Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:NRHP)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Stock post message.svg To-do:


Development
Images
Maintenance
Shortcut:

Category:Individually listed contributing properties to historic districts on the National Register[edit]

I've been doing some work adding to this category over the past few weeks, and I see that it's now up to just over 500 articles. Given the fact that most of what I've added has been restricted to Virginia, that suggests that there's a possibility it could grow much larger. There's already a separate subcategory dedicated to properties in Minnesota; should we continue breaking out other states, then, or refold the Minnesota properties into the category at large? I'm in favor of the former, myself, given the potential size of the category. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting category. Just to repeat and clarify - it's not Category: Historic district contributing properties, but sites in HDs that are individually listed as well. Since they are "listed twice" we might think that they tend to be some of the most important sites we have (but not always). In fact some of this might be driven by different SHPO practices in different states,
One search recommendation. It seems like if we could pull off sites that have 2 reference numbers and are not themselves HDs, then we might get a full list for that category, perhaps including individual sites with expanded borders and with a few NHLs included as well. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Another question - in the event we do decide to create the by-state articles, how should the subcategories of Category: Historic district contributing properties be handled? Personally, I think the newer category should replace the older one. No sense in double-catting them; I'm concerned it would breed needless category clutter. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Re Smallbones' comment — sometimes they are the most significant ones, either because they're the core of a historic district, or because the SHPO supported someone's idea of individually listing something that was already in a district. This is the weird thing about the Crawford-Whitehead-Ross House; page 12 of its nomination is spent saying basically "it's already part of the Madison Historic District, but here's why we should list it individually". Lots of these aren't unusually significant, however; eleven of the individually listed buildings here in Bloomington are in HDs, and all of them got listed before the districts. Going by the rating system of the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory (Contributing, Notable, and Outstanding, from lowest to highest), some of them actually are deemed less significant than others; the Morgan House got a "Notable", and the Showers-Smith-Matthews House got an "Outstanding", but it's Morgan that's individually listed. Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Pardon my asking, but I don't think we came to a consensus on recategorizing these. Shall we keep the broad category as-is, or begin breaking things out into smaller by-state categories? I favor the latter, as the current category is at some 500-strong and is only going to get larger in the forseeable future. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
OK. Having heard nothing, I'm going to start recategorizing in a few days, as soon as I have the chance. Best to get this under control now rather than allowing the category to balloon out of hand. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not see this thread until now. Some of the pages in the national category are added automatically via {{Infobox NRHP}} by using the parameter |nrhp_type=indcp. This is the same story as for the regular contributing properties recently split into state-level categories. As I did there, I can code the infobox to automatically sort these into state-level categories if you wish. I'm not sure how many use the indcp type (the same display can be achieved by using |nrhp_type2=cp, sans the category), but there's probably a non-zero number. It is also possible to manually turn off auto-categorization for those articles by setting |nocat=yes. Which would you prefer? Changing the infobox or manually turning off auto-cat in that unknown number of articles?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the delayed response - I've been busy enough that my head's been swimming for the past few weeks.
Generally speaking, I'm not in favor of auto-categorization for the reasons brought up here. When it works, it's great, but it can be a bit of a bear to sort out if something gets in the way of it working. Personally, I'd rather sort these manually - AWB makes it fairly easy to do and doesn't require a whole lot of time to set up. And it allows for a bit more manual control than we otherwise might have. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok, well I'm not sure how many of the articles in the category now are in there because of the infobox, and if I remove auto-categorization now, those articles will not be in the category anymore. How about I wait to remove the auto-categorization until all of the articles have been split out into state-level categories so we don't lose track of any? In the interim, some pages will be in both categories, but they should all clear out when I update the infobox. Sound good to you?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll try combing through with AWB sometime in the next few days and add the category where appropriate. Probably won't happen tonight, but I should have some time tomorrow night. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Combing has begun. Don't know how long it'll take - hopefully I can have it finished by Saturday or so. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

NRIS-only in Massachusetts[edit]

This is awesome!

I just went through and updated all the maps, animated gifs, and graphs over time related to the Progress page and in the process noticed what's been going on in Massachusetts, as shown in the graph to the right. (I have graphs for all the states on my computer but have only uploaded this one and Virginia.) When we started tagging NRIS-only articles around November or December 2013, it was pointed out that Massachusetts was in some pretty bad shape with over 3000 of the total ~4000 sites in the state (roughly 75%!) having articles of NRIS-only quality. Though the state was nearly 100% articled, the net quality of the state was in the low 20%'s due to this abundance of substubs.

Well look at it now! Net quality of over 60% and constantly rising! The number of NRIS-only articles has dropped tenfold from over three thousand to just over three HUNDRED in the seven months since we have been keeping track of them. At this rate, the state of Massachusetts should be free of NRIS-only articles within a month or two! I didn't try to find out who is taking care of these articles (hopefully they're watching here?), but whoever these editors are deserve all the praise we can give them! This is really amazing!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Magicpiano has been responsible for nearly all of the improvement in Massachusetts, as far as I can tell. I've noticed him/her improving Massachusetts articles for a while now, and I've been extremely impressed at how much they've gotten done in the past several months. If nearly eliminating the NRIS-only stubs in Massachusetts wasn't enough, Magicpiano is also well on their way to getting New Hampshire fully articled and is responsible for the red patch in southeast Arkansas on the article map. Thanks to an incredible article writer! TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 09:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been a busy bee. Magic♪piano 13:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
For the interested, I've finished my pass over the Massachusetts listings, filling in short stubs with available online resources. There are about 100 listings for which I could not find decent documentation online, for which I will eventually get nomination docs from the NPS (or await Massachusetts record digitization). Magic♪piano 13:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Converting NHL lists to use row templates[edit]

Is there any reason why our "regular" NRHP lists use row templates ({{NRHP row}}) and our NHL lists don't? Would anyone be opposed to converting them to do so? I think it should be possible to make the existing row template work with NHL lists with some special code for when |type=NHL, but maybe there would need to be a new {{NHL header}} template created.. We have an NHL list for each of the 50 states, plus some others.. not that many, but way more than I want to convert by hand. I might look into creating a script/some other application that will automatically convert these to use row templates, but before I expended any effort coding, I wanted to touch base with the project to see if there is some reason they don't use row templates. Anyone know of a reason/oppose converting them?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Multichill used a script to do most of the conversion of the NRHP lists from tables to their present form; perhaps (if he still has it) it can be adapted to convert the NHL lists into a similar form. Magic♪piano 15:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no complaints with converting them, as long as the mechanics can be figured out. I don't think we ought to use NRHP row without modifications, since we'd have to merge the "locality" and "county" lines. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have made some modifications to the {{NRHP header}} and {{NRHP row}} templates and copied my test code to User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox (header) and User:Dudemanfellabra/AltSandbox (row). I have made it such that if one sets the first unnamed parameter to NHL, e.g. {{NRHP header|NHL}} or {{NRHP row|NHL}}, the labels and colors of all the columns change to NHL format (based off of List of NHLs in AL but can be changed if desired). Setting this first unnammed parameter automatically hides the city column and adds a county column, whose name can be changed (e.g. for Louisiana, counties are "parishes") by setting |county=Parish or whatever you like. I have kept the "location" column, as opposed to a "locality" column to allow us to better specify the location of NHLs if we so desire. I personally think including an address followed by the city name would be more informative/helpful than just including a city like we do currently in NHL lists. I have also changed the "Summary" column for regular NRHPs to be called "Description" because it just makes more sense to me. All of the parameters have remained the same for NHL and NRHP rows, so it should be pretty familiar. I have transcluded test cases at User:Dudemanfellabra/Test for you to look at. Feel free to add to or modify what's there. Is everyone pleased with this extension? If so, I will see if I can create a script to convert existing lists to use the row template. It may be overkill, though, since there are only slightly more than 50 lists that need to be converted. That many could maybe be finished manually before I had time to code anything. Anyone willing to help if this addition is approved?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It was actually easier than I thought it would be to create a script to convert the tables to row template format. I've run the script on Alabama–California and dumped the output to that test page for examination. There are tiny errors here and there, but nothing that can't be quickly fixed as far as I have seen. I haven't tried it on all the states, though. One thing worth noting is that for Alabama, the script does not add the daggers and such to the rows, but they can be added manually as shown in the table at the top of the page. Another thing to note is that the refnums of all these sites need to be filled in before copying the tables to the NHLs page. Anyone want to help? I will dump the rest of the states when I get the time to.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the NPS's Pending List?[edit]

Two weeks ago, the NPS once again redesigned its index page for the weekly listings. From the looks of things I do not know if this is temporary or permanent.

One aspect of this that I do not like, however, is the apparent disappearance of a link to the list of pending nomination. It serves as a nice heads-up that a property may well be formally listed in the next couple of months or so. Anybody with any contact at the NPS know what's up, or can find out? Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The link's gone, but the pending list is still there. I don't know whether or not it's being updated, though. Is it normal for the last update to be three weeks old? Ntsimp (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't look as though it's being updated either. Going by their normal format, these pages (05/31, 06/07, 06/14, 06/21 should exist, but don't. The pending stuff should still be available, but for now, not through the NPS site. Weird. --Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 20:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's the one for 5/31 [1]. --Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 20:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
That link 404'ed on me. This works better. Pending list for June 2 here; it appears to be the most recent. Magic♪piano 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I just go to federalregister.gov and do a search for "historic places pending". The pending listings are posted there. Sorting them by "newest" brings the recent lists to the top. The latest one posted yeaterday (the 25th). 25or6to4 (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's back[edit]

As of today's weekly list I noticed that "See what's pending" on the page now links to the old page. Daniel Case (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Campaign upload button within NRHP list articles[edit]

Hey everyone. My colleague Monumenteer2014 is the project manager for Wikipedia Summer of Monuments, which is a new take on Wiki Loves Monuments. You may have seen me post about it here before. The model is basically the same as Wiki Loves Monuments but with more outreach to cultural institutions (particularly those in the Southeastern United States) and a longer upload period. The main portal for the contest is here on Commons.

The contest period will last from July 1 to September 30; pictures of NRHP sites uploaded in that time (regardless of where in the country they're from) will qualify. The banners won't go up until September 1, in keeping with past years, but Wikimedia DC (which has run the contest since 2012) has decided to allow entries for a longer period of time. This way, those who are eager to participate can get their pictures up right away, and their files can be sorted as quickly as possible. Uploaded pictures are automatically sorted into this category.

This leaves one unsettled matter: the photo-upload buttons found within NRHP lists (i.e. {{UploadCampaignLink}}). There are two options:

  • Have the buttons up for one month, in keeping with how it worked last year, or
  • Have the buttons up for all three months, which is a longer period but it allows for photos to come in at a more gradual clip, ideally resulting in a smaller backlog. (The site banners would regardless only run during September.)

What does everyone think? Harej (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with the longer period. It'll make for a smaller backlog, and will hopefully encourage more people to participate in the moment. (Much easier to plan out a set of monuments to visit if you know you can upload the pictures at once, instead of having to wait a month or two. Besides, people will have at least part of the summer for their photography, and that's a period when most people are off for some period of time.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I would also be fine with the longer upload period, but for the month of September, could/should the campaign in the link be changed back to WLM? This will make no difference for the user, but on Commons it would change the categories added to the image upon uploading.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Longer is better, and the button does simplify uploading. You need to make it clear that the images uploaded in July and August are/are not eligible for the contest aspects of WLM. Many of the NRHP listings in my area tend towards abandoned structures in weed fields with nary a bit of red to catch a judge's eye (File:John_Corbley_Farm.jpg, File:John Minor Crawford House.jpg), but, still... Generic1139 (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
To clarify: Summer of Monuments is taking the place of Wiki Loves Monuments. The difference between this and WLM is the longer upload period and the incorporation of GLAM outreach. Harej (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Clarity achieved, thank you. If SoM replaces WLM, why are you saving the banners until September? Running them for three months does seem excessive, but if the intent is to get people uploading images sooner to spread out the load, then the advertising needs to start sooner. Think about at least running the banner for a week or two at the start of July. Generic1139 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If WSM is replacing WLM, why is WLM still a thing? Can you point to some discussion where WSM was named the alternative? From the link you included above, I see it is only limited to the US, a scope much narrower than WLM, so I don't really see how it is a suitable replacement. That said, if it is a replacement, I have no problem with changing the link.
I do have a question, though.. I have a script that adds unused images and commonscat links to NRHP lists (as well as lists of sites on other registers). It works by using categories added by templates during WLM uploads (the link above is documentation explaining the cats/templates in more detail). Will WSM uploads also utilize these templates/categories?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, James - this looks good. Sorry that I won't be able to do anything behind the scenes this year. I agree with having the upload buttons from July-Sept, and also suggest some banner notifications spread throughout the summer, some at the start of July, and some at the start of September. As far as folks questions about how this was organized, the DC chapter is doing the organization since WP:NRHP or myself were unable to provide the manpower. I think we could organize ourselves to help them and get back a lot of influence on how it is run, but I'm happy with what they are doing and they do check in here from time to time. Good luck, I'll try to provide some pix! Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello people of WikiProject NRHP. It is good to see your very organized Wikiproject and I hope to be as helpful as I can to you in promoting "Summer of Monuments". We plan to solicit photographs of many hitherto unpictured Historic Places. I would love to hear advice, guidance, questions, or concerns from you regarding how this should be done. If there are particular Places you have long wanted photographed, maybe I can help you to get what you're looking for. Salutations, Monumenteer2014 (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The pictures are starting to roll in! Check out commons:Category:Unreviewed submissions from Wikipedia Summer of Monuments. Monumenteer2014 (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Still trying to convert NHL lists to row template format[edit]

I'm not getting any responses above, so I decided I'd make a new section to see if I can get any more attention. I have modified {{NRHP row/sandbox}} and {{NRHP header/sandbox}} to allow for compatibility with our NHL lists. I have also created a script I have been using to convert the current tables to use these row templates. I have placed the output at various places in my userspace for review before making the code go live and beginning to actually convert the lists. I have run the script on every state alphabetically through New Hampshire, including the city of Boston, for which the new "county" column has to be hidden. I would like for people to look over this output and see if it is satisfactory. If so, would anyone be willing to help me start adding refnums to each of these rows to make the links to Focus work? After the refnums are added and the row/header code is copied to the main template to go live, we can begin copying/cleaning the script output from my userspace pages to the actual lists themselves. Anyone want to help?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I can help starting next week, assuming it will be clear instructions.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for being willing to help! Basically all I'm trying to do is make sure that the script generated tables match the hard-coded tables on the existing lists. If anything is missing, I'm adding it manually to the script generated tables. I whipped up some code to search through the linked articles to find refnums to add to the rows, so most of those have been added (though they still need to be checked manually against NRIS), but some are still missing if, for example, the article was a redlink or if it didn't use {{Infobox NRHP}}. Other stuff like citations for dates or names or something might also need to be added. Right now, having heard no objection, I am about to copy the sandbox into the live template to make the NHL-supporting code go live. I may even go ahead and begin converting lists if I get time.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Would it be easy to collect all links to the relevant pages in your user space on one page?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: When you say relevant pages, what do you mean? All the links to my userspace are above, and I've just been going down the table on List of U.S. National Historic Landmarks by state. I think I've done three states so far. I don't have time to do any more at the moment because I'm on vacation with my wife's family, but I will rejoin the effort in a few days. All I've been doing is checking for differences in the script table and the live one. If I find any, I make the script table match the live one and copy it in, deleting it from my user page. If you have any trouble, let me know, but like I said, I don't really have much time this week to do anything online.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I see, thanks. I thought these links are just examples. Now it is fine for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I see you have looked at the script output in Iowa and have said you are ready for it to be moved out. I'm working in alphabetical order and so haven't gotten to that yet, but just now looking, it appears as if you didn't add the refnum for one site that was missing it. It is technically fine to go ahead and move that out (though the page would be placed in a cleanup category), but I have been finding and adding the refnums that are missing before doing so. I have also been checking the existing refnums for accuracy and if the listing date doesn't match the refnum (e.g. a listing date in 2001 with a refnum starting with, say, 76), I check the accuracy of the listing date. I've been using the NHL database to check most of the information, but for newer listings, I've been falling back on the weekly actions lists. I went ahead and added the missing refnum to the Iowa list but haven't checked the other refnums. If you did so, feel free to move out the table. If not, I'll get to it alphabetically soon. Thanks for the help!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not mind checking the refnums (note that most of the active refs lead to 404 links). Concerning this particular refnum I tried to google but was not able to locate it (and somehow the NHL database did not help much). I will see what I can do.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The NHL database is very out of date (I think like 2011-ish, but I don't know exactly), so newer items like that one won't be in there. This PDF is more up to date. You can get the listing date off of that and then use Template:NRHP Weekly List to get the weekly list for the relevant date (I usually just edit a page and preview instead of saving to get the link). That list has the refnum and should confirm that the site was NHL designated on that date.
As for checking the already present refnums, you can simply click the link generated in the row template, which will take you to the NPS Focus database. I've found it that the server there is spotty, though, and sometimes it doesn't return any results. I've found the NHL database much more reliable and faster. Whatever floats your boat, though.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to add that for me the NPS Search worked perfectly.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ymblanter and I have made it through Maine so far. My process has been to compare the names in the script output to the ones on the existing list to see if they match up first. If they don't, I use the |name_extra= parameter to make them match. With it, you can add anything after the main link, even another link (e.g. for an NHL about two sites, both of which have articles). I also use the |name_extra= parameter for keys such as daggersNational Historic Landmark District used in several NHL lists.

After checking the names, I do a quick glance at the descriptions, counties, and addresses to make sure they match up with what's already there. Then I spend most of my time checking the NRIS reference numbers using the NHL database. If I find any that are present but incorrect, I fix them in the article (that's where my script pulled them from) and then on the list itself. If any are missing, I add them. Then I check the listing dates against this PDF and I'm done. I cut/paste the table into the relevant list, and after I make sure I didn't orphan any references, I delete the old table's wikitext. I then preview the page to make sure the references are fine and save it.

It takes about 10-15 minutes for most states so it's a bit long, but I've gotten into kind of a rythym. I don't really have much time to dedicate to editing at the moment, so some help from others would be appreciated. I realize this is a voluntary project, but I'm surprised no one wants to jump in here. Making the lists use templates makes them much easier to update, especially via scripts and bots, including my automatic renumbering script for when you've added a new listing and don't want to fix 2083409328 cell tables, my script to add images and commonscat links where the file/category has been tagged on commons with the refnum, the addition of the items to the c:Commons:Monument Database which can be queried with an API, the use of the NRHPstats script which I plan to update to also activate on NHL lists after the conversion is complete, and a host of other future possible applications. The benefits of a little work now are numerous, and the faster I can get them converted, the faster I can get to working on those future applications haha.

So please.. anyone want to jump in here? </begging>--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at Maryland, which is next on the list in altsandbox. Generic1139 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I've looked through New Hampshire; modulo a few things that were wrong in the original list, it looks good. Magic♪piano 17:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I will take Michigan tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I made changes to Maryland as needed (added several refnums, corrected one date, and didn't correct another, see below), and I moved the sandbox to live. My experience was that the NPS focus DB today was spotty indeed, sometimes I needed to refresh 4 or 5 times before it returned a page populated with data, the number of attempts required seems random. The NHL DB was always gave a result, but using it is harder than just clicking through. One property, Ellicott City Station had a date issue I didn't reconcile, the focus db and the nomination form give a date of 11/24/1968, the NHL PDF gives the date as 10/18/68, I left the table at the November date, and didn't change it to the October date. Generic1139 (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! I see Maryland and New Hampshire have been completed. I'll look into that date on Maryland in a little more detail later. Thanks again!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Will do North Dakota and Ohio Generic1139 (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that I added the ability to the NRHP row template to display key items such as daggers in the number column rather than in the name column, as most existing NHL lists show them there. You can use the |key= parameter to do this, as shown on List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama. @Ymblanter: I think Michigan uses these, so be sure to include them before moving the table out. Thanks again, guys, for the help!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
North Dakota and Ohio are done and moved. No major problems. In the case of two Ohio entries that have a different number for the NHL and NRHP lists, I added the NHL number to the refnum field first, followed by the NHRP number. --Generic1139 (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Michigan done, will next take Montana. What do we do with former listings? The Michigan list contains three, and I can not easily convert them since the new format does not have the delisted date as far as I can see.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I will try to get to the Boston list today, Massachusetts this weekend. Magic♪piano 15:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I've been just leaving the former listings alone for the time being. If the NRHP row template is later modified to be able to handle them, there aren't that many to convert throughout the country, so the process can be done manually.
@Magicpiano: I did MA and Boston earlier today. About to start on Minnesota.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Let us do it later.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Montana, next I will take New York State, but it is going to take some while, it had 150 landmarks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I did Rhode Island. Magic♪piano 01:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Doing West Virginia. Generic1139 (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
West Virginia is done. See its talk page for a discussion on the numbers for the Davis and Elkins Historic District. Generic1139 (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Advance notice of an estimated 200,000 new Historic American Buildings Survey images![edit]

Hi, I have started uploading most of the HABS photographs and plans available from the Library of Congress. The images date from a year or two ago, to more than a century. Sometimes they are archives of the first photographs taken of new structures, others are surveys of buildings in ruins and they vary from architectural fine detail through to the surrounding landscape. These offer a unique resource to illustrate American history.

A "live" list can be found at this Catscan report of new uploads. The starting point was around 6,000 images in c:Category:Files from the Historic American Buildings Survey - at the time of writing here I have nearly doubled the number of available photographs. In the coming week I hope to have passed the 20,000 new images mark, making a total of around 25,000, as a conservative estimate, public domain HABS images available on Commons.

Sample gallery

There are a significant number of plans uploaded as TIFFs over 50 megapixels but of a modest filesize (normally 1 or 2 MB). Unfortunately the WikiMedia software does not current create thumbnails for TIFFs of this very large resolution, however derivative versions can be easily created as PNG files which can display on Commons, by downloading opening in your image editing software and saving as a PNG at precisely the same very high resolution, then uploading it as a derivative. See c:Category:Uploads by Fæ (over 50 MP) and the Wyman Bridge example image above.

As readers here have a special interest, I would welcome your feedback on the batch upload before it finishes, probably best to drop me a note at c:User talk:Fæ. Categorization is difficult to automate. I have been adding geolocation tags on the image pages, as well as an appropriate geographic Commons category. The geolocation tags means that clusters of the images can be viewed as pin points on an Open Street Map. When the upload is complete, or near completion, I'll put a more public note about the collection on the Commons village pump.

Thanks, -- (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is possible, but it would be a great help to add commons:Template:NRHP to each of these files, along with their reference number in the NRIS. That way if any of these pictures are of sites which have not yet been illustrated on our lists, the bot will pick them up and alert us that they need to be added. I don't know if HABS is in any way linked to the NRHP, but if the reference numbers are easily available, this would be great. If not, don't spend too much time on it.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Alternately, if there's a way to determine which sites are on the NRHP but you can't get the refnums, adding that template without the refnum will put the files in commons:Category:National Register of Historic Places without known IDs, where they can be sorted out manually. It's more work for other editors and I'm still not sure if that would be possible, but it would be a help nonetheless. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 07:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Unless LOC has begun providing more information, there's no way to determine NR status automatically; back when I was uploading lots of HABS/HAER images, I had to check the all the items on each NR county list against all the items on each HABS/HAER list, and sometimes address comparisons were necessary. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions if automation is possible, preferably by someone explaining/spelling out a possible work-flow which I could then add in at upload, or add to other house-keeping I'm sorting out. I am currently limited to whatever appears on the Library of Congress catalog page.
A possible way forward is to make better use of geolocation. The Commons API can show geographically close images, so if lat/lon were available on a table of NRHP refs, it should be reasonable to work out which photographs or plans were identified as physically nearby. A large proportion (I have not worked out the actual ratio yet, perhaps something to look at when uploads are complete) have geo coordinates added on the Commons image page as a post-upload house-keeping action.
PS my 20,000 estimate, is looking like a gross underestimate based on uploads this weekend (at about 5% complete and am approaching 10,000 images already). I'm not sure why yet, so I'll tease this out before making an announcement on the Commons village pump. -- (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd estimate 250,000+ images on HABS. You can get an idea by searching by state e.g. http://www.loc.gov/search/?q=habs+il gives about 9,000 images for Illinois (use the state postal code abbreviations for the last 2 letters). Alaska has over 4,000; Pennsylvania has 32,000.
Almost all the pix have counties listed in the HABS data, or title, so categorizing them at Commons by county and state would really be helpful, e.g. HABS photos in Cook County, Illinois. This would allow us to make fairly easy comparisons with our county lists, e.g. National Register of Historic Places listings in Cook County, Illinois with the Commons cats. Be aware that US "counties" and "county equivalents" can be a bit confusing, e.g. in Louisiana they are called parishes, Alaska is very confusing, in Virginia most cities are officially counties, even when they share a name with the surrounding county, St. Louis, Mo, is very important and very confusing.
Of the 250,000+ pix, I'd guess at least 70% of them are for multiple pix of one site - so maybe 80,000 sites are coved. These sites will overlap with NRHP sites - perhaps 40,000 of them are also NRHP sites. For perhaps 30,000 of these sites we have already uploaded at least one pix, but that leaves says 10,000 sites that still need some of these pix. And that's just from a "all we need is one pic per NRHP site" perspective - which is a very limited viewpoint - we do want all the pix! Of course these numbers are just the roughest of rough estimates. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I had made a crude estimate last night of around 100,000 new images from my uploads, it may be significantly larger, so this magnitude looks right. My initial estimate was way off as I was using the "parent" record which may contain sets of images. I default to skipping records without TIFFs, some records don't have publicly available images, and there may be other oddities of record layout on the Library of Congress catalog causing skipping too. I'm focusing on the obvious and easy run through, it would be possible to go back and pick up the remainder later on, if they are significant and people raise examples for me to check over.
My upload rate is something like 2,800 images per day, plus the additional PNG format conversions I am creating for TIFFs over 50 megapixels resolution (so they can be displayed on-wiki) which are all site plans and similar document scans rather than photos. Consequently I see this taking a few weeks more rather than a few days, though it should make for a case study for me to discuss when presenting at Wikimania in August to show what a single independent volunteer can do with the GWToolset without any other special support or funding.
Update I have revised my original estimate of 20,000 to 200,000. Right now I have uploaded around 31,000 new files and created about 2,000 PNG versions of large TIFFs (slow as they have to processed via my 7 year old macmini and a freebie 1GB USB stick) and I estimate I'm only around 12% done, so even 200,000 might be a conservative number. Face-smile.svg
Notice now posted on Wikimedia Commons' Village pump, which will hopefully attract more volunteers to help categorize and suggest improvements. -- (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

NRHP in HABS uploads[edit]

After some experimentation yesterday, for photographs where the Library of Congress has identified a NRHP reference in their catalog, this will be gradually but systematically added using the Commons template. You can track the current numbers identified using this catscan report. -- (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That's great news about the ability to add the reference number to some of the images. This will probably mean Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Unused images‎ is about to blow up haha.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Not for long though :-) Agathoclea (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
If the bot that maintains the Unused images list is supposed to pick up Commons images in c:Category:National Register of Historic Places with known IDs then it may be worth giving it a 'kick'. There are over 800 unused images in the catscan report above and this is going to get a lot larger quite quickly, while the images list only has 4 in it right now. -- (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The bot runs every night around midnight. However, not all of the 800 images in the catscan report above are actually tagged with the NRHP template for some reason. Going to the very bottom of the list I find many that are only in two of the three categories you selected. Not sure if that's a bug with catscan or what, but there aren't 800 newly tagged images for sure. Also, it may be that a large fraction of the 800 images you've uploaded already have images in NRHP lists somewhere. If a list already includes an image for a particular site, any other image that matches that site is not reported on the unused images page.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that can be explained as the catscan report includes images where they appear in a category that itself has been marked with the NRHP template rather than the image itself. The bot might need a bit of tweaking to compensate for this scenario, however my housekeeping should get around to marking all images with NRHP templates where the LoC includes a reference to it, even those in a marked category.
As a comparison there are just over 80 images which catscan picks up here without checking parent categories. -- (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
When the bot just ran it picked up two unused images of #76001987 Colt Industrial District in Hartford, CT that were uploaded in this campaign. Both of them, though, are of the attic of one building and I don't think adequately illustrate the district, so I did not add them to the list. It appears the other 80 images (now it's over 450) were of sites that already had images in the relevant county list(s), or they weren't tagged at the time when the bot updated its database. Either way, everything is working as expected, so that's a good sign. Thanks again, Fae, for taking the time to systematically upload and sort these files!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Many of the HABS photos are detail shots of rooms or features such as windows or ceiling roses, rather than general shots of the building or location, fortunately with the recent search function on Commons improving, a search against the HABS number can show all related images, for example this search of the Cape Canaveral Launch Complex. The revised 'housekeeping' seems to be identifying NRHP references quite nicely, after a hiccup overnight due to a minor bug, this ought to be able to quietly churn through at a consistent rate. Note that these are applied to photos but not drawings, if I get a bit of time in the next week or two, I'll take another look at whether there are any differences worth sorting out. -- (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Colt Fire Arms Company, East Armory Building
I checked the survey that the attic photos came from, and there's a nice exterior shot of one of the buildings that I've added to the list. I'm not sure why the attic photos were the only two from that survey with the NRHP template, but thanks for giving me the idea to check. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 07:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason is that the 'housekeeping' that is adding the NRHP numbers to HABS images is relatively slow, taking an average of 40 seconds per image (there are 100,000 images now, I hope this will end up as more than 200,000), only a small proportion have NRHP numbers (<10%?) and they are being tackled in alphabetic order. In the case of the useful example you found, it begins with "V" and I'm only up to "B". At a guess I think it may be more than another 4 weeks before the HABS uploads are complete and there can be a final run through. It's a big project. Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it is more important that the images are in caterories that are tagged, than the images themselves to be tagged. Dudemanfellabra's script picks up all images in a category and presents them for selection. Agathoclea (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for highlighting how this works. It explains why though over a thousand photographs have been marked with NRHP numbers in the last 48 hours, only a handful appear in the report. Another report showing Commons images without parent categories with NRHP numbers and clustered by NRHP number would be a useful way of showing where new categories are needed. I can imagine how to create this, but probably don't have the time to sort it out at the moment (or indeed before Wikimania). -- (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Redstone Rocket test stand, Marshall Space Flight Center, built 1952. NRHP 76000341.

I have now extended adding NRHP numbers to drawings. All sheets of the same HABS drawings are being cross-linked using the other_versions parameter. On Commons this makes for easy navigation to help read an entire drawing pack. Details from the drawings would make excellent illustrations of more unusual building architecture for articles. HABS drawings include plans for historic ships, bridges and even rocket launch pads. -- (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

For all the work you're doing, you deserve much more than a cookie! Thank you for your tireless efforts to improve the quantity and quality of images about sites on the NRHP for us!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, cookies and barnstars always appreciated. Face-smile.svg

The Unused images report has updated, with the majority of new NRHP images coming from the HABS uploads (41/48). Unfortunately this includes 11 which are a number of >50 megapixel sized TIFFs that the MediaWiki software will not render thumbnails for (it may in the future); note that due to a old bit of code, the thumbnails show a warning that the limit is 12.5 MP, this is the previous limit. These TIFFs will (eventually) have equivalent PNGs created which will render without losing original resolution, so can be ignored for the moment. Though it is not possible (due to LoC limitation) to work out which these are before upload, they are being retrospectively marked with c:Category:TIFF files affected by MediaWiki restrictions and could be filtered out on that. -- (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I see the updates now, and because of the inability to generate thumbnails, the script I use to add images to the lists breaks. I'll work on adding in a check for if the thumbnail is actually generated (as it stands, I just assume it is) to restore functionality, but are you sure there is no way to check the size of the image before upload? File:North_and_East_Elevations_-_Hantz_House,_855_Fairview_Drive,_Fayetteville,_Washington_County,_AR_HABS_AR-54_(sheet_5_of_12).tif has dimensions of 14,443 × 9,600 pixels = 138.6 MP. I would be very surprised if there is no way to check that before uploading.. If there is indeed a way to do that, I would say that if a TIFF is larger than 50 MP, it just shouldn't be tagged with the NRHP template until I can patch the addition script. That, or just forego semi-automated addition of images and rely on manual for the time being.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Scratch that. It was easier/faster to add in that check than I expected. The script just won't show that these >50 MP images are tagged since it can't generate a thumbnail. All is good.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for the work-around.
It is an odd and annoying gap. The LoC catalog page gives an indication of file size, but not scan resolution. As I am using the GWToolset, I do not download the file locally (otherwise this upload would take all year rather than months), and the LoC does not appear to keep MODS records or similar for the HABS archive. Consequently I can only test for this after upload to Commons (at that point the Commons API nicely returns image size data).
To minimize the number re-writes to an image page (remember this is >200,000 files!), for new uploads I am detecting the NRHP when the XML file is generated for the GWToolset, i.e. the template is in the image page text on upload, rather than added later (example). Keep in mind that WMF development may "fix" this at some time in the future by resolving the outstanding bug request to improve the TIFF rendering software. -- (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have set up another routine, which I will run in an ad-hoc way (perhaps once a day for the next week or two) which examines all HABS images identified with NRHP numbers and checks which have categories that have themselves been marked with NRHP references. It then adds that category to all other HABS images using the same NRHP number. This means that once a volunteer has categorized one in a series of images, that the rest will 'inherit' it later on. See example history page. -- (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

HABS "category wanted" backlog

This backlog page is being generated to make it easier to see where Commons needs new categories for some NRHP registered sites. Remember to add {{NRHP}} to the new category page. -- (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Article requests[edit]

Why isn't there a segment on the NRHP wiki for article requests? I'm looking to add The Bartlett House (Ghent, New York) as a potential request, among others. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This seems like something which could be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/to do. That list needs some serious reorganizing anyway - a bunch of those tasks are too generic to be useful, and I'm not sure some of them are really our top priorities (do we really need a 100% county in each state, especially since one of those states is >95% articled already?) TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 07:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Since nobody objected, I've added a line for requests to the to-do list, and removed the goal regarding 100% counties. @DanTD: feel free to add more requests, since the one request looks lonely right now. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 06:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass creation of redirects[edit]

I've always been annoyed that "National Register of Historic Places in [placename]" typically isn't a working redirect, especially since that's the format used by the categories. What would people think of having Dudemanfellabra's NRHPbot mass-create redirects for all counties? I was thinking that "National Register of Historic Places in PLACE" should redirect to a county list if it exists as a separate page, or if it is itself a redirect, it should instead redirect to the correctly-named page's target. For example, the bot would create National Register of Historic Places in Lauderdale County, Alabama as a redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in Lauderdale County, Alabama, while it would create National Register of Historic Places in Wabash County, Illinois as a redirect to the current target of National Register of Historic Places listings in Wabash County, Illinois.

I already asked Dudemanfellabra, who liked the idea but reminded me (I'd forgotten) that we need to have a discussion here before doing a botreq. Nyttend (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. It's probably not been done before because there are so many potential redirects that would need to be created. But it sounds like the ideal bot task. --Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 14:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Having made that typing mistake a few times myself, I'm all in favor of this idea. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 20:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I, too, have been guilty of this on more occasions than I'd care to remember - consequently I support this as well. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. I support this! Einbierbitte (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Seeing no objections, I've opened the bot request.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just in case anyone is interested, I have written some code which has produced output at User:NationalRegisterBot/Redirects that outlines what the bot will create. I'm still waiting for approval, but in the mean time, if anyone wants to look over the output to make sure there are no errors, feel free to do so.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The bot has been approved. I will create the redirects later today.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The bot has now created all the redirects. There shouldn't be any that were missed, but if there were, there shouldn't be many, so they can be created manually.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

National Park Service - Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender Heritage Initiative[edit]

Sharing this link here, which provides an overview of the NPS's Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender Heritage Initiative, including NRHP info.

Thanks, ----Another Believer (Talk) 15:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

My uploads from the NPS archives are 35% complete (hitting 70,000 images, see above) and should finish in a few weeks, so tying those to this list would be a cool little LGBT project. Perhaps one to discuss at the Hackerthon before Wikimania? -- (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Perfect example of NRIS errors[edit]

Here's the perfect example of an NRIS error, and a resulting error in an article because of NRIS-only: for more than four years, we've been telling people that Second Presbyterian Church (Lexington, Kentucky) is an Art Deco structure, when it's definitely Gothic Revival. Feel free to mention to creators of NRIS-only articles. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It also wasn't dedicated until 1924, so "built in 1922" is an NRIS-inspired oversimplification. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 02:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I've investigated several NRIS-only articles that had errors of several decades in the age of the building. One that I specifically recall is Sabine Hill, which was listed in NRIS as being built in 1796, rather than the ca. 1814-6 dates given by every other source I found. But the difference between Gothic Revival and Art Deco is a bigger error than that! --Orlady (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
All sources (even the most reliable) can contain errors. If it seems that the NRIS entry is erroneous, feel free to use other, more accurate sources instead. If those other sources don't exist, just omit the erroneous information (ie don't mention any style or date of construction). We are not required to mindlessly repeat erroneous information. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the issues with NRIS is that the information presented in is not necessarily wrong, for suitable definitions of "wrong". The date in NRIS is not unambiguously a construction completion date, and should never be treated as such until confirmed by comparison to the nomination form. In the above example, the 1922 date probably has some significance. The nomination form actually gives a "significance date" of 1922-24 (without further elaboration), indicating that the NRIS value probably represents either the start of construction, or the start of the design process. It is not NRIS that is necessarily the problem, it is the users of NRIS who don't realize these distinctions exist. Magic♪piano 14:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Side Question... how does the NRIS deal with situations where the exterior of a building is in one style, but the interior is in another. For an example, a building might well have a Neo-Tudor exterior, and an Art Deco interior. How would the NRIS list such a building? Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Blueboar: When NRIS entries list an architectural style, it is usually the style of the exterior. However, when a property has multiple styles (as is particularly common for historical districts), the NRIS database typically lists the first couple of styles from a list (whatever fits into the data field), followed by "Other" (something like "Colonial Revival, Art Deco, Other").
As for how to use NRIS data, I believe that everyone currently posting to this page is very aware that we should use other sources. Unfortunately, thousands of article pages (as of several months ago there were nearly 11,000 such pages in article space) were created solely on the basis of NRIS database records. Much progress is being made on fixing those "NRIS-only" articles (we're down to about 7,300), but that's not something that happens overnight -- and many times it's not possible to find any other sources. Every now and then a new contributor shows up and enthusiastically starts creating more articles from NRIS data records. I believe that Nyttend's point was to highlight the reasons why no one should ever again repeat the mistake of creating articles solely on the basis of NRIS. --Orlady (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That's correct. Years of significance, here 1922 v. 1924, are indeed more fuzzy, especially since the date of significance is sometimes long after a building was built when the significance isn't architectural: if the David Yeiser House were significant only because of its place in the Battle of Paducah, the NRIS year would correctly be 1864 (when battle occurred) rather than 1852 (when built). Many Criterion B houses are significant for the year in which the person was connected to the house, not the year of construction; the Bill Clinton Birthplace was apparently built in 1917, but NRIS correctly gives its significant year as 1946, the year when baby William Jefferson Blythe III first lived there. Granted, errors sometimes happen, but they're more often explainable than this church being Art Deco. This is like attributing a significance date of 1835 to the Price Tower — it's unambiguously wrong, it's clearly shown to be wrong by all non-NRIS sources, and it's solely the result of depending completely on NRIS. That's why I said "feel free to mention", since indeed people at this talk page are well aware; I want to use this as an example for gently reminding NRIS-only creators. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
To be the slightest bit fair to the NRIS, the nomination form does mention that "some of the details have an Art Deco quality", so there is an explanation for this one. I don't think the nomination actually calls the building "Gothic Revival" until the last page, so I'm guessing this was more a case of sloppy reading (and ignoring the photographs) than outright mislabeling. Of course, it's still a great example of why the NRIS can't be trusted in these matters. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 03:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"Additional documentation" in NRIS[edit]

When successful, do requests for "ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION RECEIVED" get logged in NRIS? The final page of the nomination for the Bell Court Neighborhood Historic District (Lexington KY) contains a request for name change to "Bell Place Historic District" (the neighborhood centers on the NR-listed Bell Place), and while it's not in NRIS, I'm not sure whether to interpret this as an unsuccessful request or a request that just doesn't appear in NRIS. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional documentation requests get logged in the weekly lists of actions, but since they don't have separate reference numbers I doubt they get logged in NRIS. You can probably look through some of the older weekly lists to see if anything's there (though good luck with that since the request is undated). TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 06:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
In my (possibly outdated) version of the NRIS, it seems additional documentation is recorded, though for this property there doesn't seem to be any. The only date I can find is a listing date of 1980-12-08, and the name of the site is still Bell Court Neighborhood Historic District.
As an example of a site that does have additional documentation recorded in NRIS, refnum #66000928 (Alexandria Historic District) shows a "most relevant certification date" of 1966-11-13 (the listing date), but in the "other certifications" file I show the same 1966-11-13 as the NHL listing date, then there was additional documentation on 1969-04-02 and even more additional documentation on 1984-12-12. The nomination form only appears to include the first nomination, not the additional documentation, so it seems Focus does not include everything the NPS has on each site regardless. Reference number 5 on the article is in the Virginia state-level system and seems to date from 1984, which would correspond to the most recent documentation, but I can't get that file to open on my computer to verify that.
NRIS apparently records a lot of relevant dates, not just the listing and delisting. They are shown below:
AD      ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
BD      BOUNDARY DECREASE
BI      BOUNDARY INCREASE
DC      DETERMINED ELIGIBLE/CERTIFIED DISTRICT
DD      DETERMINED ELIGIBLE/DOE PROCESS
DF      DETERMINED ELIGIBLE/RETURNED FED. NOMINATION
DI      DETERMINED INELIGIBLE
DO      DETERMINED ELIGIBLE/OWNER OBJECTION
DP      DATE RECEIVED/PENDING OWNER OBJECTION
DR      DATE RECEIVED/PENDING NOMINATION
DW      DETERMINED ELIGIBLE/WITHDRAWN
LI      LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER
NA      NATIONAL LANDMARK BOUNDARY APPROVED
NL      DESIGNATED NATIONAL LANDMARK
NX      NATIONAL LANDMARK STATUS REMOVED
PM      PROPERTY MOVED
RE      REMOVED FROM ELIGIBLE LIST
RN      REMOVED FROM NATIONAL REGISTER
UN      DESIGNATED UNIT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Any way, my guess is that the additional documentation was either not approved or not recorded in NRIS, but I'm leaning towards not approved since other additional documentation has been recorded. You know as well as I, though, that anything with the NRIS should be viewed skeptically, so it's really anyone's call. It is also possible that the additional documentation was approved after my version of NRIS (I think it's the 2012 version?). Regardless, IMO your best option would be to email the NPS and see if they can figure it out.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we depart from the NRIS on this property's location?[edit]

The owner of the Hammond House in ... well, for reasons that will become clear shortly I'll just describe as being in the Town of Mount Pleasant in northern Westchester County, New York, has contacted me regarding some issues with the article on the house that I recently completed and nominated for DYK (it should be the lead hook, in fact, as of noon today). The most prominent is the location we used to disambiguate the article, currently Hawthorne, New York, an unincorporated hamlet about two miles to the northeast as the crow flies. User:ɱ, who lives in that area of Westchester, and I have also discussed this. Indeed I myself felt compelled to add a a note on this to the article.

Basically, Hawthorne (well, officially, "Hawthorne vicinity") makes no sense to anyone familiar with that part of Westchester County. The surrounding area, not terribly residential but home to the county jail, Westchester County Medical Center and New York Medical College as well as lots of office parks and strip development, is known as Eastview and has been for a very long time, even before it was developed as it is now (like back in 1980 when it was listed). No, it's not incorporated either. The state used Eastview as the location in the NRHP application for the property, and the owner sent me a copy of the certificate, issued by the NPS, which also uses Eastview.

And even as nearby settlements go, Valhalla, also unincorporated, makes more sense. Not only is it a little closer to the east, its 10595 ZIP Code includes the house. Nearby properties get their mail addressed to Valhalla, and the owner thus uses it on his website for the house.

So, should we depart from what the NRIS says about this one? The NPS did use "Hawthorne vicinity" when it listed the house (see p. 24). We have been wiling to change these things in the past when there has clearly been a mistaken, but this one isn't as clear—there are arguments for doing it all three ways. To summarize:

Hawthorne

Pros:

  • It's that way on the NRIS.
  • It's how we're doing it already.
  • That's how the NPS initially listed the property, and this is verifiable (see above).
  • People looking at this from outside the area are not going to know or care about these local toponymic idiosyncrasies and will expect to see things listed the way the NPS does it

Cons:

  • Some distance away
  • Not how anyone local would describe it


Eastview

Pros:

  • Owner's copy of NRHP certificate uses Eastview
  • State used Eastview when it nominated the property
  • Would make sense to anyone else in Westchester
  • Owner prefers this one.

Cons:

  • Eastview is not only unincorporated, it doesn't even have a ZIP code and thus defining what is and isn't in Eastview is necessarily subjective.
  • Eastview is not generally thought of as a place to live, and it's better to use an actual settlement as a location.


Valhalla

Pros:

  • The 10595 ZIP Code extends eastward to include the house.
  • The ZIP Code has boundaries that are shown on the standard Hagstrom road map of the area, making it an objective criterion.
  • Its use on the owner's website.
  • It's an actual settlement.
  • It's a little closer than Hawthorne.

Cons:

  • It's never been used before in any official documentation relating to the house's NRHP status.

Discussion[edit]

OK. What does everyone think? Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Strict adherence to NRIS is not always necessary. Many times the people filling them out are not locals and, to be honest, don't really know what they're talking about. If local knowledge is superior to NRIS info, I go with local knowledge 100% of the time. We already do this extremely often with coordinates. To me, not knowing anything of the area, I'd go with Valhalla.--Dudemanfellabra (talk)
In my opinion, the NRIS gets things either partly or entirely wrong often enough that I'll trust most other reliable sources over it. I've seen rural community historic districts that are listed as being in a different community, just because the other one was bigger/incorporated/had a post office. Based on the evidence you've found, either Eastview or Valhalla would be a better option than Hawthorne, and sources support either one; I don't know enough about the area or Eastview's history to say which one's better. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 09:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
We do change coordinates. I've changed some, usually when the coordinates have had me looking in the wrong place when in the field taking a pic. In some cases, the coordinates are just wrong. In other cases, the original data went through two or three coordinate system conversions. But, mostly, coordinates are objective - when you get to the field, and verify on google/bing, the place is either where the original article says it is, or it isn't. Changing it on our pages smells of original research, though, and I feel guilty when I make such a change but I make it anyway, especially after searching for a rubble pile on the wrong side of a ridge.
I don't have a problem at all with changing coords ... too often they are wildly inaccurate, reflecting the less sophisticated technology available in the past when some of our older listings were done, and vulnerable to transposition errors when being typed and entered into data bases. We owe readers accurate coordinates, and as long as the coordinates on the page show up in the right place on maps, corresponding to the property described in the nomination form, the coordinates given in the nomination form and the NRIS can be dispensed with.

Those are not the only obvious errors I've corrected in writing articles. Sometimes the wrong level of highway designation is given (for instance, the NRIS describes Perrine's Bridge in Ulster County, New York as being next to "U.S. Route 87". Well, if it truly were, it would manage to be in upstate New York and the Great Plains at the same time. It is, however, right next to Interstate 87.

Other times descriptions of the house have gotten sides mixed up, and things like that. The people who write these documents aren't perfect. Even the professionals who write most of New York's noms make mistakes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Location names can be fuzzy and subjective, in many cases the name used depends on the age of the person you are talking to. We should be careful in making name changes IMHO, when it makes the property harder to find on existing external lists, when those lists are based on what the nomination form says. When a case can be made for a error on NRIS, when we have the nom, I say take the nom - if we have reason to believe that the nom was the version that was accepted. I've found a few "draft" nom forms from non-official sources or even the original author (when trying to verify the ref number and other data in the Dudemanfellabra's NHL venture), with no indication of if it was the version submitted or accepted. If there was a vote, I'd vote for dispute resolution of using the location name on the nom form it we have it and a case can be made for NRIS being wrong, NRIS if we don't have the nom, and having a "local name" field for the cases like Hawthorne/Eastview/Valhalla. The article can/should discuss other accepted names for the location involved. We shouldn't use local information to replace the verifiable information. And now I'll go off and feel guilty for the sin of "fixing" coordinates. Generic1139 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we have two distinct scenarios here...1) when other sources give a location that differs from NRIS and 2) when an editor's personal knowledge differs from NRIS. In the first scenario, we can reach a consensus that those other sources are more reliable than NRIS (and base our location on what is given in those other sources). In the second scenario we have to go with the written source (per WP:V, WP:NOR, etc.)... and if the NRIS is all we have then that is all we have. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I would point out that a property's actual location is trivially verifiable, and is not "an editor's personal knowledge". It can be objectively demonstrated to be within a particular zip code or municipal bounds using its actual location and reliable maps delineating those bounds. I would classify this property as being in Valhalla, and describe its geographic relationship to Eastview in the text. In this case the NRIS value "Hawthorne" appears to be at best a red herring, and might be mentioned in passing when the fact of listing is described. Magic♪piano 15:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
In terms of officially defined legal boundaries, the only one in which the house is located is the Town of Mount Pleasant. This is because, as I mentioned below, Mount Pleasant only has three incorporated villages within it and no cities, so the vast majority of the town is unicorporated. For this reason, official boundaries are of little help, and one must dig deeper to find out what an area is called. BMK (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
We have a reliable source, the official website of the house, that says Valhalla. Use it. If they say they're located in Valhalla, they're located in Valhalla.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with using Valhalla under the zipcode premise and additional preponderance of the evidence, however, is the official website of a business a reliable source in the encyclopedic sense? Not trying to be pedantic here, just trying to learn. Generic1139 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published ... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The official website is not necessarily a reliable source. Many businesses (and non-profits, for that matter), will use a more recognizable location name in order to be more "user-friendly" and not scare away potential visitors who may not know where, say, "Eastview is, but are familiar with Valhalla. The Post Office doesn't really help, because ZIP codes, and the service area of a post office, do not necessarily align with official boundaries -- and as long as you use the correct ZIP code, the mail will be delivered to you no matter what location you write.

I'm familiar with this situation, since, as I mentioned below, I grew up in East Irvington, an unincorprated area of Greenburh, which also colloquially included parts of Tarrytown, went to Irvington School District schools, which also included kids from Pennybridge, part of Tarrytown, and got my mail from the Irvington post office. Thus we used "Irvington" as our mailing address, despite the fact that we did not live in Irvington, did not pay taxes to Irvington (although we did pay school taxes to the Irvington School District), got fire and police services from Greenburgh (although we often called Irvington's because they were closer and would get there sooner and, besides, Irvington was across the street (and Tarrytown was next door). BMK (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have solicited the input of a couple of users who live closer to the area than I do, and might be able to give us that knowledge we seek. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I am one of those users Daniel pinged about this. I grew up relatively nearby in East Irvington, part of unincorprated Greenburgh, and I'm moderately familiar with the area in question, through Grasslands Hospital, friends in Valhalla, relatives in Pleasantville, our supermarket in Elmsford etc. I don't say that to put myself forward as any kind of expert, just to let everyone know the level of familiarity I have, which I would say was pretty good, but not excellent.

Combining my own experiences with some searching on Google maps, I would note that both the Westchester Broadway Theatre and the Cross Westchester Executive Park, both of which are very close to Hammond House, describe themselves on their websites as being in "Elmsford". In point of fact, they are not within the Village of Elmsford, but I do remember quite distinctly that the area in question was colloquially referred to as "Elmsford" despite this.

As for Valhalla and Hawthorne, they are both considerably farther north, and I do not believe that residents of the area would think of where Hammond House is located as being part of either.

Eastview is another question. It's pretty close to the area, but it is, or was, a hamlet, which means it has no official boundaries, unless it's also a Census Designated Place. Unfortunately, I'm not at all familiar with Eastview -- we never really went up there, and, frankly, I don't remember the name ever coming up in family conversation. That may be because, according to this, John D. Rockefeller bought up the village lock, stock and barrel, demapped it and moved the train station elsewhere.

In terms of where the house is located by legal boundaries, well, the border between the town of Greenburgh and the town of Mount Pleasant runs right down 100C (Grasslands Road), and since the house is north of the road, that puts it official in Mount Pleasant. The only incorporated villages in Mount Pleasant are Pleasantville, Sleepy Hollow, and part of Briarcliff Manor, and the house is in none of these. That means it is in an unincorporated part of Mount Pleasant, which makes determination of location harder, because boundaries are more informal in unincorparated areas. Looking at this map from 1867, the location of the house (just to the right of where it says "School" and to the left of the brook) is in a section then called "East Tarrytown", but that name is not in current use. I cannot find any current name which covers the unincorporated area where the house is.

So, if I were to express a preference here, I would say that, given my own experiences (WP:OR, obviously) and the preference of both the theatre and the executive park, I would say that "Elmsford" would be the choice, even though the House is not in the village, or even in Greenburgh, the town where Elmsford is located. It's my belief that most people in the area would go with "Elmsford" to describe the area. If, however, the choice is to be limited to Hawthorne, Valhalla or Eastview, Eastview is by far the closest to the site. I have no idea, however, what the collequial understanding would be of what is considered to be "Eastview" by the residents of the area. BMK (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Just want to note that I updated my opinion in view of the information below, to prefer "Eastview", and not "Elmsford". BMK (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How The New York Times has placed the house[edit]

It occurred to me to look at the New York Times articles I used as sources to see what they say:

  • 1983, Westchester Journal: "The real history—as well as the future—of an early-18th-century tenant farmhouse in Eastview may finally be determined with a $34,000 grant from the Norcross Wildlife Foundation."

So it would seem at first that the newspaper of record prefers Eastview. But then ...

  • 1989, again, Medical School to buy Historic Valhalla House: "After four months of negotiation, the Westchester County Historical Society has agreed to sell the Hammond House, the 270-year-old building it owns on the edge of the Grasslands Reservation in Valhalla to New York Medical College for use as a Lyme disease research center."

So it would seem the Gray Lady changed its mind sometime in '89. My guess is that the switch was triggered by the sale to the college, which uses Valhalla as its address. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion continues[edit]

I am the other person Daniel pinged as a local. From my knowledge of the area of Eastview, it was a hamlet and is now a commercial area of the unincorporated section of Mount Pleasant. Most locals think of Eastview as largely between the Saw Mill and Sprain Brook Parkways (West to East), and between Hawthorne and Elmsford (North to South). So the house lies pretty much in the center of that, which is why I'd typically call it part of Eastview. (Historically, without a doubt, it was part of Eastview's original settlement.) Still, it may be better to indicate its current location. The most factual way to do that is to refer to it as part of the unincorporated area of the town of Mount Pleasant, with a Valhalla mailing address. A footnote could easily go into detail about the above technicalities.--ɱ (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Coincidentally, my mother attended New York Medical College, and said that she considers the school and the house directly south of it as part of Eastview.--ɱ (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Late to the party, but I vote to change the location to Eastview if that's where local knowledge and the NY Times says it's located. As others have noted, there are quite a few problems with locations listed in NRIS. I've seen rural sites in which NRIS refers the location to the nearest post office city or the nearest incorporated municipality, even though that place might be as much as 10 or 15 miles away. NRIS is inconsistent, though -- sometimes it lists placenames that probably aren't recognized by any modern person more than 1/2 mile away (places that most certainly aren't "cities"). We need to describe reality, rather than regurgitating the NRHP listing. --Orlady (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • So, in summary, it looks as if the choices are "Hawthorne" if one goes by NRIS, "Valhalla", if one goes by the website of the business located in the house, and "Eastview" if one goes by the view of the residents. I think it's quite clear that "Hawthorne" is wrong -- it's too far away from the site, and, for the reasons I gave above, I don't put much credence in the website's use of "Valhalla". My own initial preference of "Elmsford" I'll put aside in favor of the views of people who know the area better, and the NYT, so perhaps Eastview is the way to go? BMK (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Besides that, in some places with minor civil divisions we've simply gone with the MCD or municipality, which has the advantage of being unambiguous (unless something straddles a border, there's only one possible location in which it can be listed) and obviously in accordance with official boundaries. Couldn't we simply say that it's in Mount Pleasant? Responding to Orlady's comment, it can be worse; NRIS lists the Pisgah Christian Church as being in Wilmington, Ohio, which is more than fifty miles away, much farther away than Georgetown the county seat and the village mentioned in the address. And guess what, we have an NRIS-only stub, so from creation until October 2012 (two and a half years), we were telling people that it was located in Wilmington...Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Mount Pleasant is accurate, but gives very little information, since the town encompasses 33 square miles. BMK (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
And more importantly, AFAIK no one who lives in the town of Mount Pleasant would describe themselves as living there. For most residents they use it only twice a year, in the "Pay to the order of ..." field when they pay their property tax bills. Most of them—like people elsewhere in Westchester—identify with the hamlet or village they believe they live in.

For instance, no one in the town of New Castle to the north would say they live there ... almost everyone, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, is proud to call themselves a resident of Chappaqua, except for the people in the north of town who live closer to Millwood. And neither of those communities are incorporated, either. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

          • Ohio, Indiana, and much of Pennsylvania (all? I can't remember) are set up so that we give townships, rather than populated places, for all NR locations that aren't located in cities/towns/villages/boroughs, even though many townships are larger than your 33 square miles. I can't remember exactly where, but the same thing has been done in parts of New England, listing all properties by the city or town in which they're located rather than by the nearest population center, and many New England towns are larger than 33 square miles. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Except that Westchester has many layers of municipal government and various zones and boundaries to determine a place's location, as well as a very high population density. So while just mentioning the town for an area like Dutchess County and perhaps other states may seem OK, only stating the town for the Hammond House is almost like using "New York City" as the only location information on the article Empire State Building, rather than describing that it's in Midtown Manhattan at the intersection of Fifth and West 34th.--ɱ (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not just Westchester—this gets equally insane on Long Island, and even a little bit up where I live. Basically, any place settled in the 17th or early 18th century may have municipal boundaries determined by old land-grant disputes, something that was less of a problem as the country expanded westward, and often not all politically-relevant boundaries will follow the municipal boundaries. As BMK said, it's eminently possible to live in one town, have a nearby (possibly in another town) village's ZIP code as your mailing address, be in a third school district (Mark Zuckerberg grew up in Dobbs Ferry, which has its own school district but went to elementary school in the neighboring Ardsley schools due to a little quirk in the boundary that took in his neighborhood) and yet another fire or fire protection district. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
See National Register of Historic Places listings in Manhattan from 14th to 59th Streets. Right now, the "city or town" column for the Empire State Building indeed does read "New York". Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Many NRHP articles are confused about what "New York, New York" means. It is primarily a postal address for places in Manhattan (New York County). Mail to addresses in Brooklyn and the Bronx go to "Brooklyn, New York" and "Bronx, New York", mail to places in Queens go to specific post office names, and the same for Staten Island. This situation is a historical relic: when Greater New York was created, Brooklyn and New York (Manhattan) were already cities, while Queens was a county with a collection of small towns, as was Staten Island. (The Bronx was created from an area that was split off from Westchester). So when the "city or town" says "New York", it really means "Manhattan". To confirm this, take a look at National Register of Historic Places listings in Kings County, New York, where the "city or town" fields all say "Brooklyn" even though Brooklyn is no longer a city and is not a town. The borough/county situation in New York City makes things complicated, so that using it for comparison to other places is perilous.

I would say that if we can do better than identifying where a landmark is than an area of 33 square miles, we should, and if other landmarks are similarly vague about location, they should be fixed to be more precise, and not used as exemplars to make other articles less precise than they are. BMK (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

[EC] Fortunately, Wikipedia articles are written in complete sentences. Thus, an article can say that (for example) a property is "in rural Podunk County, about 8 miles northwest of Smallville"; it's not necessary to rely on a single place name to describe a location. --Orlady (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
[Meant to expand my most recent comment, but Orlady responded in the mean time] We give the Empire State Building's address in the "Location" column, just as we're currently doing for Hammond's by giving "South of Hawthorne on Grasslands Rd." If that's wrong or completely unhelpful, it should be changed, with "east of __" or "south of __" (or whatever) being added. National Register of Historic Places listings in Coshocton County, Ohio is a good example of what I mean: sites in unincorporated areas have their townships in "City or Town", and their location relative to nearby towns is given in "Location", e.g. the Daniel Miller House is specified as being "West of West Lafayette at 52357 County Road 16", rather than simply "52357 County Road 16". We can use "City or Town" to give the legal location and "Location" to give more-precise details. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
If other articles are imprecise, I don't see that as a good argument for making this particular article imprecise as well, We should aim for more precision to help our readers, not less. Further, comparing the layers of one state's set-up of communities with another's is an apples and oranges things. So, leaving the gross anomaly of New York City out of it, because it is truly sui generis, comparison should be made only to other places in New York State. BMK (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't fond of the Empire State Building comparison; I was simply responding to the comment by Ɱ (how do you type that character, anyway?), not seeking to raise a new issue. The problem is that it's always a judgement call and a point-of-view issue when we give the name of a nearby hamlet: why should we prefer one source's use of Eastview over another source's use of Valhalla, or a third source's use of Hawthorne? Nobody's going to disagree if we say that its location includes "[direction] from Valhalla" and that its city or town is Mount Pleasant — everyone will agree that it's municipally in Mount Pleasant, and the only way someone will dispute the idea that its precise location is "South of Hawthorne on Grasslands Rd." is if they say it's not on Grasslands Rd. or south of Hawthorne, and such a situation can easily be fixed by simply deleting the incorrect statement and writing a new one. Perhaps something such as "Grasslands Rd., [direction] from [community] and 0.3 miles east of State Route 9A", since that's a precise location. Please remember that the concept of minor civil division is not an apples-and-oranges thing; the concept was specifically designed to embrace both Ohio townships and New York towns. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I agree, although one of the points I was making is that Westchester can be considered just as an extension of the city, rather than more northern counties and other states, so it helps to be very specific in a place's location; areas of Westchester can differ quite significantly. For example, if anyone knows Ossining, its demographics and average household income are very distinctly different from the bordering Briarcliff Manor. So it helps to make the distinction between Eastview/Hawthorne/Valhalla/Elmsford in the Hammond House article. Nyttend - that makes sense. Also, luckily I don't have to type it often.--ɱ (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In come the images from Summer of Monuments[edit]

"Crossroads Presbyterian Church's Cemetery and Stainback General Store" submitted by Mebane Historical Museum (Alamance County, North Carolina)

You'll see a few hundred images each at commons:Category:Unreviewed submissions from Wikipedia Summer of Monuments and commons:Category:Images from Wikipedia Summer of Monuments. Almost all of these images depict hitherto-unphotographed places from the National Register. They can now be added to the listings by place and to the relevant Wikipedia articles if they exist.

Since submissions keep popping up in both places, maybe we should create a separate Category for those images which have been reviewed by a Wikimedian? I am open to any scheme proposed by this WikiProject, since you all clearly work most with the National Register.

I hope these images look good to you. Please let me know if you have comments or questions about the trajectory of this summer upload campaign. Monumenteer2014 (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I won't promise to review anything, however I've spotted at least several that were uncategorized, which could very easily be categorized, and I've added those categories. I urge other editors to join me in this effort. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Update project style guide[edit]

Once the location discussion has iterated to a conclusion, I suggest we look at updating the Style guide and/or FAQ with guidance on location in the article text, the article infobox, and in the location column on the nhl and nrhp lists. We might also update the information on coordinates to explicitly encourage corrections to the coordinates, using WGS 84 as the standard. The style quide currently says "It is not necessary to report coordinate errors to the project", but it doesn't say "go ahead and change them if they are wrong". And, for this purpose, is the location using google or bing maps sufficient as a verifiable source? Generic1139 (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)