Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

Wikimania Panel or other participation July12-14

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

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

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

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

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

Anybody who's interested should contact me directly on my user talk page or via e-mail. I'm sure we'll get something going. I do hope nobody is against this type of presentation. Smallbones (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• --Pubdog (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I'm in the DC area and do stubs and take pics. I guess I could talk about it as a hobby, but not sure how much I could offer.

Architects, MPS, Thematic Resources and NRHP infoboxes

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

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

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

Link for this list, please? I wasn't aware that one existed. The infobox is useful on some MPS articles (for example, it might not be a bad idea to add to Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches, if only we had more text above the table), but I don't see it being useful on the two that you list, since they're essentially just groups of substantially different properties in a certain area that don't have any strong themes tying them together. No infoboxes for architects, of course. However, they should be included in the scope of this project; the assessment scale includes suggestions on how to rate architects for importance, and we wouldn't have that if they weren't included. FYI, please watch out when you remove these templates, or you'll have unexpected results on other templates. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If we want to include them in the NRHP Wikiproject, an option is to just mark "needs-infobox=no", which should remove them from the - I think. That would keep on the wikiproject.

I don't know of list of MPS and Thematic Resources. I found these two near the top of the list in Category:National Register of Historic Places articles needing infoboxes KudzuVine (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was "the list of needing NRHP infoboxes"; I didn't know we had a category for that. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:National Register of Historic Places articles needing infoboxes - there is a link at the top of this page in the "To do" box on the right. 782 more to go!

I change "needs-infobox=yes" to "needs-infobox=no" on the Wikiproject NRHP template on the talk page for American Indian Rock Art in Minnesota MPS last night and the Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources earlier this morning. They have not been changed back so far. I was concerned that there was a BOT that check the articles and changed the Talk page indicating that they will need a NRHP infobox. Has not happened yet. I will get to revert the architect's pages so that the respective talk pages have the "need-infobox=no." Then they won't go on the above list. KudzuVine (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The category filling up is mostly my fault. When I was doing importance assessing, I added the "need-infobox=yes" on articles that looked to need them. If the parameter is removed completely, it will remove the article from the category. Though if you want to change it to "need-infobox=no" to indicate it's been looked at, that's not a bad idea. I have added infoboxes to MPS's in the past. see any of the National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submissions in Florida for examples. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 21:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of private houses

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

You may photograph and upload anything that is visible from a public street. Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, just because you can does not necessarily mean you should. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policy is probably best described at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States. Not all places are visible from a public way, of course. Magic♪piano 21:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That has to do with the copyright issues. The poster is seeking guidance as to whether it's legal in the first place to take a picture of a private residence. Which, as we know, it is. But see what I'm going to write below. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Public streets or sidewalks are OK but do not hold the camera up to shoot over a fence, and never shoot through a window, even if it is open. If the homeowner has made even the vaguest attempt at maintaining privacy, then the photographer needs to respect that. I've been confronted even when standing on the sidewalk, so it helps to know your rights. I've also been warmly welcomed when I write ahead to ask for permission and a tour. Rklawton (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You could also try what Ruhrfisch did. He contacted the owners of the Clemuel Ricketts Mansion and was able to visit and get a bunch of photos of the house, inside and outside. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 22:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point — if you politely ask permission, you'll often find willing property owners; for example, the owner of the Carl Potter Mound happily drove me back a half-mile-long lane through his woods to get to the site. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have had very good experiences contacting people associated with the subjects of articles - Pennsylvania park employees have read near-final versions of articles to make sure we haven't written anything in error. Or PennDOT provided a bunch of free pictures of NRHP bridges in Pennsylvania after I was in contact with them about Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3 (I believe that Finetooth initiated that contact). (Technically the Clemuel Ricketts Mansion is owned by the lake association - I contacted people who had access to the house. They also told me about a biography of Col. Ricketts I did not know of, which provided some useful information, and took me to the Ricketts family cemetery, which I doubt I could have found on my own, or accessed as it is also on private land). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As Rklawton points out on his talkpage, Bert F. Krages, a photographer and lawyer, has a lot of good advice at his website [1]], and specifically has a freely printable discussion of photographers' rights [2]. I carry a copy in my camera bag, mostly for reference in case of a confrontation with security officers rather than homeowners. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

My rule is that yes, it's legal, but be discreet because people in the neighborhood can get so touchy sometimes, and if they call the police you probably won't get arrested but you probably won't want to come back to that town again for a long time.

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

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

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

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

I second that: I design schools for a living, and often have occasion to be around a school with a camera, but I always check in at the office, tell them I'll be taking pictures and never include children in a picture if I can help it - and that's for images that I strictly use for work. For anything uploaded to the Internet, no kids, ever. Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I have yet to take pictutes of schools, I'll keep this in mind. I've never had anyone chase me away for taking pictures of post office buildings though, but private homes? Well, in April 2011 I decided to take a picture of one in Sayville, New York, that I previously felt self-conscious about taking in 2010(File:Joseph Wood House; Sayville, New York.JPG). It's kind of blurry, but I was in a rush. Granted I didn't let that stop me from taking pictues of historic houses in Long Beach, New York, and the only people who inquired about my activities were the ones at File:226 West Penn Street, Long Beach, NY.JPG, which is the headquarters of the Long Beach Historical Society. I did a few others in both Suffolk and Nassau in both years, but the Joseph Wood House in Sayville, and the former Bellport Academy were two places I thought I'd get in trouble for trying to take pictures of in 2010. ----DanTD (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

You came to the right place. The NRHP nomination form is linked on the article page or I suspect you have of copy of this as well - so you can summarize, paraphrase, or even quote this to insert any information you'd like. And since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, you can take out any info you know to be false. I didn't recognize the photographer, but you can certainly remove the photo from the article (go to the "image =" line). Request: can you include your own photos - exterior, interior, details, barns, maybe even pastures with sheep if the house is in the background? We'll take them all. Last thing is renaming the neighbors barn pic at Commons - I'll see if I can do that. Any questions - just ask here. Smallbones (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for the picture file to be renamed at Commons and removed it from the article. Smallbones (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had one instance where the owner objected to a pic and identification. It was the Joseph D. Lyons House. The pic was removed and article modified accordingly, despite the pic taken from the public roadway. No need to tork anyone over this, which is supposed to be fun and educational!--Pubdog (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Military facilities

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

If you're able to succeed, I'd appreciate any tips that you could give. I attempted to negotiate access to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base some time ago to photograph an Adena mound on the base, but after a single cordial exchange of emails ("I'll check to see if that area's restricted"), I never heard back from the base's PR guy. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Most military PIOs are extremely reluctant to give permission, and it all varies from base to base. Fort McNair's a very prominent place with obvious historic and architectural merits, and the photo policy (which they forwarded to me), explicitly says so. Wright-Pat could be a tougher nut to crack, and it's often hard to find someone who has actual authority. I'll keep you posted. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Every base should have a FHPO. I suggest that you try there. Also, most bases have a museum staffed by professional historians/archaeologists that may have information. Also every Federal agency has a FHPO See the list here. Einbierbitte (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm making slow progress, and was considering raising this as a GLAM-style collaboration once I can find somebody at the DoD with sufficient authority to work with WP on a broader front; I was referred to someone with a higher pay grade today. I'll add updates as I proceed. Acroterion (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

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

Please note that there is a wonderful list of about 40 NRHP sites - with attached articles - provided by the NRHP at Women's History Month March 2011. They might even update this for 2012 :-) . The Patsy Cline House definitely needs an article! There's also an overall NPS website and an overall US government site.

Since the resources are easily available, I've listed this on Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month and in our To-Do List (ending date March 31). Smallbones (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Require coordinates in lists

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

I have no objection. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Places that have vague geographic locations in NRIS often have better descriptions in the nomination papers, unless they've been redacted for one of the usual reasons for doing so. Places with vague locations can always be coord-inated to a large area, as large as the county or community if need be (although it should be pointed out in the notes that the coordinates are approximate when they're added). Categorizing lists (and articles) lacking coordinates sounds like a good idea. Magic♪piano 13:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your second sentence: listings shouldn't have coordinates unless we're quite confident that those coordinates point to the listed property or to one of the listing's contributing properties. In this situation, a marker at a random spot in Daggett County (since Bridgeport is/was in the county's northeast) would not help and could be rather deceptive to the person who thinks that it's the actual location of the cabin complex. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. I put quite a bit of effort into determining coordinates when adding new listings to the tables and I also always try to add coordinates for listings that are missing them whenever I come across them. --sanfranman59 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to go with Nyttend on this. First because I suck at coordinates. Second, becasue when I know that coordinates are wrong I have to get other people to correct them, and hope they get it right. From what I remember, the Union Savings Bank (Patchogue, New York)'s coordinates were way off, and when I tried to get it corrected, they were brought closer, but still not right(they're right now). If we're going to get coordinates on anything(articles, pictures, lists, whatever), we've got to get them right. ----DanTD (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I have just been adding many, many missing nrhp infoboxes, we must be sure to not flag ones that are in articles with coordinates. I have embedded many nrhp infoboxes in lighthouse, school, bridge, park, etc. infoboxes. Many of these have coordinates already. So I took them out of the nrhp infobox if they were in the Elkman Infobox Generator because we show all the coordinates given at the top of the article. This can be a jumble of conflicting overprinted numbers. Secondly, an nrhp may be at a large institution such as a College or Universitywith coordinates. If the article has a subheading about a particular nrhp building, it seems appropriate to remove the coordinates from the nrhp infobox to again prevent a jumble of overprinted at the top. If there was a way to prevent the coordinates printing at the top of the article that would overcome this objection. But it will still leave hundreds (thousands) of nrhp articles on this proposed list. KudzuVine (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

KudzuVine, the coordinates in the NRHP infobox are good for showing the map if one is not already in the other infobox. If you'd like to show coordinates/map in the nrhp infobox, but you don't want the coords to jumble in the top corner, use |coord_display=inline.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Tried it and it displays map and does not affect the top line. KudzuVine (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

KudzuVine, I'm simply talking about requiring them for {{NRHP row}}, not articles — either you misunderstand me or vice versa. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, that is fine. I think we should cleanup the need for nrhp infoboxes (484 to go!), before we do anything with requiring coordinates. KudzuVine (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you again referring to Category:National Register of Historic Places articles needing infoboxes? Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I added the tracker category. I suspect some of the entries actually have coordinates, but these are located in the address field. Let's see if we can move those. Multichill (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Problems with embedding NRHP Infoboxes

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

• Convert template for area does not work in an embedded NRHP infobox in the following parent infobox: Park, Bridge, Station, University, Stadium, Theater, Observatory, Zoo, Protected area, Museum, Prison, and Cemetery. It does work fine in the unembedded NRHP infobox in the same article. It also works as an embedded NRHP infobox in the following parent tables: Historical area, School, and others. When it did not work, I commented out the area entry in case anyone solves the problem.
• I have been unable to embed the NRHP infobox in the parent Airport infobox. The NRHP infobox only occupies the left hand side and does not stretch across the Airport table. I have put the NRHP infobox as a separate, unembedded infobox. KudzuVine (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

For the convert problem, this is not a bug with the NRHP infobox but rather the convert template itself. The convert template is a very expensive one, and it goes like 9874932742 levels deep in transclusion. The extra transclusion of making the infobox a child (which is how embedding is achieved for the NRHP infobox) breaks the template... No clue why it breaks some and not others, though. A remedy that always works is to specify the precision that you want the convert template to display, which eliminates about 10 transclusion levels or something. This can be done by putting an extra parameter for the number of decimals you want displayed, e.g. {{convert|1|mi|km}} won't work, but {{convert|1|mi|km|1}} will work correctly and show 1 decimal point: 1 mile (1.6 km).

As for the embedding problems in {{Infobox airport}}, it appears that this infobox is not meta-compatible, i.e. it does not use the generic {{Infobox}} template. While this may be the case for other infoboxes you listed above that still work, the problem with this one is that its width is 4 columns instead of the standard 2. For non-standard, non-meta-compatible infoboxes that contain more than two columns, it is necessary to add a |nrhp= parameter and put the NRHP infobox in that, like the one in {{Infobox windmill}} (although this is not a non-standardized infobox.

Does that answer your questions?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

At Template talk:Infobox#Infobox historic site I determined that 17 transclusion levels were saved by specifying the precision. Since there are a maximum of 40 available, this is a significant proportion. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on {{convert}}. I tried it and it worked. But I really don't understand the "|nrhp = parameter." Can you be more specific or link to an example? KudzuVine (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

First example I could find is the short article about Boyd's Windmill. It uses a windmill infobox with an NRHP embedded in it. It does this by using a |nrhp= parameter which is coded into the windmill infobox itself. This is kind of a poor example because the parameter isn't really needed for the windmill infobox since it only has two columns. For infoboxes with more than two columns, though, the parameter must be added in to the code of the infobox itself manually like it has been added into the windmill infobox.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The {{infobox windmill}} template has the |nrhp= parameter added in this manner. Essentially, this takes the content of the |nrhp= parameter, wraps it in a table the full width of the infobox, and displays it as if it were a single row in the infobox. Then you can have something like this in an article:

{{infobox windmill
|name=Foo Mill
...
|nrhp={{infobox NRHP
|embed=yes
...
}}
}}

--Redrose64 (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Newbern–Dyersburg (Amtrak station) shows both convert working and {{infobox station}}. That closes all my problems in this section. KudzuVine (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Trujillo Homestead gets NHL designation

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

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

Arizona

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

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

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

Nothing relevant at WP:NRHP help. My only suggestion is that you use one of the email addresses from the NR page at the Arizona SHPO's website. Nyttend (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that this Flickr set may have some images of the places in question, although they too may be of incorrect buildings. It's also possible that you can just search for information about the places one by one.. I found several in my home county like that before they were all online.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg

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

There are about 6 buildings on campus - the original one is the NRHP site and in the middle - but it is not owned by the seminary anymore. Embedding infoboxes is never simple, but this is the worst I've seen. I think the fault lies with the university infobox which is just way too wide. And then there is the Luthernism box. If you want to see an ugly embedded infobox see the version I self-reverted. I went back to the pre-NRHP-infobox version, but the problem in my view is the text - not about the seminary, not about the historic site in general, but just about the battle of Gettysburg. It should, of course, be about all three. And it doesn't need 3 infoboxes, maybe not even 2. I don't think it needs 2 articles - one for the site and one for the seminary. What it needs is a complete re-do. Any volunteers, Red? Smallbones (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I was the source of the separate NRHP infobox. The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg does not deserve one because it is not the NRHP. Embedding it with the entire institution would give the incorrect idea. Old Dorm (Smucker Hall) is the NRHP. Therefore I gave it a separate infobox. Perhaps it needs a separate article that someone could write or a greater description in the text. The current revision has the problem of a circular link that refers back to the article. But I don't wish to get into a revision war. At least no one has (yet) edited the Talk page as now needing the NRHP infobox! But that may eventually happen KudzuVine (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not actually bothered how many infoboxes the article has: but I have often noticed the use of |embed=yes in {{Infobox NRHP}} so that two infoboxes give the appearance of just one. I respectfully decline the invitation of Smallbones to re-do the article, because I have nothing in the way of sources for this establishment. My main concern was the illegibility of the coordinates at upper right - see here - which I had noticed because the extra set of coordinates was causing the article to show in this report, item 8. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I made the mistake of not removing ", title" from the infobox. With the nrhp infobox gone, it should not be a problem. KudzuVine (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Now is the time to get involved.

As always,

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

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

fixed --Traveler100 (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

On New York's latest list of nominations to consider for submission to the NPS at the Historic Preservation Board's next meeting in a couple of weeks, there's the [3] John Martinus Larawy Inn in ... Prattsville. Yes, the same small town that was almost washed away by the flooding after Hurricane Irene at the end of last summer.

The nomination does acknowledge this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canterbury Castle (Portland, Oregon)

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

National Register of Historic Places listings in Worcester, Massachusetts

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

There are too many transcluded templates.

<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 157570/1000000
Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 634877/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
-->

See Wikipedia:Template limits. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Strangely, I can see this page just fine, but not National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston, Massachusetts (which dies at listing #226). There are several NRHP listing pages (these two among them) in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded that presumably need splitting for this reason (if not WP:LENGTH). (In fact I just proposed splitting the Boston list, see its talk page.) Magic♪piano 18:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Worcester page was fixed earlier today with this edit. However, the problem at Boston is the same: too many templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Pvmoutside "fixed" the Worcester article by subst'ing the row templates. I think these long (200+) lists should be split; this is what's been done with other geographies that have many listings (eg NYC, Philadelphia). Magic♪piano 13:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Y'know, I think it's these edits which have caused the pages to go over the template transclusion limit, which has caused this trouble. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing in that edit that would have possibly caused a template include limit to be reached was the lowercase parser function (no other templates were transcluded). I just tried removing it, and the lists are still screwy. The only plan of action I see is to split the lists. I just briefly looked through the NRHP row template code, and I tried to remove several template transclusions, but (strangely) that didn't seem to work. I'm frankly stumped as to why what I did didn't work, but in light of that failure, I see no other way to avoid this problem than to split the lists.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides the {{lc:}} there are also a {{#ifeq:}} and a {{#if:}} which each contribute. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Do parser functions contribute? I was under the impression that they didn't.. and when I removed lc:, the number of rows shown on the pages didn't increase by even one, as it should have (removing lc: caused ~200 fewer transclusions). Same thing happened when I tried removing two subtemplates.. nothing changed. That's what I found "screwy".. not sure what the problem is.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in New Castle County, Delaware joins the list. KudzuVine (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

It's not a bot error — the bot converted the rough code tables into fully-formed templates, and MediaWiki has a maximum number of templates that it will permit to be transcluded on a page. It's purely a human error of allowing the page to be too big. Splitting these lists is standard practice for our wikiproject; that's why the New Castle County list doesn't include Wilmington, for example. Worcester County won't be that difficult, because we have the towns themselves; we can simply split out lists for the towns (and cities, if there are any) with the largest number of listings. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Haymarket affair Good Article reassessment

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

Coords in lists

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

Old high school vs. new high school

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

See Schools and NRHP infoboxes. I have handled these in several ways recently. If there is an section on the old high school, I have put the NRHP infobox there. But in many cases such as Columbus High School (Columbus, Georgia), I marked the county list, National Register of Historic Places listings in Muscogee County, Georgia as Old Columbus High School (Columbus, Georgia) and indicated that the current high school does not use the nrhp building. If I can find a reference for the occupant of the nrhp building I mark it as done is National Register of Historic Places listings in Bonner County, Idaho, KudzuVine (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)