base some time ago to photograph an Adena mound on the base, but after a single cordial exchange of emails ("I'll check to see if that area's restricted"), I never heard back from the base's PR guy. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Most military PIOs are extremely reluctant to give permission, and it all varies from base to base. Fort McNair's a very prominent place with obvious historic and architectural merits, and the photo policy (which they forwarded to me), explicitly says so. Wright-Pat could be a tougher nut to crack, and it's often hard to find someone who has actual authority. I'll keep you posted. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Every base should have a FHPO. I suggest that you try there. Also, most bases have a museum staffed by professional historians/archaeologists that may have information. Also every Federal agency has a FHPO See the list here. Einbierbitte (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm making slow progress, and was considering raising this as a GLAM-style collaboration once I can find somebody at the DoD with sufficient authority to work with WP on a broader front; I was referred to someone with a higher pay grade today. I'll add updates as I proceed. Acroterion (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sleepy Hollow Cemetery

There are two cemeteries: Sleepy Hollow Cemetery and Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, Concord. Both are claimed to be on the NRHP. The one we all know in Sleepy Hollow, New York has refnum = 09000380. The one in Concord, Massachusetts has refnum = 98000991. The New York cemetery also has refnum = 98000991 in National Register of Historic Places listings in Westchester County, New York. The Elkman infobox generator says for New York cemetery that refnum = 09000380 and "This property may not actually be listed on the National Register - listing code is Pending/listed." I have put this information on the county page but am temporarily leaving the actual refnum in the table with the incorrect value. It looks as if the New York cemetery needs to be removed. I marked the Talk page for the New York cemetery as "needs-infobox=no" to get it off the list of articles needing infobox. Unless someone shows that I am incorrect, I will remove the New York cemetery after waiting a week. If someone else wishes to do it sooner, go ahead. KudzuVine (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I realized that I made the incorrect edit inserting refnum 98000991 at 15:09 on 1 January 2012. But let us check to see if the New York cemetery is on the NRHP. It was there before -- probably because someone saw it on [NRHP.com, p. 3. KudzuVine (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
No, the NPS database is in error. It was added here, 22 October 2010, and it was that week's featured new listing. Its normal list entry appears here. This isn't the only site that's listed but with a pending entry in the database; Masonic Temple in Springfield (Clark County, Ohio) was listed at the end of 2008 but is marked as pending in the database. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction and information. I started an nrhp infobox. KudzuVine (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Slightly OT, has anybody considered renaming the one in New York, even just the gallery? ----DanTD (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Apparently they already renamed it once, after Washington Irving's death :-) Why do you think we should rename the article? Nyttend (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot-generated lists of new articles

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/articles, I was surprised to see thirty-eight lists that I had created appear here. Not surprised that some of them showed up — but why only thirty-eight when I created ninety? I've just produced List of Indiana state historical markers, and because all of its county-level sublists them have at least one phrase that appears on User:AlexNewArtBot/NRHP (each one links to the county's NR list), I don't understand why the bot didn't include the other fifty-two. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Without having looked at the articles to confirm (I'm in a rush and have been out of town), it's possible that the 38 lists which showed up simply had more NRHP keywords in them than the other 52. The /NRHP page you linked to uses a points system. If any of the phrases on that page (e.g. "National Register", "historic district", or even words like "pivotal") show up in a new article, the number that begins that column is counted. If a phrase is found multiple times, more points are added. If an article gets a total of 18 points, it is included in the bot list.
The system is not fool-proof, and I'm sure a few articles are missed. Also, some articles that shouldn't be included show up as false positives (I would group these in that category, since they're not exclusively about NRHP listings). It is also possible that the bot simply hasn't caught all of them yet. It updates ~daily, so it's possible that it's cutoff point is in the middle of your article making.
If you have suggestions for better keywords or a better system, I'm all ears.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Didn't realise that it was a point-based system; failing to observe that certain numbers were entirely absent, I thought that it was ranking those terms in order of how important they were, and I didn't at all understand what the "18" meant. Thanks for the correction. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Flickr listings?

Two images were fetched to Commons from a Flickr user who uploads NRHP images. I've been waiting for more to show up but none have. Is there a list somewhere to point out Flickr images that are useful to the project? Or are images uploaded by their owner preferred? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


If you search on Flickr using "NRHP" with the advanced search set to Creative Commons (near bottom of page)

Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content

  • Find content to use commercially
  • Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon (check both boxes)

you get 17,000 some images.

Decided to check the "National Register of Historic Places" group and check the same boxes and I'm being told that Flickr has some hiccups. (Would I lie to you?)

But that group has 111,866 (a tiny minority of which are freely licensed) Smallbones (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally got through to see how many are freely licensed and got 3,146 results. I even got to see the first 40 or so (about half looked useful), then tried to go to page 2 and Flickr got the hiccups again. If somebody could figure out how to make this work efficiently, we might be able to pick up 500-1000 useful photos of sites we don't already have. Smallbones (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Often, a Creative Commons license is shown by means of symbols. Look for (No rights reserved) or (BY), either of which may possibly be preceded by (CC). If you see these, that's good; but if you also see (NC) that's bad. You may also see (SA) or (ND), but not both. When you upload a file with Creative Commons licensing, you must use exactly the same combination, for example {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} (more at Category:Creative Commons copyright templates). --Redrose64 (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DC sites, Wikimania

Last July I challenged the Project to fully-illustrate the List of RHPs in DC and to get the red-links out of the lists in time for Wikimania in DC this July. There are now 6 sites left to be photographed, one of which mysteriously appears only one weekend each year (May 4&5 this year). There are about 26 red-links left.

With the nice Spring weather, I hope to get 5 of the 6 remaining pix within a couple of weeks, but feel free to beat me to it!

I'll also be at the National Cathedral on Friday, May 4 about 5-6 pm, if not before, snapping horses, zebras, camels, and maybe an elephant or giraffe. If anybody wants to meet me there, I'll buy the first round of brews. (I'll be the handsome guy with the camera). That will leave the red links and article creation - any help appreciated. For a summary of what's needed see Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/unillustrated DC. Thanks (especially to Users Farragutful and SlowKing) Smallbones (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:NRISref errors and NRHP County lists

Of the 2300+ pages listed on the on Category:NRISref errors, over half are the NRHP county lists. The problem may in the NRHP header template. Is this a glitch in the header or an unintended problem problem? Or does each of the pages have to corrected manually? If that is the case, what needs to be done? KudzuVine (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem should be fixed now. When the header template was transcluded, the <ref></ref> tags were not being sent along because of limitations in Wikimedia's software. I had to nest the references using {{#tag:ref}} to get it to work. The category still shows as being full, but the job queue will soon take out all those articles. Thanks for bringing this to our attention!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much. That should cut down the list. It is below 2200 now. KudzuVine (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancies in NHL counts

As mentioned above, I found some discrepancies in various NHL counts. There is one I've not been able to explain: in Alaska, the Old Sitka Site is listed in Focus (#66000166) as an NHL, and is found on Alaska's NHL list. However it is not in NHL database search results for Sitka. Magic♪piano 14:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The name under which the NHL designation was given is sometimes different from the NRHP name. The site you are looking for is called Redoubt St. Archangel Michael Site. Not sure why there's no article for it. I thought all NHLs had articles?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It's listed in the NHL PDF as "Old Sitka". You would think the NPS could make at least its NHL publications consistent. (I'm well aware the NRHP names differ sometimes; this one just escaped my ability to synchronize things.) Magic♪piano 22:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Delisted or not?

As I am running through the old delistings trying to do some cleanup, I ran into an odd listing. On the weekly listing for January 14, 2000, there is a delisting for the K.G. McRae House in Hempstead County, Arkansas (second line), originally listed in 1976. On closer inspection, the line above it also lists new addition for a McRae House, with a listed date of 1982, a full 18 years later! What I can't figure out is if these two sites are the same building with a relocation, the delisted entry was in fact a duplication of the first one, or if they're entirely separate facilities. Any thoughts? 25or6to4 (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Check the MPS form for the 1982 listing; perhaps it will help. Sorry that I can't do it myself; I'm on a quick lunch brek. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks like they're entirely separate facilities. NRIS gives 1910 for the K.G. McRae House, but no architect or architectural style. In contrast, the MPS speaks of the McRae House as having been built in 1917, and more importantly, the whole reason that it was nominated is that it was designed by one of the most prominent architects ever to have lived in Arkansas. Can't imagine the nomination being completely unaware of the architect unless it's a different house. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Pending listings

For those that like to keep ahead, there are two weeks of pending listings available at:

http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/pending/P20120309.htm
http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/pending/P20120317.htm

I'm not sure why the links aren't on the nps site itself yet. At least I know now why the March 10, 2012 link hasn't worked for the last 2 weeks. The page was named for March 9! Which makes more sense since that's a Friday. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 17:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

New NHL designations in March

In crosschecking counts in List of U.S. National Historic Landmarks by state against the March NHL list, I noticed some new listings. They are apparently all described in this press release, which lists 13 new NHLs. Articles for some of them have been marked, but not all NHL lists and counts have been updated. (I coordinated the counts from some state lists with that list, but still have discrepant counts to resolve that are not explained by the addition of new listings.) Please exercise caution in adding one to list counts... Magic♪piano 04:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have done all the remaining updating I can think of. Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Next batch of NHL noms

Now that we've gotten ourselves out from under last Friday's huge, unexpected but welcome dump of new NHLs, there are also 12 new noms under consideration. As I have been trying to do, here's what's coming and what we have:

  • Admiral David Glasgow Farragut Gravesite, in Woodlawn Cemetery, The Bronx, NY (nomination) Apparently the only unaltered property closely associated with him, and thus the only way to honor a great American admiral ("Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!") in the Register. Wow ... it wasn't enough to get the cemetery designated an NHL, now they want one for a grave marker. We don't have an article, but we do have a photo.
  • Knights Ferry Bridge, Knights Ferry, California (nomination). Longest covered bridge west of the Mississippi. Has previously been on Register only as a CP to the existing KF historic district; however I don't believe it will be that difficult to get one and start a separate article.

Also, Hamilton Grange in Manhattan will get updated documentation and a boundary change.

Interesting bunch. Glad to see we'll get more in NY. Interesting bit with the covered bridges ... are they trying to make up for the destruction of the Old Blenheim Bridge in Hurricane Irene last year. Daniel Case (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Historic districts multiple Images

I just want to throw out an Idea/question for the NRHP infobox. I have been trying to make an infobox for an historic district that shows all the buildings in a mini format not just a map. Kinda like how {{{Infobox ethnic group}}} example of the infobox on Korean American has multiple images kinda like this one of St. Louis, Missouri. The problem is when I add the images the words come up "[[file:" and so on, the example is on User:Pwojdacz/sandbox. Is there a way to add multiple images for specifically in a historic districts besides making/uploading a collage image. If there is a consensus I would be glad to offer assistance on this. Pwojdacz (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You have to use an image editor (Photoshop or similar) to create the montage image yourself. Magic♪piano 00:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It is possible to make the infobox create a collage on Wikipedia (rather than with an image editor) like Infobox ethnic group does. We could create new parameters |HDimage1=, |HDimage2=, etc. This would work kind of like the |district_map= parameter we already have.. when an editor sets something to district_map, the regular location map is suppressed. We could make it so that HDimagen suppresses the regular image display and puts a collage there. I could work up something in the infobox sandbox if there's enough interest.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this could really evolve the NRHP infobox to be more inclusive of NRHP districts. As well, it would advoid adding double images that already exist on the commons Pwojdacz (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup around the project

I've just spent about an hour or two trying to clean up our "Editor help" page to make it not look like a data dump. In doing so, I overhauled the state-level resources found on that page to be navigable via table instead of having to scroll. Changing that also reduced the size of the TOC substantially. I also removed two (IMO horribly formatted) pages that were transcluded there – Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/ProgressOnRHPsByState and Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/ProgressOnNHLsByState – both of which show "progress" we've made creating articles. They say they're manually updated, but the NRHP one hasn't been edited since July 2010, and only recently has User:Magicpiano found the NHL one (before which it hadn't been edited since 2010 either).

I don't think they need to be on the Editor help page regardless, but they are still linked from the main project page, down at the bottom under Miscellaneous links. My question to the project is this: Should we keep these pages around and actively display them? I'm not suggesting deleting them (although I wouldn't oppose it), but at least we could remove them from the front page if they're not very active. If we do decide to keep them, I think the formatting (especially those deplorable dashed, colored borders) should be changed, and they just need a thorough cleaning/update. Anyone else have an opinion on the matter? If no one objects, I'll go ahead and remove them from the front page.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There appear to be a fair number of stale project pages (of which the progress pages are an unfortunate example -- a table with status not updated since 2007?). Unless there are janitorsproject administrators prepared to maintain them, or bots can be used to do at least some of the tracking, these things will stagnate.
The project front page should have sufficient navigation near the top to locate all of the project pages (at least indirectly) and the portal (which btw has not seen significant updates since 2009); a menu and/or tab bar (perhaps a la those at WP:MILHIST) might facilitate this. I also think the comparatively large number of images detract from the purpose of the page, which is presumably to facilitate editor collaboration. Make tools, resources and other information, and status easy to find. Magic♪piano 21:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I actually like the pictures on the homepage. I disagree with you that all the project subpages should be linked on the homepage; I think only active ones should be there. A portal link is already present (although, like you say, no one ever touches it either...) and the tools/resources/guides are linked to in the very first section on the page.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to support deleting the progress pages or moving all of them to be components of an archive of old-and-no-longer-used pages. They're just not being useful anymore. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Stale status pages are not useful. If no one is willing to make sure they are meaningfully updated, they should be eliminated (deleted or archived). But it should not be overly complicated to navigate to pages with useful content.
One thing missing from the pages here are good descriptions of the steps that ought to be taken when adding either a new NRHP listing, or a new NHL listing. Considering there are a significant number of them (steps that is), some steps often get missed -- people will update the article but not all of the relevant lists, or miss updating counts in lists, etc. I've made such a recipe for NHLs for my own use that probably ought to be here somewhere. Magic♪piano 22:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. While we have the editor help page and our style guide, there is no central place to direct people for all kinds of questions other than this talk page. Because of this, I've just started Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/FAQ and added a few common questions to it. If anyone has any ideas for FAQs, please add them there. We'll give it a few days for the list to be populated, and then we can add a link to it on the project page. We may, like you say, also need to create a few "how to" pages, detailing certain processes, e.g adding entries to lists, splitting large lists, etc. This could also be accomplished via expanding our style guide, but it may get too crowded there. What do you guys think?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The FAQ page is filling up, and I'll soon add it to the front page. If you think of any other questions that can be added, please feel free to do so!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Frequently asked questions

I just created WP:NRHPFAQ and linked it on the project page. Included are a list of some of the most common questions I see come up here. If anyone has any questions they would like to add, feel free. I've also placed a move request on Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Editor help to move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Resources since that's a more reflective title.

On the FAQ list, I've included all the NRIS codes (DR, LI, BI, etc.) and a brief explanation of them. Some of the codes, however, I didn't know how to explain, so I left a (Explanation needed) beside them. If anyone knows the exact use of these codes, please fill them in. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Poetroglyph Point

Would you please take a look at Talk:Petroglyph Point Archeological Site see if the article fits into the NRHP project and if the importance scale is appropriate? Thank you ... --Bobjgalindo (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely sure. Lava Beds National Monument seems to be an NHL which is within our scope, but quite often we just stick with one article on the listing. Petroglyph Point doesn't seem to be separately listed, but I'd assume it is a "Contributing Object", in which case you can certainly write an article on it and it is within our scope. Please check the NHL nominating form if you have it to see what they say about P Point. (sorry I don't have time to check myself) Smallbones (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong coordinates

I added (and continue adding) a number of photos to the lists, and I somehow discovered that in many cases the coordinates are plain wrong, meaning they point out to a different (often arbitrary) location. My example from today was this, but generally I have seen many such examples (specifically, I worked on Riverside and Santa Barbara Counties, CA, Clark County, NV, and I noticed some discrepancies when looking at the list of Essex County, MA). I may have more examples after my visit to New England over the weekend. Is is a systemic problem, or am I just unlucky with choosing objects someone made typos in? What was the origin of the coordinates in the lists? Should smth be done about them?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have run into this problem and it's probably because people are putting the address in Google Maps and using the coordinates generated by that service. But Google Maps isn't always very accurate regarding street addresses. It is probably a systematic problem of good-faith edits done without verification, but not typos. I would recommend users doing their best to verify coords found using Google Maps when they add them to anything since you can't always trust Google. Valfontis (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Check This section on geographic issues with NRIS listings. The locations you noted would probably be on the edges where errors will be larger. 25or6to4 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I find it useful to have a very good idea of exactly what it is you're looking for. Geocoordinates provided by NRIS are sometimes very wrong (I once found a post office in the middle of Atlantic, photographing it was a real challenge :)), and Google Maps is not always reliable. Furthermore, addresses are sometimes incorrectly entered in the register, or changed after listing -- I recently ran into a location where the property had been subdivided, and a non-listed building that had been on the property was now at the listed address. (Fortunately I photographed both buildings, so I won't have to go back.) If I'm travelling far enough afield I've ideally already seen a photo in the nom form, and/or the map show the plot, and have noted its architectural style. If you're going to be photographing in Massachusetts, the MACRIS database sometimes has the correct address and nom forms if Focus does not. (It may also note whether or not a building is still standing, another useful bit to know.) Magic♪piano 19:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Not currently. It usually isn't that big of a deal to change NRIS coordinates based on local knowledge, but if the need becomes very prevalent, it is possible to make an error category. I don't know if that would be efficient, though, because we have about 40K articles to go through right now haha.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month follow-up

Hi everyone! I just wanted to follow up with your project and see if any article creations or improvements took place in regards to Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month! If so, it'd be great if you could please post your article outcomes on the..you guessed it...WWHM outcome page! Thanks everyone for all your efforts! Sarah (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Citing NRIS data?

Wikipedia:WikiProject_National Register of Historic_Places/Style guide#NRIS_reference lists a citation format for NRIS listings which points them all to http://www.nr.nps.gov/ - a broken link. Even when that site was working at that URL, there was no means to link directly to one specific record in the manner (for instance) that the radio/TV station query templates use.

I'd raised the issue on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/U.S._Route_66#National_Register_of_Historic_Places_database.3F after being blasted on WP:RS grounds for attempting to use a third-party website instead of NPS directly for an NRHS-listed US route 66 restored motel but it seems we have many existing articles sourced to "nr.nps.gov [dead link]" which are at least as problematic in that anything created per the style guide is going to [dead link] on the first reference listed (as this gets hit right away, in the infobox for the page).

Perhaps something like the broadcast template {{tvq}}: [http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call={{{1}}} Query the FCC's TV station database for {{{1}}}] should be created with {{nris}}: [http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov NRHP reference #{{{1}}}] on the [[National Register of Historic Places]]

The parameter would be for display only, at least until such time as the NPS ever creates something to which we can link for one record directly, but a standardised template would mean that any change to the URL (ie: nr.nps.gov → nrhp.focus.nps.gov) would only require one edit (to a template) instead of breaking links on every article for every site on the entire National Register. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should answer this question in the FAQ Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/FAQ. It is asked frequently enough. Smallbones (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I've corrected the URL in the style guide, and added a mention of {{NRISref}}. Magic♪piano 19:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I completely removed the standalone reference from the style guide (sorry I didn't catch that earlier) since the entire purpose of the {{NRISref}} template was so that if in the future it became possible to link to an individual entry in the NRIS/Focus database, we would have a centralized location for all the references. A bot went through a while back and took out all standalone references, and any added since then should be replaced with the standard template.
Though not nearly as widely used (if at all.. I didn't check the What Links Here), there also exist {{NRHP Focus}}, {{NRHP nomination}}, and {{NRHP pictures}}, all three of which take the reference number as the first parameter. The NRHP Focus template will link as directly as possible (still one click away) to the individual database entry in Focus, and the nomination/pictures templates link directly to the nomination document/accompanying pictures if they are on Focus.
I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll get around to adding the outdated link problem to the FAQ page shortly. If anyone wants to beat me to the punch, feel free.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I checked Special:LinkSearch/*.nr.nps.gov and it finds 1760 instances of the broken link. Some are userspace or talk pages, but enough are in articles (846 in Category:All NRHP articles with dead external links with the 'NRIS dead link' template) that this looks like it might be a good job for a 'bot of some sort to try to clean up?
I also see no refnum= in {{NRISref}}, although it is in the others... 66.102.83.61 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The bot actually already did what it was supposed to do. It tagged all these articles as having the dead link in it and made the error category. Now we in the project are faced with the task of going through the category and cleaning them up. The reason the bot didn't just take out the link entirely is that we don't know if the NRIS information in the article is correct (i.e. that it matches the latest version of the database). The articles in this category must be taken care of individually.
As for the |refnum= thing, the NRIS database does not allow one to point directly to an individual entry in the database. The refnum parameter would do nothing for that template. That's one of the reasons why the NRIS is occasionally disliked by the community at large.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area

Think this is under our scope? If so, how should I assess its importance? I put an {{advertisement}} tag on it because it sounds like it's ripped straight from some pamphlet (though I couldn't find any obvious copyvio). What do you guys think?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The trip from Gettysburg to Monticello, in a very general sense, is of interest to us. The scenic byway and the National Heritage Area could legitimately be placed within our scope, if it isn't already. (isn't there a scenic byway sub-project somewhere, though?) But the article is on the PR organization that promotes the area - not likely to fit anywhere or be notable by itself. I'll suggest starting a JTHGN Heritage Area article and merging any actual non-advertising content into it. Smallbones (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The article is titled JTHG National Heritage Area (sorry for not linking to it before; I changed it up there now), so I suppose we don't really have to merge anything. So should it be tagged as related importance?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I've been writing stubbish articles on National Heritage Areas and will take a stab at de-spamming the article; I have a navbox and a fairly standard format I've developed, along with categories, etc. I'd certainly put it in the NRHP scope. NHAs are sort of quasi-official heritage marketing programs in collaboration with the NPS, and they can vary from small areas to the entire state of Tennessee. "Related importance" would be about right. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I've made a first pass and dealt with the worst of it: the original author should be commended for providing references, even if they couldn't turn off the PR-speak. I'll come back and re-work it in the next couple of days. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Citing NRIS data?

Wikipedia:WikiProject_National Register of Historic_Places/Style guide#NRIS_reference lists a citation format for NRIS listings which points them all to http://www.nr.nps.gov/ - a broken link. Even when that site was working at that URL, there was no means to link directly to one specific record in the manner (for instance) that the radio/TV station query templates use.

I'd raised the issue on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/U.S._Route_66#National_Register_of_Historic_Places_database.3F after being blasted on WP:RS grounds for attempting to use a third-party website instead of NPS directly for an NRHS-listed US route 66 restored motel but it seems we have many existing articles sourced to "nr.nps.gov [dead link]" which are at least as problematic in that anything created per the style guide is going to [dead link] on the first reference listed (as this gets hit right away, in the infobox for the page).

Perhaps something like the broadcast template {{tvq}}: [http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call={{{1}}} Query the FCC's TV station database for {{{1}}}] should be created with {{nris}}: [http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov NRHP reference #{{{1}}}] on the [[National Register of Historic Places]]

The parameter would be for display only, at least until such time as the NPS ever creates something to which we can link for one record directly, but a standardised template would mean that any change to the URL (ie: nr.nps.gov → nrhp.focus.nps.gov) would only require one edit (to a template) instead of breaking links on every article for every site on the entire National Register. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should answer this question in the FAQ Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/FAQ. It is asked frequently enough. Smallbones (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I've corrected the URL in the style guide, and added a mention of {{NRISref}}. Magic♪piano 19:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I completely removed the standalone reference from the style guide (sorry I didn't catch that earlier) since the entire purpose of the {{NRISref}} template was so that if in the future it became possible to link to an individual entry in the NRIS/Focus database, we would have a centralized location for all the references. A bot went through a while back and took out all standalone references, and any added since then should be replaced with the standard template.
Though not nearly as widely used (if at all.. I didn't check the What Links Here), there also exist {{NRHP Focus}}, {{NRHP nomination}}, and {{NRHP pictures}}, all three of which take the reference number as the first parameter. The NRHP Focus template will link as directly as possible (still one click away) to the individual database entry in Focus, and the nomination/pictures templates link directly to the nomination document/accompanying pictures if they are on Focus.
I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll get around to adding the outdated link problem to the FAQ page shortly. If anyone wants to beat me to the punch, feel free.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I checked Special:LinkSearch/*.nr.nps.gov and it finds 1760 instances of the broken link. Some are userspace or talk pages, but enough are in articles (846 in Category:All NRHP articles with dead external links with the 'NRIS dead link' template) that this looks like it might be a good job for a 'bot of some sort to try to clean up?
I also see no refnum= in {{NRISref}}, although it is in the others... 66.102.83.61 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The bot actually already did what it was supposed to do. It tagged all these articles as having the dead link in it and made the error category. Now we in the project are faced with the task of going through the category and cleaning them up. The reason the bot didn't just take out the link entirely is that we don't know if the NRIS information in the article is correct (i.e. that it matches the latest version of the database). The articles in this category must be taken care of individually.
As for the |refnum= thing, the NRIS database does not allow one to point directly to an individual entry in the database. The refnum parameter would do nothing for that template. That's one of the reasons why the NRIS is occasionally disliked by the community at large.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area

Think this is under our scope? If so, how should I assess its importance? I put an {{advertisement}} tag on it because it sounds like it's ripped straight from some pamphlet (though I couldn't find any obvious copyvio). What do you guys think?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The trip from Gettysburg to Monticello, in a very general sense, is of interest to us. The scenic byway and the National Heritage Area could legitimately be placed within our scope, if it isn't already. (isn't there a scenic byway sub-project somewhere, though?) But the article is on the PR organization that promotes the area - not likely to fit anywhere or be notable by itself. I'll suggest starting a JTHGN Heritage Area article and merging any actual non-advertising content into it. Smallbones (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The article is titled JTHG National Heritage Area (sorry for not linking to it before; I changed it up there now), so I suppose we don't really have to merge anything. So should it be tagged as related importance?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I've been writing stubbish articles on National Heritage Areas and will take a stab at de-spamming the article; I have a navbox and a fairly standard format I've developed, along with categories, etc. I'd certainly put it in the NRHP scope. NHAs are sort of quasi-official heritage marketing programs in collaboration with the NPS, and they can vary from small areas to the entire state of Tennessee. "Related importance" would be about right. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I've made a first pass and dealt with the worst of it: the original author should be commended for providing references, even if they couldn't turn off the PR-speak. I'll come back and re-work it in the next couple of days. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

State-specific NRHP templates

This weekend, I created two state-specific template categories for NRHP articles; One for North Dakota, and one for Arkansas. Unfortunatley, I don't think they'd qualify New articles and pictures chapter. Am I wrong? ----DanTD (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Jefferson County, Kentucky

This page appears to be exceeding the template limit (see the bottom of the page). If the rest of Louisville was moved to its own page, that should fix the issue. Should anyone be feeling ambitious... :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 17:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on reorganizing National Register of Historic Places listings in Nebraska (also suffering from template transclusion blues) are welcome (talk). Magic♪piano 18:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
For Nebraska, why not put each county on its own separate page? Ntsimp (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Many of the counties that have listings have fewer than 10, and those that have more have already been split off; this is why I'm reviving doncram's regional proposal. Magic♪piano 19:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem with Jefferson County is that it is a consolidated city-county — if the rest of Louisville were moved to its own page, the Jefferson County list would have nothing at all. Perhaps better would be a comprehensive reorganisation of the county, similar to how we've done other large cities — especially consolidated city-counties like Philadelphia, Indianapolis, and Denver. As for Nebraska, we could simply reduce the minimum number of listings required for a separate list; for Indiana we have separate lists for all counties with three or more listings, and the county-by-county totals for Nebraska make me think that this cutoff would work well there, too. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
How about if the ones that are specifically listed as having "Louisville" as a a city be moved to a separate "Louisville" page? Though a reorganisation of the county would probably be better, as Nyttend suggests. Regarding Nebraska, every county could be made it's own page. I did that some time ago with Florida and Georgia, among others. I was working on doing it for all the other states, but my enthusiasm for that conked out some months back. Having a separate page for every county makes the weekly updating easier, at least for the states I do. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 17:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The thing is that all of them are in Louisville; it's no longer accurate to say that some are in Louisville and others aren't, so we really shouldn't list based on what NRIS gives. Part of it is that most of the ones listed as being outside of Louisville were correctly listed outside of the city: the consolidation happened in 2003, so many of the ones that are listed as being in places other than Louisville weren't in the city when they were listed. Splitting the city into four geographically-bounded pieces would work much better than the current format. Nyttend (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I spent more hours than I care to think about doing a major overhaul of the Jefferson County lists. I checked the neighborhoods of each listing, one by one, using a combination of MapQuest's Neighborhoods feature, Neighborhoodlink.com, maps available on the Louisville/Jefferson County Information Consortium website and descriptions of neighborhood boundaries here on Wikipedia. I created two new lists for sites in The Highlands and Old Louisville to reduce the size of the main Jeff Co list. I think this goes without saying in these parts, but anyone with better local knowledge than me, please feel free to modify or even completely rework what I've done. --sanfranman59 (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-NHL historic NPS units in NHL lists

Having recently been working on some NHL lists, I had occasion to read the failed FLC nomination for the New York NHL list. A specific objection was raised concerning the inclusion of non-NHL park service areas as a separate table of entries, and the nomination was seemingly failed in part for this reason. (I note that the featured Indiana list excludes a separate section, which would contain George Rogers Clark National Historical Park, and the featured Michigan list entire fails to mention Keweenaw National Historical Park, the only historical NPS unit in Michigan. Alabama, whose NHL list is also featured, has no historic NPS units.)

I then came across the following observation: When the NHL registry was established in 1960, Interior policy was established that park service units were not per se eligible for inclusion in the NHL registry. (Those with JSTOR access can read the relevant detail at JSTOR 10.1525/tph.2007.29.2.81, footnote on p. 90.) This policy effectively grandfathers out of the NHL registry all "historic" units of the park service established before then -- NHLs may still become units of the park service, but not vice versa.

The question (and I will invite participants in the failed NY list nomination to weigh in here) is whether this policy is a sufficient reason to include non-NHL "historic" NPS units on featured NHL lists (in a separate section, as in the NY list). (Unfortunately User:Doncram, who prosecuted the NY list FLC, is presently blocked, which may impede his input on the matter...)

I have added language to List of National Historic Landmarks in Massachusetts explaining this, and used of a header that I think might be appropriate for meaningfully describing the section. Editors should feel free to comment here or at Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Massachusetts on the specifics of language and format. Magic♪piano 18:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be favorable to including NPS Historic units in a separate table, IF (a big if) a) it's clear that these are indeed of the same stature as NHLs, b) there is a reliable source for inclusion (does the NPS actually list these out in a clear manner?), and c) everybody can agree to put these in the same set of lists. In general, I think that different folks can do things differently around here, but what's included on the lists shouldn't be a matter of personal opinion. Rather it should be a clear bright line that everybody agrees to. Smallbones (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The NHL lists published by the NPS include an appendix that lists all of the "National Historic x" for the relevant geography. This I imagine is the origin of the idea that they should be listed with the NHLs, although individuals with a longer history in this project may have more background on that. One fundamental difference separating NHLs is that there is no clear expectation that any given NHL properties will eventually be acquired by the NPS, which was apparently one of the ideas influencing pre-1960 designations. Magic♪piano 03:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
So I read this as a) very possibly, b) yes, and c) it's up to us to decide. So let's decide - I'd imagine that several others would want to put in their 2 cents first. I'd lean toward "include". Smallbones (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I never understood why Doncram wanted to include those in the same article when they could just as easily be separate lists, but he was always vehement about it and did so much work otherwise that I didn't feel like challenging him too much on it. But, although I hate to be seen as taking advantage of his current longterm block, I'd suggest there's never been a better time to take them out. I was always of the opinion, expressed in the FLC, that a list of "National Historic Landmarks in X" should have only present and former NHLs. And now that there seems to be an NPS policy backing that up, well, what are we waiting for? Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
They were originally present in the Alabama list, but I removed them during the nomination discussion, as they were a source of contention. Altairisfar (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with removal for the same reasons as Daniel presents. I vaguely remember a long discussion with Doncram about including state-level landmarks at the Connecticut NHL list, even though they weren't NHLs; somehow I couldn't get him to understand that his argument was like an argument for including state senators at List of United States Senators from Connecticut. Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I think any argument for inclusion would go: under current legislation, absent the policy statement, some or all of these NPS areas would arguably be eligible for NHL status (i.e. the principal reason they are not NHLs is the policy, and not eligibility). I think this is a weak argument for including them on these lists; we have (or can/should have) per-state "List of NPS areas in X" that provide a suitable place for them, and the rules are, well, the rules. Magic♪piano 20:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Citing NRIS data?

Wikipedia:WikiProject_National Register of Historic_Places/Style guide#NRIS_reference lists a citation format for NRIS listings which points them all to http://www.nr.nps.gov/ - a broken link. Even when that site was working at that URL, there was no means to link directly to one specific record in the manner (for instance) that the radio/TV station query templates use.

I'd raised the issue on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/U.S._Route_66#National_Register_of_Historic_Places_database.3F after being blasted on WP:RS grounds for attempting to use a third-party website instead of NPS directly for an NRHS-listed US route 66 restored motel but it seems we have many existing articles sourced to "nr.nps.gov [dead link]" which are at least as problematic in that anything created per the style guide is going to [dead link] on the first reference listed (as this gets hit right away, in the infobox for the page).

Perhaps something like the broadcast template {{tvq}}: [http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call={{{1}}} Query the FCC's TV station database for {{{1}}}] should be created with {{nris}}: [http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov NRHP reference #{{{1}}}] on the [[National Register of Historic Places]]

The parameter would be for display only, at least until such time as the NPS ever creates something to which we can link for one record directly, but a standardised template would mean that any change to the URL (ie: nr.nps.gov → nrhp.focus.nps.gov) would only require one edit (to a template) instead of breaking links on every article for every site on the entire National Register. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should answer this question in the FAQ Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/FAQ. It is asked frequently enough. Smallbones (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I've corrected the URL in the style guide, and added a mention of {{NRISref}}. Magic♪piano 19:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I completely removed the standalone reference from the style guide (sorry I didn't catch that earlier) since the entire purpose of the {{NRISref}} template was so that if in the future it became possible to link to an individual entry in the NRIS/Focus database, we would have a centralized location for all the references. A bot went through a while back and took out all standalone references, and any added since then should be replaced with the standard template.
Though not nearly as widely used (if at all.. I didn't check the What Links Here), there also exist {{NRHP Focus}}, {{NRHP nomination}}, and {{NRHP pictures}}, all three of which take the reference number as the first parameter. The NRHP Focus template will link as directly as possible (still one click away) to the individual database entry in Focus, and the nomination/pictures templates link directly to the nomination document/accompanying pictures if they are on Focus.
I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll get around to adding the outdated link problem to the FAQ page shortly. If anyone wants to beat me to the punch, feel free.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I checked Special:LinkSearch/*.nr.nps.gov and it finds 1760 instances of the broken link. Some are userspace or talk pages, but enough are in articles (846 in Category:All NRHP articles with dead external links with the 'NRIS dead link' template) that this looks like it might be a good job for a 'bot of some sort to try to clean up?
I also see no refnum= in {{NRISref}}, although it is in the others... 66.102.83.61 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The bot actually already did what it was supposed to do. It tagged all these articles as having the dead link in it and made the error category. Now we in the project are faced with the task of going through the category and cleaning them up. The reason the bot didn't just take out the link entirely is that we don't know if the NRIS information in the article is correct (i.e. that it matches the latest version of the database). The articles in this category must be taken care of individually.
As for the |refnum= thing, the NRIS database does not allow one to point directly to an individual entry in the database. The refnum parameter would do nothing for that template. That's one of the reasons why the NRIS is occasionally disliked by the community at large.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_51&oldid=1147994311"