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:

NRHP list missing coordinates[edit]

Following the discussion up above, I've decided to restore the feature whereby a tracking category is added to a list when it has one or more entries with no coordinates and no parameter saying that the list should be exempted. Not being the technical person, and remembering what difficulties Dudemanfellabra showed me I caused when last I made incorrect edits to {{NRHP row}}, I've made the changes only in the template sandbox, rather than in the real template. Please see this test diff, where I transcluded the sandbox version of the row onto a normal NR list: you can see how it displays for current listings with, current listings without, former listings with, and former listings without coordinates. Any technical objections to how I did it? Any objections to the fact that I did it in the first place? Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I like having the tracking category there, but I'm a little less sure about the "Coordinates missing" text. It seems a bit redundant for the address-restricted listings and possibly problematic for the handful that we don't want anyone adding coordinates to. (Granted, I'm not sure if there's a way to fix that without adding a new parameter or removing the text entirely, so it may be worth living with.) TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 16:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I really don't feel like it is worth living with. It's sort of like airing our dirty laundry for all our readers to see. And for address-restricted rows and the like, the laundry isn't dirty, we're just saying it is. Category, yes. Text, no. — Ipoellet (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This is why we once had a nolatlon parameter: if we restore this "coordinates missing" feature, we need to restore nolatlon. When a line has no coordinates, but when |nolatlon=yes, the "coordinates missing" and category do not appear. We should be nolatlon-ing the entries that are AR and the entries with locations so vague that we are unable to find them: this feature is meant to mark places where we've simply omitted the coordinates, not locations where we can't provide them. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that helps a lot, though it's not my favorite solution. I've been using {{Address restricted}} in the |address= of the table rows -- it would be easy enough to insert the |nolatlon= argument into that template to minimize the hassle of removing the "coordinates missing" text from AR rows. (I.e. {{Address restricted}} transcludes |nolatlon=yes into {{NRHP row}}.) — Ipoellet (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
We should avoid, if at all possible, showing Address Restricted and Coordinates missing in the same location entry. Adding nolatlon to the address restricted template is a good idea. We then need to find any rows that use some other way of showing Address Restricted and fix them to use the template. Finally, the tracking category needs to have the three types of missing coordinates to be useful, 1) Address Restricted, 2)Address not currently available 3)Address not present. I envision this being used mainly by maintenance editors who look at the coordinates missing category then find and add the coordinates if possible, otherwise marking the row with a nolatlon value as need. We need three values for nolatlon, Yes, Lookfor, No. Yes does not show the missing coordinate text and uses the restricted category, Lookfor shows Coordinates unknown and uses the address unavailable category, No shows Coordinates missing and uses the coordinates missing category. The "No" choice, the default, is the true error, someone built the row but failed to enter a coordinate or an explicit non-empty nolatlon Generic1139 (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a good reason to have more than three options: (1) we just haven't gotten around to adding coords [|nolatlon=yes is absent, and coords are also absent], (2) NRIS information is insufficient for determining coords [|nolatlon=yes is present], to be used for address restricted and an NRIS address that's truly useless, (3) we have coordinates. Maintenance editors, which probably includes me, don't particularly need to know why coordinates can't be determined; we just need to know whether the lack of coordinates is to be accepted (nolatlon=yes) or whether it's an error that we need to fix. Categorising truly unavailable locations doesn't seem particularly helpful to me: tracking categories are generally for fixable problems, and no-coords AR sites are either a non-problem or a problem that can't easily be fixed. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
With old nomination forms coming available online from time to time, locations can be found that weren't available before (as in Dr John Parsons in the Daggett County list). We have a class that is missing the coordinates, these should be evaluated as they occur and be fxied or moved to another class. We have the class that never needs to be looked at again, address restricted/address permanently unknowable. Then we have the class I'm interested in, the class that isn't knowable now, but will be in the future, or would be if someone had the time to request a paper copy. We can't leave them in the error class of simply missing them, and we don't want to lose them in the never look at them again class. I don't know how many are in my between "fix now" and "fix never" class. There was at least one, Dr John Parsons. Generic1139 (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure we actually need a class for sites with unhelpful NRIS addresses, nor do we need to lump them in with the address-restricted listings. Now that all but three states have online nomination forms, it's pretty easy to just access those and get the location information, and nomination forms usually at least have UTM coordinates or something similar that can be used to calculate an address. It's not worth making a special category for sites that take fifteen minutes' worth of research instead of five, and it won't hurt to leave the handful of cases with really bad nomination forms (or those from the last three states) in the error category for a little while. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 02:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I just edited the row sandbox to implement this in what I think is a better way. What you had done before, Nyttend, would have erased the existing coords if nolatlon was set but really lat and lon were actually there in the template. The way I changed it first checks if lat and lon are specified and only then does it check to see if nolatlon is set. If it is set, it suppresses the category; if it isn't, the category is added (and only if the article is in mainspace).

As for this talk about address restricted, I can't think of any way to make the template automatically know that the site is address restricted. One thing the template might be able to do to automatically exclude some of them is to check if the image is the AR image (the exact name escapes me at the moment). That won't catch all of them, but it's a start. It may be possible using Module:String to check if the address parameter has the word "restricted" in it, which would catch all the templates Ipoellet mentions above as well as just normal text. That might have the unintended side effect, though, of false positives for any site with "restricted" legitimately in the address (though the number of sites to which that would apply could probably be counted on one hand if there are any at all). Really, though, I would just say let's enable the category without any exclusions and go through marking all AR sites with nolatlon=yes to get them out of the way. There can't be that many, can there?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, Address restricted.PNG is used in about 300 lists by the looks of it, plus we have quite a few sites that don't use that image (and the handful of properly illustrated address-restricted sites). I'm not sure what percentage of the sites with no coordinates they'd make up, but whether that's too many depends on whether we can get enough people to help mark them. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 05:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I've added code to the sandbox to check if the image or the address parameter contains the word "restricted". If one does, the cleanup category is suppressed. Template:NRHP row/testcases (rows 4, 5, and 6) shows the output. What does everyone think?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks ok. You need a test case for nolatlon. You are also using the row/sandbox for the two delisted tests, both are missing lat and lon, but neither show the missing text. Do you also suppress the text for delisted rows? Generic1139 (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I just made row 7 set nolatlon=yes. Thanks for pointing out it wasn't working with delisted rows. It wasn't just delisted, but any row that was missing an image or address, so that would have been a huge problem. I've modified the code to fix this problem, and now the text is showing on the delisted rows as well.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem with depending on the AR.PNG file is that it's thoroughly unhelpful: it skews the stats, sometimes significantly, by making it look like we have images when we don't, and if someone has an image that they'd like to upload, it gives the appearance of saying "Go away; we don't want your image". Quite different from depending on image-or-address, which doesn't have either of those problems. And on the sandbox changes I made — I just erased what looked right, quite unsure whether it really were right. This is why I only edited a sandbox :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Does anyone oppose this idea? If not, I'll move the code into the actual template rather than just the sandbox soon.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long, but I've just updated the NRHP row code to include the category. Now we just wait for it to be populated.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks good so far, I've added a (former) location based on the tracking category, Central High School in Dubuque . 1080 Pages in the category. Generic1139 (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Importance assessment for World Heritage Sites[edit]

I was looking at the overlap between the NRHP and World Heritage Sites and noticed that, in general, those articles are assessed at Top-level importance for WPNRHP. However, there were three exceptions: Monticello, University of Virginia, and Poverty Point, which are all assessed at High importance. I recommend that we re-assess these 3 articles at Top importance. Also, should we insert WHS status as a default criterion for Top importance in the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Assessment#Importance scale? Thoughts? — Ipoellet (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why not. I was going to say the "University of Virginia" has a lot more content than we want, but see that yourlink redirects to The Lawn, which satisfies that minor point. Not sure we need to put this in the assessment scale, since that probably completes the class of all cases. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Smallbones. The scale already grants "Top" to Sites agreed at wt:NRHP to have truly exceptional importance, and you can't get more exceptional than being significant to all of humanity. "High" is already granted to NRHP-listed sites with NPS designations (NMON, NHS, etc.), so we ought to make a one-step-higher class rating to places with the one-step-higher designation. Nyttend (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

All right: thanks. I've upped the assessment for the three articles, and I'll leave the WPNRHP importance table alone. Just for information, here are the NRHP listings that are on the current U.S. tentative list for WHS nomination:

All these were already assessed as High importance except a couple of the missions, which I upgraded. Also, I understand the NPS is currently in the process of revising the tentative list, so this is likely to change in a year or so. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It occurred to me that the 3 Micronesian associated states also have their own World Heritage tentative lists, and they include some NRHP listings as well. For the sake of completeness, here they are:
— Ipoellet (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Considerable mess at Red Bird River Shelter Petroglyphs[edit]

Please see discussion on talk page concerning accuracy of article. Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I responded, but of course others ought to chime in if they have an opinion. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Mangoe has conclusively demonstrated that this is a different NR location (formerly listed), so I've moved it to Red Bird River Petroglyphs. Nyttend (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The MPS[edit]

This location is, as far as I know, not listed separately; it's part of of the Prehistoric rock art sites in Kentucky MPS, for which we do not appear to have an article. This is the only specific site that has an article, and it appears to have been created to promote the pre-Columbian contact theories promoted at the rock's current location before it was picked up and turned more into an NRHP article. At the moment I can't get my hands on the MPS nomination but my recollection is that it doesn't have a list of sites.

My current theory might be to make an MPS article and then merge this article into it, as long as I can find something that does say what sites belong to the nominations. failing that I'm not sure to go, and as I have never done an MPS article I could use some advice about how to write it. Mangoe (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The MPS nomination document is available at the Focus site ( pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/64500243.pdf ) and, you're right, there is no list of the individual properties on the NRHP. Einbierbitte (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The 1989 weekly listings have most of the listings in the week of 9/05/89, though at least one is in a later week. If someone has a backup of NRIS, there should be a way to query the database for all sites in the MPS too (Elkman has an example of such a query on his site). Iron County MRA is a good example of how to write an MPS article if you can't find enough info to justify separate articles on each site. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 05:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Mangoe, I'm quite confused because you said in the discussion that you had the nomination? This is Red Bird River Petroglyph (15CY51), NRIS refnum 89001182, delisted in December 2003. There's plenty of information, and together with the Swauger et al book that you found, we can put together a proper article that's substantially better than a stub-sized entry in an MRA list. Nyttend (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't gotten back on this; things have been a bit crazy. I do not have the original nomination forms for this site, but only for the MPS. I'm working on an article for the latter using the announcements document you pointed me to, and presumably Swauger et al. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Scripps Hall Altadena[edit]

Scripps Hall Altadena 5.JPG

I finally got photos of Scripps Hall. I put the photos in the Altadena, California category in the Commons. I waited until the Friday after Thanksgiving and was able to access the campus. I think that is all the missing photos from Altadena. Einbierbitte (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put the above pic in both the LA County list and in the article, but feel free to make your own choice. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Need help with article title[edit]

Wiki-NRHP team: I’ve just finished an article on NRHP building. It's listed on the NRHP as “Sisters High School.” However, the historic high school was replaced long ago with a modern high school which is already listed in Wikipedia under that name. Is there a common practice way of titling an article like this...e.g. “Old Sister High School” or “Sisters High School (historic).” One other choice is to name the article after the building's current function...i.e. “Sister School District Administration Building.” Do you folks have a standard solution for this situation? If not, any recommendations?--Orygun (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In my case the extant version was "Old (place name)", but "Old Sister High School" probably wouldn't work. I'd simply use "Sister High School (original)" and make a link to it from the Sister High School page to clear up the issue of anyone arriving there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
According to the nomination for that building, Sisters HS was established as an institution somewhat before the NRHP-listed building was built. Therefore "original" would be misleading for your article. I suggest using the building's construction date to disambiguate the article title: "Sisters High School (1939)". This same approach has previously been used in, for example, United States Post Office (The Dalles, Oregon, 1916). — Ipoellet (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Why wouldn't "Old Sisters High School" work? Are you thinking that it would look like <Old Sisters> <High School>, rather than the <Old> <Sisters High School> as it should? If "OSHS" isn't reasonable, I agree with the (1939) idea. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
At the University of Illinois there used to be the Old Men's Gym, though folks now insist that it was the Men's Old Gym. It is on the NRHP. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
My concern with "Old Sisters High School" is that I'm not aware of any reliable sources where that particular formulation is used (WP:COMMONNAME). If editor-composed disambiguation is needed, it is always done in parentheses at the end of the title. So according to Wikipedia conventions, "Sisters High School (Old)" would be comparatively more acceptable, although its sound is too informal for me. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I'd go with the current building name -- see Talk:Polly Rosenbaum Building for a previous case of hashing this out at some length. My second choice would be the disambig by year. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
There's a big difference, however, in that there doesn't appear to be a separate article on the El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium building that replaced the Rosenbaum Building; we already have an article on Sisters High School. The closest corresponding situation that comes to my mind is in Ohio; Piqua High School is a new building, and the place listed as "Piqua High School" has its article at Old Piqua High School. Nyttend (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
A lot depends on conditions on the ground. How do people in the town refer to the historic building? Do they call it the "old Sisters School Building", or have they refer to it by some new name that reflects its modern usage (remember, names of buildings can change). Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Another option... shift the focus of the Sisters High School article, so it talks about both the old and new institutions/buildings... discuss the historic (NRHP listed) building in a historical context within that joint article... as a section (or perhaps even as a sub-section within a broader "history" section on the school as a whole). We don't necessarily have to have a separate stand alone article on every building in the NRHP... the goal should be that every building is covered somewhere in Wikipedia, but if it makes sense to merge it into a related article, that's OK. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The current high school and Sisters High School (1939) should be separate if it would be at all confusing (which I think it would be). The date qualifier is standard with the rest of the Oregon NRHP articles from way back, and there doesn't seem to be a project guideline for this. Valfontis (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'm waffling a bit. I'm pretty sure we have several NRHP articles that are at the site's current common name, with an intro that says something like: "The Sisters School District Administration Building, listed on the NRHP as Sisters High School, is a blahblahblah." With a {{confused}} hatnote for the current school. That's my final answer. (Googling, I found a few references to "Old Sisters High School" but current usage favors calling it the administration building.) Valfontis (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Given there's no standard way of dealing with this situation, I'm thinking about using Sisters High School (historic) for title. This uses same title that's found in NRHP nomination (i.e. "Sister High School") while connecting title to NRHP status (i.e. "(historic)" which is what makes the building notable). I'll include other 2 common names ("Old Sister High School" and "Sister Public Schools Administration Building") in the intro. Here's what intro says:
"The historic Sister High School (also known as the Old Sister High School and the Sister Public Schools Administration Building) was built in 1939 as a public secondary school for the community of Sisters, Oregon. It was built using United States Federal Government funds provided through the Public Works Administration. The old Sisters High School was listed on National Register of Historic Places in 2006. Today, the facility has been converted into an administration building for the local school district."
Any problems with this?--Orygun (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not what I would have done, so it's obviously completely wrong. :-) Seriously though, that seems like a completely reasonable solution. BTW, be sure you're saying "Sisters" and not "Sister". — Ipoellet (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think both Orygun and Ipoellet are wrong. So obviously it should be done my way. ;-) Just kidding. I agree it should be spelled correctly though. :-) Thanks for checking. I'll make some redirects so it will be easier for people to find it, whatever they call it. Valfontis (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
If we're disambiguating with parentheses, we ought to do it in line with other articles, and (1939) is much more common than (historic). Nyttend (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • After I saw Ipoellet’s note above I went ahead and uploaded article as Sisters High School (historic); guess I should have waited for more comments. Also, I just submitted DYK so changing title now may screw that up. Sorry!--Orygun (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Meh, most things are not of a very serious or permanent. The page can be moved if needed or at a later date. I wouldn't worry about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

New Pictures from November 2014[edit]

As I mentioned on the Wikipedia NYC Public Transit talk page, I went on a mad photography spree on a recent drive to and from the New York Tri-State Area. However, of all the subway stations I snapped pictures of, only two are listed on NRHP; The Mott Avenue Control House and Simpson Street Subway Station and Substation #18 (IRT). Most of the historic sites I captured were on Long Island, and they consist of Haviland-Davison Grist Mill in East Rockaway, Pagan-Fletcher House in Valley Stream, part of the Main Street Historic District (Roslyn, New York), primarily the Van Nostrand-Starkins House, one brief image of the David Conklin House, Rafael Guastivino House, John Mollenhauer House, both in Bay Shore, the Masury Estate Ballroom, and more of the Terry-Ketcham Inn in Center Moriches, and finally the controversial non-NRHP site known as Casa Basso in Westhampton. I also snapped an interior shot of Grand Central Terminal or two, and I might be forgetting some landmarks here. On the way up, I was able to increase the number of images for Emporia, Virginia just a bit. However, as of this writing, Wilson County, North Carolina needs images far more than Emporia. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just remembered that one of the other sites I took were several pictures from the Long Island Motor Parkway. Sadly, I didn't get enough Vanderbilt Parkway images. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

First-time NRHP editing help[edit]

Hi everyone; I recently expanded "Centennial National Bank," my first time significantly editing an NRHP article. Could anyone comment on the current layout and suggest additions in terms of content? I have my eye on a relevant image or two, and the history section could use more work, though I've run into a bit of trouble with sources--most seem to focus on the Centennial Bank building, whereas I am also curious about the Centennial Bank institution. Knight of Truth (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: I think the article should be able to move from stub to C-class, as well, but I defer to your assessment.Knight of Truth (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Great to see others expanding NRHP articles. The article is certainly above stub class and there would probably not be an issue to moving them up to start class. I am a member of WikiProject NRHP and can certainly elevate that one but someone in the other two projects would probably need to raise them. I would hope someone involved in all three can do that. Otr500 (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
(EC)Looks good so far. To get a re-evaluation of the class just remove the old class, somebody should get around to reviewing it. You might want to say hello to BoringHistoryGuy who does a lot on Frank Furness. Tracking down info on old businesses might be fairly hard - especially if you confine yourself to the internet. If you are in Philly, there are several libraries. If you need more current photos let me know what you are looking for. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Green tickY: Removed stub rating. Otr500 (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)