Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Hawaii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hawaii (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Kauai?[edit]

Does anyone know why Necker Island Archeological District and Nihoa Island Archeological District are listed under the sub-subheading of "Kauai" beneath the subheading of "Honolulu County?" Mitchell k dwyer 03:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's all changed now, but I think i now understand what the question was about. Necker and Nihoa islands are northwest of Kauai, so Kauai might be given as the nearest town or city or something like that, and the islands northwest of Kauai are actually part of Honolulu County, as is now documented in the list-article (by Nyttend finding a nice map of the counties of Hawaii to link to). doncram (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

development[edit]

Excerpt from Viriditas comment elsewhere, to be discussed here: Any idea why the restricted archaeological sites are redlinked? I can't see any way to create articles without information, so they should probably be de-linked. I haven't revisited this issue for about a year, but last time I did, I noticed a lot of discrepancies regarding the naming conventions used by the NRHP and the actual names. I see that some of the articles refer to this as alternate or older names, but this is somewhat ambiguous. In other words, in some instances, the NRHP designation may not be the best name for the actual article (or take precedent over the common name), while it is certainly appropriate for the infobox by itself. This can get pretty confusing, but I can recall at least several instances where this is a problem. Anyway, if you would like me to help out, I would be glad to help complete all the entries for Maui, or at least fact-check them asap. I see that you've broken the tables up by county, but you should also add a column for island, as some counties include more than one island, or if you can think of a better way to inform the reader as to what island each site belongs to, that would suffice. There are several more issues I would like to discuss with you.-- Viriditas

Where the NRHP name is not the common name, the article should certainly be moved to the common name, and revised to show the NRHP name as an alternative name. Also the NRHP name should be retained as title of the NRHP infobox, yes. It would be great if you would complete out descriptions or otherwise develop the Maui ones. About dividing by islands, Nyttend was already suggesting something along those lines, too. I wonder about splitting the Maui County table into several tables then, one for each island having NRHPs, as an alternative to adding an island column. Perhaps the Archeaological sites could be moved to a separate table, to appear last in the Maui section as there is currently no information available on any of them. doncram (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to start by focusing on the Maui tasks, so please keep me updated on what needs completion. I can help complete the descriptions and upload some photos. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Great. I just set up empty tables to split out the Maui County section into four island sections, towards seeing if that works as a way to organize this. Please go ahead and move rows to the appropriate tables, which i am sure are more easy for you to identify than for me. doncram (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to leave all the layout decisions to you unless I see something egregious, at which point I'll speak up; I've just got too much on my plate right now. On another note, I was able to find some information about archaeology on Maui (Patrick Vinton Kirch) which could effectively serve as a lead paragraph for this section. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to follow your lead and move all the rows to the new tables, but this would necessitate updating the numbering for the original table; Is there any way to simplify this procedure with an autonumber feature? Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The autonumbering concept has come up before at WP:NRHP and as far as was known at the time, there is no such feature. With longer lists, I copy and paste them out to a spreadsheet, manipulate them there and then paste them back into the article here. It takes a couple of minutes to do what I do and is much less time-consuming than renumbering an entire list of 50 or more properties. For shorter lists or for properties that alphabetize near the end of longer lists, it's more efficient to do it the old fashioned way within Wikipedia. --sanfranman59 (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It's neat that Sanfranman59 has a more efficient way of doing the renumbering. I do it manually. Maybe we could get some program sometime that would do it efficiently, off-line, like a Perl script program might be able to do it? But here in this Hawaii list, just don't worry about it. Leave the numbers wrong. We'll take a pass through and renumber some time later, when a new organization is stable. doncram (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I'm updating the rows right now... Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Sanfranman59, all I could find is MediaWiki_talk:Common.js/Archive_Jun_2007#PROPOSAL:_Adding_New_Java_Script_Code_to_Wikipedia and User:Mike_Dillon/Scripts/autonumber.js. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just merge the Maui archaeological sites into the main Maui table for now. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree: it's not like that there's anything wrong with it, but I think it's rather confusing to have multiple tables with the same numbering. I'd like to see Oahu's numbering changed to leave out the NW islands; after all, Kaho'olawe Island Archeological District and Kalaupapa National Historical Park are both numbered 1, although both are in Maui County. See further comment in subsection below. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
As for the redlinks that you note, and "I can't see any way to create articles without information" — see Maka Yusota (near Minneapolis) or Irishtown Bend Archeological District (in Cleveland), both of which are restricted-address. Who knows but that we might even have more information than is needed for a stub? And if not, we could always create a single article for the group: see the Historic Firehouses of Louisville for an example. I'm sure that there would be plenty of information, at least in general, for restricted archaeological sites on Maui. Last comment: although the NRHP doesn't release the address, it's possible that others do: I've found the locations of many restricted-address sites by looking elsewhere online. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That's true, but the situation might be a bit different in Hawaii. We simply don't want the sites disturbed, and there's a lot of research (at least on the island of Maui) that hasn't even been done yet. In other words, these sites are restricted for good reason. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There are archeaological sites all over the place that have restricted addresses but are sometimes listed elsewhere online, including by reputable sources that are likely maintained by people that would have access to the sites. I can't remember where it was, but I remember seeing some site in Alaska that was exactly this way. At any rate, I'm pretty sure that there was a discussion on this topic at WP:NRHP some time ago; this was before I was working with the project, so I'll ask Doncram and SFman to remember it. I'm pretty sure that the pro-inclusion-if-we-have-sources side mentioned WP:NOTCENSORED as a major part of its argument, with which I agree. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an entirely different matter. The people that have access to these sites do not advertise them. There are a few restricted sites on this page that have known locations and have been known for some time, usually because they have been extensively studied and are easily accessible to the public. Those two factors are usually an exception to the rule. The sites I am referring to for all intents and purposes are not meant to be known to the public for many reasons, including preventing trespassing on private land where they are located, to protect and preserve sites that have not yet been excavated, and to protect Hawaiian burial grounds. Revealing information about the sites that could lead people to disturb them would not only violate state and federal laws, but would go against the very idea of protecting and preserving historic places. So, it isn't a matter of inclusion; the sites are registered. It's a matter of common sense and ethical duty to preserve historical places, the very purpose of the NRHP. Restricted access in Hawaii is pretty clear and has nothing to do with censorship. There is some information about some of these sites in scholarly books and journals, but it is not our job to enable people to break the law. Keep in mind, the vast majority of these sites have already been destroyed (and there are hundreds if not thousands of them in Hawaii) so it is more important to protect and preserve them than to widely disseminate information about how to "find" them. Simply put, they aren't meant to be found until they become public sites. Viriditas (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, if nobody publishes their addresses, we surely can't do it verifiably; it's not like I'm suggesting that we do it without references :-) There are plenty of articles for NRHP restricted-address sites elsewhere in the country that don't list or require addresses; as you note, there is some information in publications, so it's reasonable to expect that articles could be written about them. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
My guess is that the restricted address designation is only one part of the picture. There must be another classification that I am missing. For example, even though Kaunolu Village Site has a restricted address designation, directions to the site are all over the internet, and the public is allowed to visit it. The sites I am referring to do not allow the public to access them, but how can you tell from the NRHP data? Obviously, the "restricted address" classification is meaningless in terms of the Kaunolu Village Site; Everyone knows where it is and they are encouraged to visit it. Am I missing something here? I suspect that I am. Viriditas (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] In this context, "Address Restricted" means that the NRHP doesn't give the address. It doesn't mean that nobody else does, or that you're not allowed to go there. As Elkman has observed on his talk page, "There could also be occasional data errors in there. Second and Market Streets Historic District, in Louisville, Kentucky, is listed as "Address Restricted", though I suspect that if I walked down Market Street in Louisville, I'd start seeing historic buildings in the 200 block." I'm sure that these sites aren't "address-restricted" by accident, as the Louisville district is, but that's basically what we're talking about here. Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Kalawao County[edit]

There are 319 such places in Hawaii, appearing in four of Hawaii's five counties (Kalawao County has none)

I think Kalaupapa Leprosy Settlement and National Historical Park is in Kalawao County. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree :-) See further comment in subsection below. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay. It's another error in the National Register system, to have it recorded in Maui County instead. I am adding a note to wp:NRIS info issues (where many of us have been recording NRIS data errors for eventual reporting to the National Park Service so that they will correct their system). doncram (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I recommend looking a bit more into this. I remember reading something about this several years ago that explained why it may or may not be part of the county. In other words, we need official confirmation on this point. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The state's Elections Office and (of course more importantly) state law recognize it as a county. I think we can assume that these documents are current. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for the confusion. What I meant is, we need confirmation that Kalaupapa is not part of Maui County. My understanding is that there was an attempt to bring it under the control of Maui County or in coordination with it, so one has to ask whether it is still truly a separate county from Maui County. This is the part that needs more research. Yes, it is part of Kalawao County, but is Kalawao County now being run by Maui County? Take a look at the abstracts on Google news and other places and you will quickly see what I mean. Viriditas (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Understand what you mean now; thanks. If the state law says it's a separate county, how wouldn't it be separate, even if it were somewhat administered by Maui? At any rate, it won't make much of any difference with the table, since all that we have on the table is a note that it's in Kalawao County, which indisputably exists as a geographic area regardless of its governmental status. Nyttend (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Rearrange a little more[edit]

Since several of you have been discussing/working on it, I guess I'll not spend tons of time reworking everything :-) or indeed anything without discussion; but I was going to ignore counties altogether when I reworked this list. Do we need county headers at all? It's one thing with the other 49 states to divide by counties/parishes/boroughsandcensusareas, but since we've got rather clear boundaries (even though they are fluid :-) between the islands, I think it would be much simpler to leave them out altogether. Let's have nine different sections for the eight major islands plus Kahoʻolawe (although does Niʻihau have any? If not, just eight) with a little note above each table: "_____ is included in _____ County", plus a map of the island. To make sure that counties aren't confused at the top, we could include a little bit about which island is in which county, so the reader wouldn't have to look at the individual island list to see the county. This will make moot the question of multiple tables with the same numbering, and it should make the article more easily navigable (we wouldn't have to put Lanaʻi after Oʻahu) without sacrificing the ability to move between counties. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing — by doing this way, we'd neither have the inaccuracy of placing Kalaupapa in Maui County nor have the confusing fact of leaving it off the list of places on Molokaʻi. All we would need to do would be to put in with the rest of the Molokaʻi properties with a note that, unlike every other property on the island, it was in Kalawao County. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and tend mostly to agree. However, organizing by county puts the islands which are close together, together, for the most part (besides the two northwest ones). How about organizing by island, but presenting the islands in geographic order from Hawaii in the southeast up to the northwest island ones? Not sure how you would order among the Maui county islands there, but I am sure that could be sorted out. I kinda don't like the idea of having the islands in alphabetical order, which would be hard for non-Hawaiians like me to follow. Yes, I think that a clear discussion of how many NRHP listings are in which county, and how the counties relate to islands, can be provided upfront. Probably the small tally table by county can be retained, along with a new tally table by islands. Viriditas, as the most local participant here now, what do you think? doncram (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
There are many different ways to do it, and I'm not that familiar with NRHP project guidelines and policies, so I will defer best practices to you and Nyttend. However, I am concerned with readability and usability. I would prefer to see some kind of introductory graphic (like National Register of Historic Places listings in California) that presents the reader with a map of Hawaii, and follows section 0 with headings based on the logical geographical location, working from the oldest islands in the northwest to the youngest in the southeast, however in practice, it seems that most articles on Wikipedia (and probably print publications) work in the opposite direction (for example see the table in Hawaiian_Islands#Main_islands). I'm not sure why this is true, but it probably has something to do with human perception; perhaps working from biggest to smallest is a preferred method. But, any direction would work here. I doubt what I've said here helps, but anything that can improve readability and usability is best, IMHO. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If you're okay with it, I'll rearrange the islands by geographical order. I'm slightly confused with what you mean about "oldest" to "newest": were the "oldest" ones the first settled? I'm going to go with SE to NW, simply because, as you note, that's what's already done by Wikipedia and many other places; as I don't understand what you mean, I can't at this moment see the benefit of going the other way. Perhaps you can enlighten me :-) At any rate, the California thing is reasonable: we (primarily Doncram) have been reorganizing many states' main pages with headers like this (see Kansas for an example), and I can't imagine why it couldn't be done here. Doncram either (1) knows how to make clickable maps, (2) knows where to find them, or (3) both, so I'll not try doing that, but I can do a lot of the header. Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
See Hawaii hotspot for an explanation of why the islands, from left (NW) to right (SE) range respectively in geological age, from oldest to youngest (newest, Loihi Seamount). Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I do understand about the oldest to newest in terms of geological age, and i like that ordering from Nw to SE best now that it is suggested. I don't understand why Nyttend thinks i create maps; i talk about them because i like them, and i add them when i can find them, but it is others who have been making them. :) doncram (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just about to put in the new tables, SE to NW, so now I'll rearrange in Notepad (far easier :-) At least you know where to find these maps, which I don't. I just wonder about the utility of this arrangement: are people more likely to be interested in the sites on Hawaii or the site on Necker? It just seems more convenient to begin with the way that we normally list these islands rather than by geological history (which I understand, thanks for the good link), important though it be. Nyttend (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't communicate it very well, but my original point was that the map/image in the lead section would show the islands. The question at hand is, how does one look at a map of islands? I don't really know the answer, but if I assume that my eye starts from the left and moves to the right, the oldest islands would appear first in the top left, down to the youngest in the bottom right. Now, this could obviously be a cultural bias (due to language) or not. In any case, it does seem like many sources (including the ones on Wikipedia) go the opposite direction, from right to left, and this has always confused me. But perhaps, this is a cartographic convention? Is an island archipelago described from right to left? Or more accurately, from S to N or E to W? If so, that would explain it. Viriditas (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] I'm trying to put in the new set of tables, but for some reason it won't work. Check the "nowiki" version on my sandbox here; could one of you please try to place it on the article? There's a problem with the number of sites, but as I have schoolwork to do at the moment, I don't have any more time for editing. Can someone please check it and correct the numbers? Nyttend (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Forget it, the new version just appeared in the history; perhaps it just took a long time to register. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The site has been experiencing unusual server problems (due to load?) for the last hour. Viriditas (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

research issues and/or editing needed[edit]

Anna Ranch was listed 4/28/2008 and Kaumakapili Church was listed 5/5/2008. Here are the details:
HAWAII, HAWAII COUNTY
Anna Ranch
65-1480 Kawaihae Rd.
Kamuela, 06001120
LISTED, 4/28/08
HAWAII, HONOLULU COUNTY
Kaumakapili Church
766 N. King St.
Honolulu vicinity, 08000372
LISTED, 5/05/08
The Hawaii State Historic Preservation office has the Eyman house listed as "Eyman-Judson Residence".[1] However, I suggest we list it here as "Jessie Eyman-Wilma Judson House" to agree with the NRIS database (and alphabetize as Eyman?).
--sanfranman59 (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Kaumakapili Church and Central Intermediate School be in the Honolulu list? --sanfranman59 (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, and i just moved them. It was my error to put Kaumakapili into the wrong place. I suppose Central Intermediate School was in the wrong place due to NRIS error in its county, so i will add that to wp:NRIS info issues now. Thanks! doncram (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Kawela, Hawaii is where? Or is there more than one such place? The Opana Radar Site within the Oahu table is listed at Kawela, as is one entry in the Maui table, and as are all 20 or so of the Kawela archeological site ones, not put into any island yet. doncram (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure it's the famous archaeological site on Molokaʻi, although I will confirm before moving it to the table. Doncram, as you have now figured out, many of the islands use the same Hawaiian placenames, so it's difficult to know where things are exactly without having additional information. Appears to be Kawela in Kaunakakai, Hawaii (Molokaʻi). (see Atlas of Hawaii, 1998) Move in progress... Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Turns out that Opana Radar Site is not in Kawela, Hawaii, but Kawela Bay, Hawai'i. I'm fixing it now. Viriditas (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for summaries[edit]

Hi, I would like to help complete the summary field for this entire article (not just Maui) but I want to do it right. Could someone point me in the right direction as to what this field should contain and what I should avoid adding? Looking through the lists, I've noticed many different ways of doing it. If someone could give me a little assurance on the required structure, I can help complete the task. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My first thought on seeing a header "Guidelines for summaries" was that you were unhappy with my edit summaries :-) First thing to note: there's no "required structure", as most lists don't have any summaries or notes at all. I've only ever seen one list that uses the "summary" field admirably: National Register of Historic Places listings in Detroit, Michigan. Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, i like the summaries in List of NHLs in NY and List of NHLs in AL, the latter being the one list-article of NHLs that has reached Featured List. There are not yet any NRHP non-NHL list-articles at FL. The one thing i am adamant about is that the passages should not merely be copied from an NPS webpage (sometimes a problem for NHL summaries due to available NPS webpages for each one), they should be in your/our own words. If the passage states something pretty obvious from the corresponding article, then perhaps no separate reference is needed. If it asserts something unusual then a footnote in the list-article passage may be needed. Why don't we take our hand at doing a few descriptions, each, here in HI. doncram (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't pay attention to NHLs as much, so I wasn't aware of those. No complaints :-) I've tried to add a few so far, but how are we going to add summaries for the more obscure places (such as all those "House at ____" without doing enough research to create stubs? No complaints; I just don't see the point of adding summaries for redlinks. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And by the way, note that the leprosy NHS isn't the only site in Kalawao County: the lighthouse is in the county as well. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried editing a few summaries too. Please feel free to improve them, they are just my first stabs towards composing something short and informative enough for the reader to decide if they are interested enough in that topic to visit the article. I agree with Nyttend, that there is not much point to writing summaries for any ones that are red-links. The summaries should be highlights of corresponding articles, in my view, and no one should spend time composing summaries in their absence. Better to be starting up stub articles, instead! Okay about the Kalawao ones, I'll see if i can understand and mark those two correctly. doncram (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of that makes sense, but this idea that everything must be linked to an article for a summary to appear is somewhat foreign to me. I can provide a good summary for most entries (putting aside the individual archaeology articles for the moment), but not all entries require full articles. In other words, redirects to lists are sometimes appropriate or necessary. I respect your editorial judgment in this matter, but I cannot subscribe to that philosophy so I will agree to disagree on this minor point. I can think of many situations where an individual article is simply not necessary, and a small summary in a list suffices until the time comes that a new article is actually needed. Perhaps, I'm simply old skool or even deluded, but I don't believe every topic requires a separate article. For an example of this, see South Maui Coastal Heritage Corridor and its work in progress here. Many of these topics do not require separate articles, but there are enough sources on each topic to provide good summaries. Vancouver monument is a good example. One could create an article on this subject, but it would be an eternal stub. Kihei Boat Ramp is another. I can talk about the boat facilities, walking paths, and native plants and animals, but it doesn't really need a separate article. In these types of situations, it's better to group small stubs into larger regional articles or lists. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Viriditas that not all NRHP sites need a separate article. Me and some other wp:NRHPers fought for a long time in AfD discussions to establish that any NRHP is wikipedia-notable, but I think now that we overstated that. Having one article that covers multiple sites, like for the multiple archeological sites, would often be better. A good example that was presented recently in wt:NRHP is Cuyuna Iron Range Municipally-Owned Elevated Metal Water Tanks, one article about five separate but highly related NRHP listings in Minnesota. However, I think the List of NRHPs should show a row for each one of them, to show to the complete array of separate listings, and to let everyone know where the given NRHP is being covered, although many may point to just one article. And, technically, a separate redirect should be set up for each of the official NRHP names, to link to the one article. And, for individual NRHPs that are not easily grouped with others in one article, I think it is fine to have a permanently short article (a stub but without the explicit request for expansion that "stub" tagging includes). If only to hold a larger size version of the photo that is shown in the list article, and to be a place to which other photos and info could be added by others. Also, the NRHP infobox in an individual stub article contains some info like NRHP reference number which is useful to convey, and which is not appropriate to include in the state-wide list-article. And, if you have any summary for a place in the list-article, you can just paste the same info into the short article. That would suffice to allow the list-article to be, as I believe it should be, essentially an index and summaries of other articles. I think for the list-article to be understandable, everything in its summaries should appear in other articles. Viriditas, does this make sense? I am mostly agreeing, but with some implementation differences perhaps. doncram (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand. The NRHP project would prefer the list to represent other articles, rather than providing unique summaries that have no related articles or lists. So, if there was a Hawaii-related list that linked to a NRHP list, that would be fine, but if the summary appeared here and nowhere else, it would defeat the purpose of an index. I can understand that position, and it makes sense, but again, this is forcing the creation of small stubs or the inclusion of those stubs into regional lists; It's redundant. But, perhaps that layer of redundancy is a good thing, as it will increase category representation and allow multiple projects to maintain duplicate topics in different formats. I can't really argue with your position other than to say, "I don't like it" as it forces me to do more work, so I'll just wave the white flag and follow your guidance on this. I think the first thing I will do is try to find regional articles by location, and add the information to subsections there, and create redirects as appropriate. This seems to be the most common way of doing it other than creating separate stubs, although I will leave that option open as well. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's not an NRHP wikiproject official position, it's just me talking, though others might (or might not) agree. I guess, yes, that is basically my position, that I personally work to create list-articles to index and to support the creation of separate articles about the individual NRHP-listed places. And usually i think creating separate stubs is helpful, even if at first they may be very small with little other than a short description redundant to what you'd put into the list-article. For example, for the lighthouses, there is a WikiProject Lighthouses that can then come in and add their other stuff using U.S. Coast Guard sources, including adding their nicer customized infobox (into which any unique info from an NRHP infobox can be merged). Actually, come to think of it, they could be invited to come develop the Hawaii lighthouse articles, which they seem not to have addressed yet. Then one article for a lighthouse can appear in the NRHP list-article and also appear in a list-article about lighthouses. Is that what you're talking about in terms of "allowing multiple projects to maintain duplicate topics in different formats"? About increasing category representation, I don't know what that means, perhaps as I don't personally pay a lot of attention to wikipedia categories and their nuances.
But your discussing it here, and pointing out that it can force you to do stuff you don't like, does give me pause. Also, there may be some differences here in the Hawaii NRHP listings that haven't come up elsewhere, so I should be flexible in my own unofficial position, anyhow. Along those lines, the situation with the 21 separate archeological sites at Kawela on Molokai has been bothering me. By my previous thinking, there should be 21 rows in the list-table as there currently are, perhaps all linking to one article. But since there is not likely to be interesting separate descriptions available for each of them any time soon, having those 21 rows in place seems reader-unfriendly. I don't recall any situation much like this in any other state list. I think now it would be better to have just one row, with number "1-21", rather than 21 rows numbered "1" to "21". The list of site numbers can be put into the one target article covering them all, along with corresponding NRHP reference numbers and anything else unique about each site. If that's okay, I could take a crack at that, or would be glad if anyone else would like to.
I tried that in this edit. Nyttend in next edit reversed that. Nyttend, others, don't you think that one row in the table works better? There is really no useful info to convey in 21 separate rows, in my view. doncram (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to respond in the middle of the page. See the bottom of this section. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't want you to feel forced to create stubs you don't want. How much of this problem is addressed by your simply not choosing to create such stubs, leaving it to others? But I think also you are clearly saying you'd rather there not be a separate article about some, like the Kihei Boat Ramp. About any particular one like that, I don't know what is the best treatment, whether that should be a redirect to a larger article about some park within which the ramp might be located, or whether there is in fact more interesting info available somewhere about the ramp itself, more than would be appropriate to include in an article about something else. To really address any one case, I would want to see the NRHP registration form (or inventory/nomination form) that is freely available for it from the National Register, but takes requesting and waiting a week for it to get to you in the mail. Do let's keep talking about what rankles you. doncram (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not about what "rankles" me or what I personally don't like, it's about how much free time I have. I would love to help complete this task by helping to fill in all of the fields, but you're saying that you want new articles (or redirects) created before summaries are added to redlinks. I dont't have time to do that. My point is that, 1) every article doesn't need to be linked, and 2) summaries in lists don't require separate articles. Obviously, the NRHP project doesn't agree, and believe that that all index articles should have links. And, that's fine. It just means that I won't have time to help complete this task. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It would be great if u would put in summaries, next to either bluelink or redlink, i.e., whether or not a separate article has been created or not. doncram (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as the various lines go: isn't it standard to list everything? You see I linked all of them to your new article: it's not as if I think we need a separate article. As it is, by cutting down to a single listing-of-all we lose the titles of the various sites: not super-important I know, but I don't see a benefit in removing them altogether. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the benefit is for readability of the table. To remove need for people to wade past 21 rows with little distinction, to get to the interesting Molokai places that follow in the table. It would be less important if archeology was spelt Zarcheology. doncram (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the situation is now worse for readers than before, with the bluelinks. Someone interested in Molokai arrives, would have to page down twice to get to any others. But now, has to invest a few clicks in exploring the archeology site bluelinks, only to discover they all lead to the same lame-o combo article showing red-links for each of them. Should the red-links in the combo article point to the combo article too? Another way this doesn't make sense. So anyhow, it takes even longer now with same bluelink in place, to get to the actual Molokai NRHP content in the table. doncram (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we go back to the old format of separating them then? Give a single line in the table, like you had before, and then a text note at the bottom of the table giving the names? My big thing is that I don't think it a good idea to leave out the names entirely, even if they are rather trivial-seeming with little information. Perhaps something as simple as "Many archaeological sites are located in the Kawela area:[line break, list of sites, line break]In order to ensure that they are not damaged, their addresses are restricted." Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Or, we could pretend that they're zarchaeological sites, numbering them after everything else: after all, we don't always number everything strictly alphabetically. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lighthouses[edit]

Also, about lighthouses, i asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses#Hawaii lighthouses attention requested regarding Kilauea Light, Diamond Head Lighthouse, U.S. Coast Guard Makapuu Point Light, and U.S. Coast Guard Molokai Light. Hopefully those might now get developed by light experts. doncram (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Formatting landmark names[edit]

Why does Falls of Clyde appear in upper case, both in the infobox on the main article and in this list? Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's formatted as FALLS OF CLYDE simply because that is how it is formatted in the National Register Information System (NRIS), a download of which is used by the Elkman tools we used to generate the list-tables and to generate individual NRHP infoboxes that we cut and paste into articles. The NRIS system is deficient in that its text-only basis lacks any other way of showing emphasis, for ship names. I think it should be changed to appear as Falls of Clyde using italics, instead, in both places, and links to its article should be put in with pipelinking:

[[Falls of Clyde|''Falls of Clyde'']]

Sorry, this has been done for ship names in most other state lists. And, the list-tables and the individual NRHP infoboxes that are cut and pasted in should be regarded as starters, to be edited. Certainly you should feel free add other info where relevant into the infoboxes, from other sources besides NRIS. (If you do so, you should probably add corresponding footnote references to those other sources, and perhaps clarify which data fields are supported by the NRIS footnote that is put into the starter infobox usually after the NRHP reference number of a site.) doncram (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Any idea why it hasn't been changed to "Falls of Clyde"? Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Because that's the way it's listed by the Register. After all, this is a list of properties that are designated by the Register; why should we do otherwise than the NRIS does? Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you actually believe that Wikipedia should use the format of a legacy database application whose particular record uses upper case characters because the system wasn't designed to display italics? Of course, that's only one example. Falls of Clyde should not appear in upper case characters. It doesn't matter how a legacy database application outside of Wikipedia chooses to store the record. It is common practice to convert external databse entries into readable formats for Wikipedia unless and except the original format has meaning or preserves meaning. In this case, it doesn't, and should not appear in upper case. This is similar to formatting a bibliographical entry, web citation, or any other data from an external source for use on Wikipedia. The way the NRIS chooses to list the information is content neutral, and can be formatted independently of its resource name. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Big Island[edit]

I am working on the Big Island articles. One issue I noticed: the Kamoa Complex is the same as Holualoa 4 Archeological District (State Site No. 50-10-37-23.661) as far as I can tell. See http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/hi/Hawaii/districts.html for example. This area is in Keolonahihi State Historical Park, which is not developed. I can write a stub with a little more research. Would anyone mind if I combined the table entries? Also see http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/info/lako/EA-Sum2.htm W Nowicki (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If they're two distinct listings, they shouldn't be combined. Of course, if you have evidence that they're essentially the same place, you could write one article about both of them, and then redirect both links to that article, but as this is a list of sites listed by the NRHP, it shouldn't combine NRHP listings. For an example, see the Beaver County, Pennsylvania list: Old Economy and the Economy Historic District are essentially the same site, but they're listed separately because they're two different listings. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Split into multiple articles?[edit]

What is the consensus on keeping this one article, or splitting it up? I tried to edit, and it takes several minutes to load (probably all those pictures, etc.). There was already a suggestion generated on edit to split the article up, since it was over 100KB. At least I would be more inclined to edit it if it did not take so long for each view. Many of the Big Island locations are not very good, for example. Now that all the work was done to split the tables, we could put each table in a separate article, for example, with this one having the county and island tables with links to the others. During transition we could move, say, Oahu and Big Island to their own pages first, then the others as time permits. It looks like California does it by County, so what do others think?

Another thought: the color code should be explained somewhere. Mahalo. W Nowicki (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea of at least splitting out the islands with the most listings and I would have no objection to splitting out all of them. As for the color codes, the tables that some of create include footnotes describing the color scheme. I'm working on North Carolina right now. Take a look at a relatively recent county table that I've created to see what I mean (here's an example). --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, the article has filesize = 105,245 bytes, which is smaller than many other state list-articles, but this one loads really a lot slower, I see. Yes, i guess that is because of all the pictures that have to load, too, here. So yes, at least the bigger islands should be split out now. About the color code, the way that Sanfranman59 describes does provide a way to see a color code, but the reader has to be pretty interested to click on the footnote (footnote #3 in the Lincoln County example) in the top left cell of the table, and then click on "here" within the footnote, to eventually get to a color key. An alternative is to put a color key directly in the article, as this NRHP list for Syracuse, New York does. doncram (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Which ones to split?[edit]

I'd like to see each island get its own list article, but it would probably be a bad idea to give Kahoolawe and the NW Islands separate list articles. Good to begin the splitting of ones that definitely need to be split out :-) I think we could do better on the naming, however: since we're going by islands rather than by counties, wouldn't it be better to have "National Register of Historic Places listings on _____" rather than "National Register of Historic Places listings in _____"? It seems more normal to talk about "on Oahu" than "in Oahu". Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and split out Oahu, the biggest, to National Register of Historic Places listings in Oahu. I also tried including a Key section with a draft color code key in it. There may be some colors not covered, say if there are any National Historic Sites on Oahu, so it may need improvement. Also how i linked to it, leaving a section on Oahu in this state-wide list-article and using a "main" link to the separate article as being the main source on Oahu in particular, might be improved. Perhaps the section left behind should have more description, including saying in text that there are 150 NRHP listings in (or on?) Oahu. Also how i set up the Oahu article with intro and categories and so on might be improved. But it is an example. And, since it removed 150 NRHP listings out of 320 or so, the performance here should now be better. About the article name, I am indifferent to "on" vs. "in" and would defer to whatever more local editors prefer. Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thanks that was fast. Yes, the page loads much quicker now. I may have time to do the Big Island tomorrow. It is both an island and county so either "in" or "on" should work (guess I would prefer "on Hawaii Island". Any chance we could spell the island names with ʻokinas? I understand keeping the titles exactly the same as the official registry names, but the islands are really Hawaiian names. Other ideas: a link back to the state page from each island, and a link to the registry web site on each one. Put at least one picture of one of that island's sites in that island's section on this page. Agree with the color code key. W Nowicki (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't like "Hawaii Island" — I don't remember ever hearing that usage. What about "NRHP listings on the island of _____", using the same format with each list that gets split out? Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, sure, the article and category is "Hawaii (island)" which includes that usage, but yes, "on the island of ___" makes it clear, so that sounds good. I am still favoring using ʻokinas in the text only, not in article titles. W Nowicki (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Big Island has been split off. Please review and see if there are any more issues. One is how the pages sort on the Category:National Register of Historic Places in Hawaii - I put the big island under "H" for Hawaii, but maybe it should be at the top, as Oahu is? I removed the aviation link from here since the sites are all on Oahu. Perhaps need to add more refs to the sub pages, etc.W Nowicki (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

official names and okinas[edit]

I've participated in editing this list-article occasionally, but i notice repetitive edits back and forth about the presentation of article names here. Is the issue between editors just about the inclusion of okinas in the article titles displayed here in the list-article? --doncram (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinions on the usage of ʻ versus apostrophes, and (while I don't see okinas or hakaos generally being in accord with WP:USEENGLISH) I'm not interested in attempting to change the way that articles are entitled. I'm exclusively interested in the NRIS listing names, which often don't include okinas or hakaos. Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
That's about use of {{okina}} and {{hakao}}(?) I guess. I do tend to agree with Nyttend that the NRHP list-articles can show the official NRHP names for places, while linked articles can show current common usage names that are different. We have that for many other types of articles where the NRHP name for a place is no longer the currently used, most common name for a place. It seems reasonable to have the NRHP list-article show the inventory of places as listed on the National Register. But what does the National Register show, or want to show? As Nyttend and I both know, the National Register's database is an old, legacy-style computer application that is incapable of including okinas and hakaos, and has numerous typos and other errors besides, which we routinely correct. Should the omissions of these Hawaiian language marks be regarded as typos by the National Register? How would the National Park Service now refer to these sites in any new official tourism summary guide or other new writing? One way to proceed to try to shed some light on this would be to try to contact the National Register and see what they prefer.
But rather than have endless reversions back and forth, could we list the cases of disagreement for this list-article and for any NRHP places on any split out Hawaiian island list-articles, here?
One item is apparently the display of: Puʻnēnē School vs. Puunene School
Another is apparently the display of: Hale Pa'i vs. | Hale Paʻi
Perhaps we could list them and then agree to abide by a flip of a coin, on how they should appear, until a wider consensus is reached. I personally would strongly prefer something like that, rather than see perpetual battling, which i experience as demoralizing and expect would seem unfriendly to any would-be new editors. --doncram (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Perhaps there is no issue about use of diacritical marks or whatever these are, for mention of places in the location column or descriptions column of this list-article. Like for Haiku, Hawaii vs. Haʻikū as a location for one of the NRHP places. I think this is not an issue, that showing okina is okay if that is how the linked article is named, because it is not a matter of displaying the official NRHP name or not for an official NRHP place in a list-article of NRHP places. Is that right? And, Joel Bradshaw, could you comment please? --doncram (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: Doncram, yes, the ʻokina is a diacritical mark that functions as a consonant used in modern orthography to help English speakers with pronounciation and meaning of Hawaiian words. The kahako is the long vowel mark, often considered optional since there are variations in pronounciation anyway. Their use is totally in compliance with the "use English" rule: they are exactly intended for English speakers, while native Hawaiians did not use them generally since they already knew how to pronounce the words. Taking them out does not convert a word into English at all. For example, Haʻikū is a town while "Haiku" is a form of poetry. The English name of Puʻuloa is not "Puuloa" but "Pearl Harbor". Diacritics are allowed in articles about European places; languages spoken by people with dark skin deserve the same respect. This has been discussed several times in the Hawaii manual of style with a reasonable (I think) compromise that most editors use.

Having said all that, I would be willing compromise and, say, use the old-fashioned names from the NRIS database (usually no diacritics but sometimes appostrophes) in this table, the titles of articles, and perhaps even the nrhp infobox titles. But allow more modern typography in the body. The GNIS used diacritics since the late 90s and U.S. Census will also be using diacritics in the 2010 census, so my approach was to work on biography articles until that data comes out. The NRHP seems to be busy enough on the "Focus" database which is a great step forward; any idea when they will get a modern system that handles diacritics? The question is: would a reader of Wikipedia rather have accurate articles about the NRHP places, or have all sorts of red links but perfectly matching the old 1970s database? If you want to keep the articles up to date, please do not push editors out by reverting our work. W Nowicki (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! I certainly do want for us all to keep cooperating and developing one system of articles, actual bluelink articles, rather than having red-links and no info for readers. And i do want participating, happy editors, not people being driven away. :)
To clarify, to be consistent with practice elsewhere, what I would be inclined to want to do (coming in, before any discussion here which could change my opinion) and what I think Nyttend has been trying to do, is to enforce the NRIS databases' names (lacking diacritics) in (1) the names of places displayed in this and other NRHP list-articles, and (3) the nrhp infobox titles in articles, but not enforce that in (2) the names of articles. While W Nowicki would accept no diacritics in all 3. If the local usage and/or common usage includes diacritics, then the articles SHOULD be named with the diacritic marks, IMO. I would usually also want to show the NRHP name in bold in the lede of the article, as an alternative name. But, in the text of the individual articles, and in the text of the NRHP list-article (in the location fields and in the description fields), I think it's fine to have the diacritics.
Where Nyttend and I are coming from is that we want to show the world which are the places having various NRHP names. When you get to an NRHP list-article you should see the list of NRHP places, like you could get from the National Register directly, or from private mirror sites like www.NationalRegisterOfHistoricPlaces.com and Archiplanet.com. People will arrive with such names, spelled without diacritics. And then you can click on it and learn about that place. Including, for some of us, learning about diacritic marks that are actually used in local practice! And, at the place article, the NRHP infobox should be there verifying to you that yes, this is indeed the NRHP place of the given NRHP place name. Going further, if the National Register is changing its tune and showing diacritic marks, then I would want for us to update the official names to reflect that, but i doubt it is changing very quickly. The rollout of the Focus database has been taking years, and i don't think it allows diacritics in names either. Possibly diacritics could begin showing up in PDF forms of newer NRHP nomination documents that might be accessed in the Focus system.
So, if W Nowicki was okay with giving up 1, 2, and 3, but Nyttend and I only want 1 and 3 anyhow, then we're okay, so far. Hopefully others will comment (including i am not positive i am representing Nyttend's view perfectly). (By the way, the Haiku, Hawaii article itself uses no diacritic marks. So it seems a bit weird to show diacritics in a link to it, when the target does not have any. Perhaps someone should revise that article.) --doncram (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the spelling error; I can never remember that it's "kahako" instead of "hakao". By the way, it's essentially possible to include okinas in the names: many entries in the NRHP database have an apostrophe where an okina would be — e.g. "Pu'uhonua O Honaunau National Historical Park" or "Pua'a-2 Agricultural Fields Archeological District (50HA10229)", both on the island of Hawaii. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I am tending to agree with Nyttend's view, as far as i follow it, but i just reverted Nyttend's new edit changing the display of some of these. Nyttend's edit summary invoked wp:NRHPmos as reason; whatever that says, by the way, may be relevant for mention here but the is not authoritative about what to do here. The NRHPmos style guide was drafted by others and me in a draft format and has not received wide scrutiny or approval for anything like Manual of Style guideline status. Nyttend, what are you saying here: is it okay to use the okina in your view or must one use an apostrophe instead or must one follow a NRHP name that uses neither? --doncram (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree entirely with W Nowicki's suggestions, although I'm certainly guilty of inserting diacritics in more than a few NRHP Infobox display titles—and in the display forms of the links on the listing pages that Doncram mentions, because I've been spending a lot of time on the latter while inserting images. (Sorry if I went overboard.) I do take care not to create redline links containing either okina or kahakō (or even ‘), but I have often changed the display name, even though it's a real pain-in-the-ass to insert the okina template each time. The trend in current usage in Hawaii/Hawaiʻi (in news media, gov't, on street signs, etc.) is to insert the diacritics as opportunities arise, especially in proper names. (The University policy is hyper-PC on this issue, of course, but other government agencies are a little more laid back about it.) See the long discussion at Hawaii Threads back in 2004, when the use of Unicode fonts was less prevalent. Most of the NRHP nomination forms (1) suffered from typewriter-era typographical limitations and (2) preceded the mainstreaming of the Hawaiian language revival. (In my linguistics dissertation back in 1982, I used a Dutch lowercase ij digraph on a Prestige Elite typewheel, then whited out the dots to turn each one into an ŋ in the New Guinea language data I cited!)
A similar limitation I've encountered on NRHP forms has nothing to do with Hawaiian. Some of the NRHP names have em dashes in them, usually rendered on typewriters by double hyphens, as in "Bank of Hawaii--Haiku Branch". But most of these names were later reduced to editorially and typographically inadequate (IMHO) single hyphens. Simlarly, most careful book publishers would convert the hyphen in "Ka'ahumanu Avenue-Naniloa Drive Overpass" to an en dash (–), which could not be distinguished from a hyphen back in the typewriter era, although I have encountered en dashes rendered by putting spaces around hyphens, as in "pp. 101 - 123"! Being a linguist by training and editor by occupation, I tend toward going overboard in these matters. Joel (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for a professional perspective. I am a mere amateur, but in my previous life was somehwat concerned with reasonably useful accurate notation. My pet peave is how NRHP changes word order in "House" sites e.g. "W. H. Shipman House" appears in the database as "House, Shipman, W. H." or somesuch making queries confusing. So there are cases where we can diverge from the letter of the database.

I am still unclear on what exact policy is being proposed. I would add a #4 to your list, writing the name in the body of the text. The current Puunene School article uses the diacritics in the body, which would be consistent with the Hawaii MOS. Can we use diacritics in bodies now, without fear of being reverted in the name of claims that removing diacritics converts it to "English"? As above argument about diacritics in titles might be much less relevant now that browsers have better support for Unicode - I do see some of them slipping in, but will continue to avoid them myself in titles. Allowing them would help reduce all the zillions of piped links. And given the okina template has not changed the character in three years now, using the Unicode directly might be reasonable to consider.

I would make the distinction between different names such as your example of "Greenwich Village" vs. "Greenwich Village Historic District", and merely different ways of writing the same name. English has a long tradition of using simplified writings of words that would not always be appropriate for Wikipedia. Your example of "St" for "Street" might be more analagous. A similar one I run into is churches named for saints: often they are spelled something like: "St Pauls Cathedral" when more properly it would be "St. Paul's Cathedral" or "Saint Paul's Cathedral". (I was surprised by the title of St Paul's Cathedral for example, which uses the odd choice of appostrophe but no period to disambiguate, but I digress) "St Paul, MN" is the most common spelling of the midwestern state capital, but the article is titled Saint Paul, Minnesota. So English convention is to use the fully spelled name even if the simplified one is more common. The lead there does mention "St. Paul" with the period, but does not say it is also more commonly written as "St Paul" because that is obvious to most English speakers that "St Paul" is a simplified way of writing "Saint Paul" and not a different name. If you polled most English Wikipedia readers, I would guess most readers would recognize that "Puunene" is a simplified writing of "Puʻunēnē". Most readers looking up one or the other should not be confused (and for collation purposes, and typing at a keyboard, omit diacritics anyway). The famous street in Paris is titled Champs-Élysées, and does not state that it is more commonly spelled sans accent aigu en Anglais. Why not treat all languages equally? Not sure what the value is for outlawing diacritics in NRHP names. In other words, there seems little benefit being worth all the reverts. W Nowicki (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see why the NRHP folks wanted to change "Frank and Theresa Gomes House" to "Gomes, Frank and Theresa, House" back in the early days of sorting database entries. But that seems to have made a complete hash of the Jessie-Judson Eyman Wilma House on the Oahu NRHP. And scanning down lists of printed names is not how most people find things these days. Nevertheless, I will be more reticent about changing NRHP display names on NRHP listing pages and in Infobox titles, but will feel freer to adapt Hawaiian display names of people and places to current Hawaiian spelling conventions. But I agree that Hawaiian common nouns borrowed into English, like aa or luau, do not need diacritics, nor do widely known place names, like Waikiki, Oahu, or Kauai (or Osaka or Tokyo, for that matter), although the diacritics certainly help with etymologies (and language learning, both of which always interest me). I also agree that the okina is more important than the kahakō. Joel (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The situation is exclusively with the display of the name in this table and in the top of the infoboxes in the articles. Since the relevant style guide says to display the names in the tables and infobox titles as the NRHP database (it's named the NRIS, in case that title confuses you; sorry for bringing in that abbreviation without explaining it), we should display the names in the tables and infobox titles as the NRHP database gives them. I would have been the first to say (if Doncram hadn't already done it :-) that we shouldn't try to say that an article should be named such-and-such because it appears under that name in the NRHP; among other things, you can see the first NRHP article that I wrote, Court Avenue, which appears on the NRHP as "First Concrete Street In U.S." My only question here is the actual name of the school article — why is it "Puunene School" instead of "Pu'unene School"? I don't see how we can easily implement kahako in the actual name of the article, but an apostrophe is an easy substitute for an okina. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't appreciate repeated invocation of the supposed style guide, wp:NRHPmos, which I helped to create and which I know has gotten very little scrutiny. In a different discussion with me, Nyttend is now invoking what that states as if it is gospel, and it is not. It is not relied upon generally, it has not really been looked at, it is not an authority.
But about Puunene School, I also don't understand why editors here would be changing what is presented in the NRHP list to use diacritic marks that are not used in the actual article contents. Same as I mentioned about Haiku, Hawaii further above. It is unreasonable to try to force the NRHP list-article to use more advanced phrasing not even in practice in the linked articles. It is reasonable for the NRHP names of places to be conservative, even dated, in reflecting accurately what was current, general American usage for the names of places when they were listed on the NRHP. --doncram (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with leaving out okina and kahako in official NRHP names in listings and NRHP article titles, even in display names—unless the latter includes an okina or kahako equivalent. The "Cooke, Charles Montague, Jr. House and Kuka'O'O Heiau (Boundary Increase)" nomination form (2000, not yet digitized) may use capital O for ō, but that's not a standard convention, by any means. The Kaahumanu Church (nomination 1975) does not mark its okina, nor does Puunene School (nomination 2000, by someone who wrote her dissertation on Hawaiian regional architecture)—nor does the Puunene School's official DOE website. But "Ka'ahumanu Avenue--Naniloa Drive Overpass" appears with an "apostrophokina" and double-hyphen dash in the NPS focus title (but the documents submitted in 2008 have not been digitized yet). So you get just the church if you search NPS Focus for "Kaahumanu" and just the overpass if you search NPS Focus for "Ka'ahumanu"—which seems to be the crux of the problem we're trying not to make worse. If I ever get around to creating an article for the NRHP "Small Heiau" (1973) on Oahu, you can be sure I'll use its real name, which never appears in the nomination form. (It has appeared in the "Lost" TV series, but is on private land, which prevented me from getting a photo, so it's not on my to-do list.) Joel (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, that's a good point, that we need to show the NRHP name sometimes (such as in the NRHP infobox and in the NRHP list-article display and at least as an alternative name in the text), so that readers will have a proper chance to find further info about the site within the NPS Focus and other National Register sources. Very important! --doncram (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those of us who work on articles that lie at the intersection of WP Hawaii and WP NRHP content (W Nowicki & me rather actively at the moment) are caught between two reasonable style guides, one of which encourages use of okina and kahako, while the other discourages such use. So it sounds like the compromise here is to use NRHP rules for NRHP listings sites and for NRHP titles in NRHP infoboxes, but to follow WP Hawaii practice elsewhere in the articles, which are (by definition) about content important to the history of Hawaiʻi. Joel (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good statement, and good compromise, I believe. Except I would also want to state, in bold in the lede of the text, what is the NRHP name as a valid alternative name. Like i just edited into the Puunene School article, in this edit. I hope that refinement should not be a problem. --doncram (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well as stated above (perhaps not clearly) I disagree with it since it does not any information to the article. But will go along if it means being allowed to use diacritics in the body. I also still do not see any value in forcing the exact writing in the box as per the old database. The nomination form should be cited, and a person who cares can just follow that link in the References, or look up by id which avoids all the issues with mis-spellings and mangled word order, etc. The article should have a super-set of the information in the nomination form, and even the infobox has just about everything in the NRIS, so the reader gains no information from having the simplified spellling in the infobox nor table. I find the nom forms a god start, but there are so many mistakes I find in them, we should encourage other sources, IMHO. But again will abide by consensus. Real ʻokinas can be in article names, just use the unicode as is done for European languages. See for example Kalaniʻōpuʻu. W Nowicki (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Where usage remains decidedly mixed, as with Puunene, I'm fine with adding alternative older spellings (but my wording will be "also spelled"), but not where the NRHP form is mangled or wrong (as with Kuka'O'O, which was my first encounter with having my spellings reverted to NRHP). As W Nowicki observes, the NRHP nomination forms are sometimes as sloppy as the journalism about the sites (perhaps especially when they are rushing to prevent a site being demolished), and different sources contradict each other about build dates, architects, and other key Infobox details. Even architects themselves often tend to rely on misremembered lore without checking their own facts, as noted here. Joel (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixing "errors"[edit]

To continue, 6 weeks later: You are talking now about very specific cases where you feel or know the NRHP nomination document and/or the NRIS database info is actually incorrect. We don't want to force a known error out into Wikipedia. What we want is to capture a report of that error, in particular for Hawaii ones at wp:NRIS info issues HI, and to follow up with the National Register to get them to fix their error. If you are willing to file such a report (meaning just make a notation, but hopefully with your supporting documentation about how you know the NRIS name, address, or other info is incorrect), then, by all means do that and then use the corrected info in the article. This is a compromise we worked out in other states, where of course local knowledgeable editors want to put in corrections to Wikipedia. As long as we are keeping a central record of the differences betweeen Wikipedia and NRIS, and seeking correction of NRIS, i think that is fine. Note, in some cases we may possibly get corrections back from the National Register, additional info that could convince us that our "correction" is wrong. As long as we're closing the loop. So, W Nowicki and Joel Bradshaw, can you please make central note of specific errors you know of, at wp:NRIS info issues HI? Cheers, --doncram (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Although it is getting off-topic if the issue is more than diacritics. One question I have is why once in a while the state identifier is included in the NRHP name, which makes it look ugly IMO. For example Holualoa 4 Archeological District (State Site No. 50-10-37-23.661) I think the "error" here is that the State site should be alternative name, not part of the primary name. Also see the Archeological Sites at Kawela. Since none of the nom forms will ever be available, I agree one article makes sense. Would prefer one line in the table here too instead of listing them all. There is one outright typo in the NRIS now that you remind me I should add to your list. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a note or two to the wp:NRIS info issues HI page just now. Of course once i linked and visited there i am reminded that you have been adding notes and helping out there for a long time (perhaps before the Hawaii page was split out of the main wp:NRIS info issues page.
Yes, the naming of the archeological site ones, and whether to have separate rows for each one in the main table or not, are open issues. I happen to be somewhat opposed to having rows for address-restricted archeological sites, because i think it calls for wikipedia readers to come forward with confidential information about their locations. I don't immediately see where the previous discussion of the Kawela archeological sites' rows was held. Maybe it was debated at wt:NRHP, in which case it could be found in the archives there. If i recall correctly, some wanted separate rows kept, while i thot they should be consolidated. In fact i think i edited the Molokai table that way but was reverted. I don't think there is any urgency in resolving this, and since i have a backlog of some other NRHP list-formatting-type issues to raise for central discussion and resolution, i don't myself want to raise this issue anytime very soon, but i would comment/contribute if someone else wanted to raise the issues and try to achieve a consensus that would apply in Hawaii NRHP lists and elsewhere. --doncram (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I just happened to see mention and photos of an "address restricted" heiau in the NRHP Oahu listing, so I revised the location and cited the source. Is there any problem with that? I've done it for a few other heiau that I've seen referenced in books. BTW, someone just flagged my User talk page with a Google sockpuppetry notice. What is that all about? I don't have multiple accounts. But I do link to Wiki a lot when I blog about obscure names & places. Anyway, I reverted it as vandalism. Joel (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said it was urgent, but it has been like a year and still not resolved. I was just hoping that despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a mirror some zealot would not come along and revert my changes insisting on a separate article and infobox that reproduces the NRHP database exactly one-for-one. In the meanwhile I will continue the merged article on all the Kawela sites, with a table in it that summaries info from NRIS and the state registry, plus history books on the area. Still have a bit more work on it.

Joel, I think one problem is that many ancient sites do not have an "address" since there were no "mail" deliveries before there was a written language. :-) Kahaluu Bay is a case where there is a very popular tourist (and local) beach there, but the beach does not have an "address". They really need a "not applicable" entry in addition to the "restricted" one. Now in the case of Kawela, I found one site from Google maps, but that is hardly a well-kept secret. Let's just keep doing reasonable things. W Nowicki (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And the ancient Hawaiian GPS system based on stars, winds, and waves doesn't translate into latitude and longitude all that easily! BTW, another set of sites that could use a unified article is those of the Kilauea Plantation Stone Buildings MPS on Kauaʻi. Unfortunately, the MPS nomination form is not available at NRIS, only the supplementary notes about each building, each of which refers to the missing fuller MPS nomination form. I have photos of 2 of the 3 key buildings, but not the inaccessible Kilauea Plantation Manager's House. Joel (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
What's not accessible about Kilauea Plantation Stone Buildings MPS? And check links to 5 other Hawaii MPS documents at wp:MPS, an inventory that was jointly created by User:Nyttend and me and others. :) --doncram (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That's good to know. The MPS doc never appeared in my searches on NPS Focus for Kilauea and other portions of the full name. My search for Kaneohe Ranch Building also turned up nothing until I searched just on Ranch Building and got Kanehoe ..., which has already been corrected on NRIS issues. Joel (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Leprosy or Hansens Disease[edit]

All- Just a quick question, concerning the use of Hansens Disease vs Leprosy. WHY do we use the term Hansens Disease, when in reality, many many more people will know the term Leprosy??Coal town guy (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)