Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Split category into 50 sub-categories?

I think that with close to 2000 articles in the Category:National Historic Landmarks of the United States, the list is unwieldy. I propose creating categories such as Category:National Historic Landmarks of Alabama for each state, as subcategories of the U.S. one. I am working on a similar (but much smaller) conversion of Category:National Natural Landmarks of the United States and would like to do it for the Historic Landmarks if people are willing to help with the changes. Please respond if you are willing to help. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about Landmarks, and not Places, that shouldn't be too hard. I'll take on the Washington ones if you want. Murderbike (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The places are already sorted by state (see Category:National Register of Historic Places). This job won't be bad if several people work on it. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I did Washington's, but for some reason the subcat isn't showing up in the parent. I've never made a subcat before, so I can't tell if I did something wrong or not. Murderbike (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but I added a pipe<sp> in the cat and that fixed it. Thanks for doing it so quickly.--Appraiser (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason you don't see it on the first page is that it is sorting by "National" and will be on the "N" page. I'll fix them. Katr67 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Before proceeding, I'm thinking that it makes more sense to use Category:National Historic Landmarks in Alabama rather than Category:National Historic Landmarks of Alabama. (User:Murderbike, I'll take care of the ones you already did). Does anyone else have a preference either way?--Appraiser (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I just did all of Oregon and started a cat for California. I used "of" not "in", so feel free to speedy move them. Also, something (the NHL infobox ?) is automatically putting the articles into the U.S. category anyway. Katr67 (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's just leave them with "of" for now. I've created categories for each state. I believe the template "designated" is putting the articles in the U.S. category. After we do all ~1600 articles in the U.S. category, I'll try to remove that from the template.--Appraiser (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) It is the fact that the NRHP infobox has nrhp_type=nhl or nrhp_type=nhld that is automatically putting articles into category National Historic Landmarks of the United States, not the designated= tag. The designated= tag is relatively new. Instead of manually adding the new state-specific categories, the template could do it, couldn't it? Keying off the nrhp_type =nhl or nhld, but, hmm, how would it know what the state is necessarily? doncram (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, I myself have been putting "Category: National Historic Landmarks of the United States" into the several hundred new stub articles that i have created, knowing that it was redundant for purpose of getting the category to show, but feeling it added some emphasis to others who might be editing the articles. Now, with state specific categories of NHLs being created, i am happy for those redundant category tags to be edited over into "Category: National Historic Landmarks in Pennsylvania" or in whichever other state. doncram (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My strong vote is for usage of "in" not "of" for two reasons: 1.) The NHLs are "of" the United States, and they are "in" a given state. They are not "of" the given state, and 2.) for consistency with many other categories: Registered Historic Places in ___ state or county or wherever. doncram (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "in" should replace "of". I'll try to figure out how to change them semi-automatically.--Appraiser (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am clueless how you could do anything semi-automatically here. If you can, please enlighten me. If you mean, with the help of several others doing it manually, count me in. Many hands make light work. Cheers, doncram (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Along those lines, i visited Category:National Historic Landmarks of the United States and edited from 1 Hanover Sq. through 69th St. Armory to use "In" rather than "Of", taking the time to make some other necessary edits to those articles which happen mostly to be NYS articles, as well. Someone can claim to start working with the first of the A's now, if they like. doncram (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Doncram, just changing the "of" to an "in" won't solve the problem--that just creates a redlinked, non-existent category. That's why I've reverted your changes at Bonneville Dam. Someone needs to go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and list all 50 under "Speedy renaming and speedy merging", and once it has passed through that process, the pages will be moved automatically. Katr67 (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And I don't get why Washington and Oregon's are still not showing up in the parent category. As soon as it does I'll switch them all from "of" to "in". Murderbike (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is Washington: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:National_Historic_Landmarks_of_the_United_States&from=W It is sorted by "W" so it doesn't show up on the first page, it shows up on the W page. Katr67 (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay i have tried now to make a request to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion in its January 5 current discussion, requesting the 53 or so categories needed that use the "in" wording. I don't see how my request could cause the "of" wording items to be changed over to "in" wording, I have simply requested "in" categories. Amendments to my request there would be welcomed. Or, we could just manually change the "of" items to "in" items. doncram (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this to the speedy move section and am in the process of editing it. FYI so there's no duplication of effort. Katr67 (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, the speedy move request is now here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming. The categories still need cfr-speedy tags, read the link if you don't know what that means. I'm going to start the tagging with the "A"s, if you'd like to help, drop a note on my talk page so we don't duplicate our efforts. Katr67 (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Eek, I'm definitely not familiar with this area of wikibureacracy, maybe just a note here when/if I need to move all the Washington listings? Murderbike (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to move anything. Admins will take care of it using a bot. Katr67 (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Murderbike (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started the renaming process, but it's getting late at night and I'll have to wait until morning to finish. The hardest part is creating the new categories (NHLs in a state) since I need to copy/paste the text from the old category. It's easy enough to use WP:AWB to move articles from the old categories into the new categories, and deleting the old categories is a basic admin task. So, if anyone wants to help out overnight by creating the new categories, that'd make the job easier. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 06:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just wait a couple days and let the bot do it? Katr67 (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Start over

Folks need to not create any of the "in" categories when the "of" ones still exist, and not do any more manual moves. This is going to just complicate things. The page move discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 6#National Historic Landmarks as "controversial". Please discuss there as needed and note the suggested category names for the categories that don't exist yet. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, please ask. Unfortunately category stuff is messy. Katr67 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In other words, I screwed up -- yet again. Maybe I should just keep my big fat fingers away from this stuff -- or from this project -- for a while. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, it wasn't just you. :) Katr67 (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, the categories have been created and named properly (e.g. Category:National Historic Landmarks in Alabama) for each state. About half of them have been fully populated with all of the existing articles. I made a list of the completed ones at Category talk:Lists of National Historic Landmarks by state. If anyone would like to work on the remaining states and add completed ones to that list, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Also User talk:Alai is going to be running his bot to eliminate the NRHP categories from articles that have a state NHL category, so you may see those changes happening. --Appraiser (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Category proposal

Now that each of the state Landmark categories have been created and populated (e.g. Category:National Historic Landmarks in Alaska) and each of them is in the category of Registered Historic Places of that state (e.g. Category:Registered Historic Places in Alaska), I propose deleting the NRHP categories from the individual landmark articles (e.g. Iyatayet Site). I asked a robot-operator, User:Alai to assist in this task (since it requires editing ~1500 articles) and he asked that a consensus be reached here before he proceeds. As an example of the results, look at Category:Registered Historic Places in Alabama. I believe most of the National Landmark sites in Alabama have had the "Registered Historic Places" category removed from the individual articles, which produces a cleaner, smaller Category:Registered Historic Places in Alabama with the Category:National Historic Landmarks in Alabama showing prominently as a subcategory near the top of the page. I'd like to do the same thing for all of the states. (I know that some NHL articles are still missing the new NHL categories; these won't be affected by the bot, but the NRHP category should be replaced by the appropriate state landmark category whenever we can get to them.) In summary: If an article contains both "Category:Registered Historic Places in X" and "Category:National Historic Landmarks in X", the former will be deleted. Comments here are welcome.--Appraiser (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Murderbike (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me: I should go ahead and implement the template solution I was talking about at {{Infobox nrhp}}, where the template would categorize National Historic Landmarks by state if nrhp_type is set to "nhl" and "locmapin" is a valid state. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, there are some Lists of Registered Historic Places by State that are so long, they need more separate pages. Illinois is a prime example. I'll check other states as well, inlcuding my own. ----DanTD (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there is a subcat, removing the landmarks from the categories makes sense to me. Dsmdgold (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. If a reader is on one of the 39 NHLs in AL, the purpose of Category:NHLs in AL is so that he/she can visit other NHLs (which would still work), and the purpose of Category:RHPs in AL is so that he/she can visit any of the many more RHPs (which the proposal would no longer allow). Perhaps you could manually or automatically add a "See also: RHPs in AL" to each of these NHL pages, but that is the functionality that Category:RHPs in AL is supposed to provide. I think the main purpose of categories is to facilitate readers at the pages. I don't see how the proposal helps readers, or what are its other benefits if any. (If this is to save space on the wikipedia servers, it is a drop in the bucket, not worthwhile, it is saving 1600 text strings of 25 characters or so, which is going to be less than the permanently archived text of the discussion here and in related process pages.) Please enlighten me. doncram (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Keep in mind most readers do not know that an NHL is automatically also a NRHP. Many readers of a given NHL article will be interested in other local historic sites, generically, whether NHL or not, so the Category:RHPs in AL is helpful for their browsing. doncram (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, we should do what's better for the reader; I don't think anyone would argue from a position of doing what's better for the server. But is inclusion of both categories actually better for the reader? The downside is increased "category clutter" on each such page, and an increase in the size of top-level category. The upside would be if there's a desire for, or an expectation of, a complete unified list in the RHP category. That's a judgement call: it depends in part on how that list is normally presented, and how people think of it. Your suggestion of an explicit note on each category page (or at least on the grandaddy category, perhaps) seems sensible, if the general sentiment is towards the non-duplicated listings approach. Alai (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a template could be designed that would be used at top of each of the "Category:National Historic Landmarks in (state your state)" articles. If that template would include a "see also" category of RHPs in (state), then I would be happy about it serving readers' browsing interests. It could usefully mention that all NHLs are also NRHPs, and there are more NRHPs in this state than NHLs, and then give the link to Category and/or list of the RHPs. Perhaps the template could be discussed further here. (Another point for what should be in the model/template or not: I note the drafted "Category:National Historic Landmarks in Texas" includes a Google map link for "all" NHLs, which I think is misleading, better to leave only on the List of NHLs in Texas article (where it is easier to clarify that the map will only show the NHLs with location info showing in the list. Actually those labels suggesting "all" NHLs will be mapped should be revised to indicate it is only some of the NHLs. Easier to do that on the List of NHLs in (state) article.) doncram (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add a seealso NRHP at the top, that's OK with me, although it seems redundant since the parent categories are listed at the bottom of each of those pages. Any other text that explains what the category represents - perhaps including criteria or selection process would be useful to the readers. As for the map link, I think we should strive to create articles for each NHL and add coord to all of them. Currently, the "map of all" is misleading for some states, where this work is not yet complete, but I hope that ("map of all") is only a temporary exaggeration until the articles are written. And I don't see any reason to delete it from the category pages (although it could say "map of all with a WP article"); a map link could be added to the "List" pages too.--Appraiser (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To get back to Alai, so that he may continue helping us organize these articles, there are many examples where sub-categorization helps make large lists of items manageable. For example, Honda Fit is an article in Category:Honda vehicles, which is a subcategory of Category:Cars of Japan, which is a subcategory of Category:Automobiles by country, which is a sub-category of Category:Automobiles, which is a sub-category of Category:Vehicles. Category:Vehicles has only 102 articles in the top-level category, which is a manageable number. One could argue that Honda Fit fits into each of the categories I mentioned, but this cool software that we're using nicely allows us to break data into finer categories, which then report to increasingly large categories, allowing the reader to zero-in on what he's looking for, without having to sift through multiple pages of alphabetical lists. In order to make this work for us, I strongly believe that articles in a state NHL category should not also be in the state NRHP category, since the NHL categories are sub-categories of those. Similarly, the articles should not be in "Landmarks of X state" for the same reason. The NHL categories are sub-categories of the "Landmarks" categories. There's also talk of breaking up the NRHP lists by county, as the lists grow with new articles. Again, once an article is in a "Category:NRHP in Y county", which is a subcategory of "Category:NRHP in X state", the parent category should be deleted from the individual articles. So, can we please express a consensus to Alai so that he may continue? Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the proposal to have NHL articles use a Cat:NHL in State, with that Cat being a subcat of Cat:RHP in State? Using only the NHL cat without also the RHP cat fits the usual Category method of using only more detailed categories rather than also including redundant more general categories. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

SeWilco is correct. Since all National Historic Landmarks are on the National Register of Historic Places (except for the White House), the NHL lists are sub-categories of the NRHP lists. Once the correct NHL category is put in the article, the NRHP category should be deleted, since it is redundant. For example, look at Category:Registered Historic Places in Rhode Island. The NHL sub-category is listed near the top of the page. That sub-list contains all of the NRHP that are also NHLs. The 51 pages below do not repeat the NHLs. To me, the advantage of not repeating is that the state NRHP categories will be more likely to fit on one page. Any time a category includes articles on several pages, I think sub-categories are appropriate (and then the parent categories should be deleted from the articles). Alai just finished Texas, which now has 195 articles in the parent category, fitting on one page, because the 31 NHLs (eventually to be 46) are in the sub-category.--Appraiser (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You've applied more knowledge and attention to this than I have, and I wish to concede that whatever you think is best, is no doubt best. I have never understood how categories work. Not to be obtuse, though, but if you are reading, say The Breakers article on a NHL in Rhode Island, after the category "Registered Historic Places in Rhode Island" is deleted from its article per this proposal, how is it possible for the reader to navigate to other nearby RHPs? The answer may be it is not possible, or maybe there is something about parent/child categories that gets there via the NHL category, which i don't understand. Can u get from the child (NHL) to the parent (NRHP)? Even, if "it's not possible" is the answer, and for other reasons you want to go ahead with this, I am sure that is okay by me. I simply am curious to understand if this is simple. Assuming your view is the consensus and will prevail, i have already stopped adding "Category:List of RHPs in (state)" to articles on NHLs that i have been starting (working on Nevada and Louisiana NHLs recently, by the way). Sincerely, doncram (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just done the "Texas" cats, prior to noticing the most recent discussion here. I'll hold off doing the rest until things are somewhat clearer one way or the other. Alai (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lists

DanTD makes the suggestion above about splitting the lists. I making a new section here, because I think that this deserves a broader discussion. As it stands now some lists are huge full state lists, others divide the lists into to several sublists by county. I would like to see a consistent treatment on all the lists. I, however don't like the division by county, as counties are not well known. If I want to know the NRHP sites in a specofoc town, I first I have to figure out the county, which is frustrating. However, I can see that some may think the lists are too long. Dsmdgold (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Washington's list has spun off the King County list, and I wouldn't be surprised if other counties needed to be split off as their tables with photos get filled in. I can't think of a better way to spin them off than by county though, it seems it shouldn't be that hard for somebody using Wikipedia to figure out what county a city is in. Murderbike (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes it easy to find out the county, but it involves about three extra steps, which is unfortunate. The county organization however also involves additional problems. For sites that are not inside the city limits of any town, the location is listed as being in the vicinity of the nearest town. I can think of at least one instance in OKlahoma where the nearest town is in a different county. That said, I'm not sure what a better organization would be. Perhaps they could be sorted alphabeticaly by municipality. Dsmdgold (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just created three for DuPage County, Illinois, Lake County, Illinois, and Will County, Illinois, but they're all in my sandboxes right now. It would probably be best to spin lists off by counties that have their own cities, but I stated with three counties that were just closer to Chicago. I'm going to have to search other states to see if they need them(and I'm sure they will), but in the case of Washington, wouldn't it make sense to do the same? ----DanTD (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Scroll down for the lists in my sandbox ----DanTD (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that an ultimate goal would be to get as many to Featured list status. There doesn't seem to be much in the criteria that helps, as such. Perhaps it'd be worth asking the folks at WikiProject Lists for input? -Ebyabe (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that every time I try to read Lists of Registered Historic Places in certain states, they take a long time to load. That, and I just made one for Pinellas County, Florida. ----DanTD (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Trinity test GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have left this message at this project's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Trinity test and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I commented that WP:NRHP association with "Trinity test" ought to be cancelled, or that WP:NRHP rating should be STUB not Good Article, in my opinion. Please further discussion at new NRHP subsection created within Talk:Trinity test#GA Sweeps Review: On Hold. doncram (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability guideline

Does the project have existing guidelines for establishing notability? I just thought that I would ask, I've been writing several NRHP articles over the last few days and began to wonder. I didn't see anything on the project pages. I'm of the school of thought that if a structure, site, etc. is included on the register, it is notable. Any thoughts? So many of our articles are just stubs, I just wondered what happens when they go to AfD? The only coverage that I've found that may apply to NRHP articles were:

• WP:LOCAL & Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments, both just essays
• Wikipedia:Notability (architecture) is an inactive historical archive. Altairisfar_talk 07:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K., maybe I've answered my own question after reading these:

• Wikipedia:Inherent notability, but it is still an essay.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry F. Miller House & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbeville Opera House are "notable" AfD discussions. Altairisfar_talk 18:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's on the Register, it's considered de facto notable. Every so often an NRHP article is put up for AfD. But usually as long as it's said that it's being on the Register makes it notable, that keeps it. Although come to think of it, we've not had that happen for a while, I believe. Maybe the word's finally getting around. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know! Altairisfar_talk 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Current National Historic Landmark Featured Article Candidate

Joseph Priestley House is a National Historic Landmark in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, and is a current Featured Article Candidate. It is labeled with our WikiProject tag. If you want to weigh in on the nomination, it is here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph Priestley House. Thanks for any feedback! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

	<font=3> Thanks for your help - Joseph Priestley House made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lockerbie Square Historic District

Riley, James Whitcomb, House (a.k.a. Charles L. Holstein House)
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
U.S. National Historic Landmark
Location	528 Lockerbie St., Indianapolis, Indiana
Coordinates	39°46′17.19″N 86°7′57.77″W
Built	1893
Architect	Unknown
Architectural style	Late Victorian
NRHP reference No.	66000799
Added to NRHP	October 15, 1966

Riley, James Whitcomb, House (a.k.a. Riley Old Home)
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
Location	250 W. Main St., Greenfield, Indiana
Coordinates	39°47′6.49″N 85°46′23.98″W
Built	1847
Architect	A. Reuben Riley
Architectural style	Italian Villa
NRHP reference No.	77000017
Added to NRHP	September 28, 1977

I started Lockerbie Square Historic District, as I had a really good source for the district. However, the part concerning James Whitcomb Riley's home in the district really took it over. Then again, it is a National Historic Landmark. However, the page James Whitcomb Riley Museum Home redirected to Riley himself when I first started, which is why I did not build originally on that page. I since changed the redirect to Lockerbie. Perhaps I should ask for Lockerbie to be moved to James Whitcomb Riley Museum Home, because as a NHL it surely deserves its own article separate from the man himself. I would now make the District a redirect to a section of the Museum Home's article. WHat do y'all think?--Bedford 08:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you should be bold.--Appraiser (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too! And it would be great if you could make sense of the fact that there were and/or are two NRHP houses named "James Whitcomb Riley House", about 25 miles apart. NRHP/NHL infoboxes drafted and added here, with extra references for the 528 Lockerbie one. Pls. use as you best see fit. doncram (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a solution. In a book by the Indiana Historical Society, My Indiana:101 Places to See, they say that the one in Greenfield is sometimes referred to as the Riley Complex, due to an adjacent building being used to also promote Riley. Come 00:01 UTC, I'll do that. I'll have to ask a administrator to make the move.--Bedford 18:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do it; just tell me when you want what done.--Appraiser (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

After requesting a move, the administrator instead split the articles. I had to lengthen the Riley Museum Home to make it big enough for DYK.--Bedford 23:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC) References:

Photo copyright help

I took a picture of a picture in a museum of a building that has been demolished. I uploaded it with a FUR that someone suggested, but didn't put a copyright tag on it, and am not even sure what tag it should get. There was no year listed for the photo, so I don't have any way of knowing if it was pre-1923. Can anyone help this? Image:Nihon Go Gakko - Tacoma.jpg Murderbike (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What is a "FUR"? I would think the museum had ownership of the photo, and whether or not the photograph really was copyrighted, the museum could grant you use of the photo, using a form like in the discussion section just above. But i am no expert. doncram (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, FUR is Fair-use rationale. Murderbike (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The school was built in 1922 [1] so it is unlikely to have been PUBLISHED before 1923. Except that a photo of the first class is not unusual and is likely to have been published soon after. So it's possible to be PD. If those are all students, a description of the number of students in the first few years might help set a later date if there were few students in the beginning. You could check with the "UW library" mentioned as well as any local historical society or Japanese society. The museum probably doesn't own the copyright, but maybe you can find a description which identifies the rights holder. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime isn't there a tag that says something like "the copyright is unknown, but because there is no possibility of acquiring a free image, it's OK for it to be here"? Murderbike (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Replacement is a characteristic mentioned in WP:FURG. Also notice WP:FUR. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Plaques for deletion

There's a fine editor User:Calliopejen1 who also happens to be a law student - who thinks that photographs of informational plaques are a copyright violation. I have no legal background, but it seems to me that including these photos is equal to quoting the text and attributing the organization that put up the plaque, which I believe would be legal, if not within WP:Style. If you would like to help defend my photos of plaques, these are the ones in jeopardy:

• Image:SibleyHousePlaque1.jpg
• Image:RamseyMillplaque.jpg
• Image:MoundsBeacon.jpg
• Image:Dividemn.jpg
• Image:Moundsplaque.jpg

Otherwise they will be deleted in a day or two. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

These plaques are from public agencies posted in public places. I'm no expert, but I fail to see how this is a copyright. Einbierbitte (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Einbierbitte. The easiest way to deal with this, imho, is to upload them at WikiCommons. That's what I do with all my pix, including plaques. For which I've even been able to create a category. -Ebyabe (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Darn, the ones on WikiCommons are being gone after too. I'll put my two cents in. -Ebyabe (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Just screw it an ditch the tags! --DanTD (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted opposition to deletion and there was substantial response from user LX and user Durova at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Moundsplaque.jpg regarding Image:Moundsplaque.jpg]. I don't know, it may be that we need to get permissions from the plaque putter-uppers, which might be a state or local historical society that may possibly be very agreeable (although not in just 1 week's time). For state of Mississippi or another state near it, I don't recall which one, the state historical society itself puts text of each historical marker on-line. I think they do want the text to be out there and used, it is consistent with their mission. But we may need to get them to release it under GFDL or Commons or similar license acceptable for use here. Responder points us to use some request submission system. I wonder if we could ask for a longer extension in order to proceed with attempting to ask permissions, and then begin some organized correspondence to seek the permissions. This applies to many many plaques that we are interested in, even if we haven't used them yet. doncram (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: User talk:Dale662 is conversing with a representative of the Minnesota Historical Society in hopes of getting permission to redistribute photos of their plaques. It will be a pain to have to contact every non-U.S. entity that puts up these things, but it's a start.--Appraiser (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pasted in discussion of copyright issues at Commons on one pic

I am copying in this discussion because the discussion will be / may already have been deleted, and it is hard to learn what is going on with respect to this issue, with each discussion being deleted by the deletion of the image in question, i think. This is the most complete recent discussion, and was in regards to Image:Moundsplaque.jpg. Copied in from Commons and enshrined in Archive tags, as the discussion is not here at WP:NRHP:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{Commons:Deletion requests/box}}

Image:Moundsplaque.jpg

derivative work of copyrighted sign Calliopejen 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• {{PD-MNGov}}? -N 04:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Deletion The following is what i wrote on several related images. This is honest opposition, but I did not receive any response on those. Here it is again. If you disagree, please explain.
  • This is not copyrighted, it is a historical plaque which is put out there to be read and photographed, it is published into the public domain deliberately.
  • It does not have a copyright indication on it. The historical society that put it up wants the information known and expressly does not copyright it.
  • Also there are numerous websites which photograph plaques and/or gravestones, consistent with there being no problem with this. One with plaques is a plaques website.
  • Consider somewhat different issue of stock market prices. Stock markets may want to copyright and sell the open, high, low, closing prices of their stocks, but it is found that they cannot both publish such information daily in newspapers and claim that it is proprietary. Hence it is public domain if you will collect it from the newspapers (you can copyright a database of collected, verified, modified stock prices however.) Here, we are collecting it from the field observations directly. Doncram 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

delete unless an explicit permission statement from the copyright holder publishing the image under a free licence is forwarded to OTRS. Any work of sufficient originality is protected by copyright by default. There is no need to expressly indicate this. The US does not have freedom of panorama, so displaying a work in public in no way constitutes permission to redistribute the work in modified or unmodified form in a commercial or noncommercial context. Other websites may publish such works under fair use provisions, but this does not apply to Commons. They may also violate copyright laws out of ignorance or knowing that the risks are low. The stock market example is irrelevant, as simple factual data (as opposed to an original writing) is not copyrightable. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Deletion I believe government works (like this plaque) aren't copyrighted. Could this be researched, and a definitive answer one way or the other be found? Before we delete, let's make sure please. -Ebyabe 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• delete due to scope. This plaque probably is {{PD-ineligible}} since it's only text, but sicne it's only text it's not really a good image anyway. // Liftarn
• delete Although U.S. Federal government works are public domain by default, that doesn't apply to city or county or state government publications. Although my vote is deletion, I'd be willing to suspend closure of this nomination for a reasonable time (1 week?) so the appropriate authorities may be contacted for confirmation. Durova 23:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Deletion per Doncram. --Bedford 05:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hrm. It is easily within scope; the signs themselves are always of interest, especially to see which aspects of the local history are mentioned. There are several websites devoted to cataloguing them [2][3], and the signs are often mentioned in related wikipedia articles, so I definitely disagree with an out-of-scope argument (in fact, this picture is used in a wikipedia article). This is on the edge of copyright paranoia, but the paragraph of text is probably enough to qualify for copyright. If we had pictures of every single historical marker, we would probably find a couple of historical societies which sell books with the contents, and may claim copyright to protect it. Most would not care, and the photo would certainly be fair use in most circumstances, but it is on the edge. In many cases the state does not write the text themselves; they are often authored by individuals or societies which make the proposal, and the state picks which ones to put up. When was this erected? According to a Google book (Minnesota History Along the Highways) here, there was a marker erected in this park in 1954 by the city of St. Paul and others. This sign looks newer, but if it is that one, then it appears it was published without a copyright notice (and thus public domain immediately). Even if it was, it was then likely not renewed. If this is the 1954 marker (or has the same text as that marker), I would keep it. It may be worth it to contact someone and as well; I believe that has worked in the past in some other states. Even confirming the date may help. Carl Lindberg 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't this fall under {{PD-MNGov}}? All Minnesota cities are considered to be "branches" of the state government.--Appraiser 14:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at its talk page... that template should not be used. The ruling the template relies on was likely overrruled by a separate decision, unfortunately. Those rulings happened over 10 years ago but the state web pages still claim copyright, which they probably could not if that first ruling were in fact true. Carl Lindberg 15:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Followup: there is mention elsewhere that one participant is seeking Mn Historical Association contact.

Question Under what circumstances can photos of historic sites used in wikipedia include pictures of plaques, in your view. Certainly, a faraway view of a historic house that has a unreadable plaque standing in front of it, must be allowable. What about a closer view showing a partial view of the house, with the plaque readable but taking up less than 25% of the picture? If the readable plaque is just 10% of the picture? What if the use in wikipedia is as part of set of 10 photos, each covering 10% of the site, one being the plaque. Can you not argue that use of a pic of a historic plaque is "fair use" in an article/photo set on the site. The purpose of many would-be plaque photo users in wikipedia is documenting a site, not documenting a plaque per se, so can't the plaque use be considered incidental fair use in the site documentation, under some circumstances? Doncram 21:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does get interesting, doesn't it? :-) The image could most certainly be used under a fair use provision on the English Wikipedia. On commons though, the images need to be usable in countries which have either a different concept of fair use or none at all, and they need to be available for *any* use, not just in an educational context. Say, for example, someone making a wikibook of all the historical signs in a state or other area, typing in the text they see on the image. Is that OK? Is it then OK for someone to make a hardcopy book of the same, and sell it? Images where the sign is an incidental part of the picture, that should be no problem (if someone thought the text was copyrightable and too readable, we could probably blur it without affecting the main use of the photo). 99.9% of the time, this type of thing was never meant to be copyrighted, but under today's laws it is. If it was put up before March 1, 1989, we could argue it was published without a copyright notice, and therefore public domain and OK. It is frustrating because most any use of the photo would be "fair use" (since it is educational in nature), and taking this line of reasoning to its very limits would probably invalidate a ton of images on commons and cross into copyright paranoia (which this may be as well). Carl Lindberg 02:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It occurs to me, looking at a quote from the building included in Santa Barbara County Courthouse article, how are we to document that a quote from we observe visiting a site is accurate. The correct answer I believe is it has to be documented by a photograph. So how about this, for a new argument to preserve photos of historic plaques, if challenged:

1. quote from the text of the plaque in an article on the historic site, giving credit to the plaque by a reference pointing to the URL of the photo of plaque at commons.
2. photo of plaque is needed to document that the text is what is asserted
3. it is fair use to have the photo of plaque available to document that. It may or may not be fair use to include the photo of the plaque in any articles, but the main argument is that the plaque photo must be kept in existence to support the quote in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

But are they necessary?

I know Calliopejen from the fashion project, and I think I see what she's thinking: the real fair-use issue is, are pictures of these plaques really necessary for the article? (See WP:FUC #8). I don't think so ... any information in the text can be written into the article and the plaque cited as a source (yes it can, since anyone can go up and look at it, and people have already done this) and the picture instead can be of whatever the plaque is near. I have taken many pictures of plaques like these mainly as photographic notes, with no intention of actually showing them in the article.

Now, if there were some issue regarding the plaque or the wording on it that might be germane to the subject (like, I think, South Carolina's plaque honoring its Gettysburg dead, which was so disingenuous about the cause these men died for that the Park Service felt compelled to put up a small plaque in front pointing out that it was all about the slaves), then a picture of the plaque can and should be in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured Pictures of nrhps, are there any?

I just came across the Featured Pictures area, didn't know about that at all, but there is a whole process. See Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Lots of pictures of NRHP sites would qualify, for their encyclopedic value in illustrating the NRHP articles, and if they are of reasonably good technical quality. Looks like an easier way to collect stars than trying to bringing a list of NHLs up to FL. Does anyone have any of these? doncram (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I nominated one of mine one time (not an nrhp, but it was taken from an nrhp site) and it was really torn to shreds. I liked it because it is a view of Saint Paul, Minnesota in the autumn showing the state capitol, the Mississippi River with barges, Minneapolis in the distance, and a 19th century farmhouse in the foreground. The process discouraged me from submitting any others, but hopefully you'll have better success. You can see it here: Image:Stpaul001.jpg.--Appraiser (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bodie ghost town.jpg at Bodie, California (a ghost town and a National Historic Landmark) is a featured picture. Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture has pictures of some others, like the US Capitol and related buildings and the Smithsonian Institution. Image:Fort-Jefferson Dry-Tortugas.jpg at Dry Tortugas National Park is featured too. So, yeah, there are a few. We could always use more featured pictures, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)