User talk:Hmains

Welcome

   Discussion Conventions

• Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
• Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
• Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

• Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
• To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
• You can experiment in the test area.
• You can get help at the Help Desk
• Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article

Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

info

Wikipedia:Lists

Maintenance note

I maintain this page by deleting items over 30 days old. Thanks Hmains 16:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Monobook

You may wish to make use of a 'Dates' tab in edit mode that will help with unlinking unnecessary date links. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. It also provides a 'Units' tab. If you know what you are doing, you can copy and modify the subfiles as you wish. I just thought you might be interested. Regards. bobblewik 20:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason it fails is because you refer to User:Hmains/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Hmains/monobook.js/unitformatter.js and these articles do not exist. You have two options:

• Option 1. As described in the first 4 sentences above, make your monobook identical to mine. Then it will use the existing articles User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js.
• Option 2. As described in the last 2 sentences, create your own subfiles User:Hmains/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Hmains/monobook.js/unitformatter.js by copying the details from User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js.

Try again. I am happy to walk you through the process. So feel free to ask me again. bobblewik 12:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

info

Wikipedia:Categorization Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes Template:Americans

Excellent work: Barnstar for you

RE: [1] Thank you for being the wikipedia restoration expert :) on so many articles about the Philippines. I keep seeing you everywhere. ;)

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar, the first on Wikipedia, is given to recognise particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. Thanks for cleaning up so many articles! Travb (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

An Award

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your work on minor edits over numerous articles, including mine. Congratulations! Chris 16:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Harrison-HB4026 01:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, my pleasure. Harrison-HB4026 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You've done great categorization work

File:Interlingual Barnstar.png		The Geography Barnstar
		For all of the great work you've done in categorizing articles in Category:Geography. Thanks! Many people appreciate your work! hike395 13:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well,Sir... I too offer my Kudo's. I know how diligent your recent efforts have been. You probably know, that after You, or the others started the "Nat'l History" stuff, I then did all U.S. states, then Canada, Mexico. I did the Trees of, the "Birds of",, and I started down into "Central America", I turned the corner into the "Caribbean", but went back to "South America", first. I am actually pretty amazed how some of the Caribbean stuff turned-out, (and S. America-plus I tried some of the "Regions of" stuff) since I had no real Guideposts to go by.

Anyhow, I apllaud your diligence,.... and know-(as the Cognizant word used in the "Amarna letters") that I went through some of the states, provinces, mexico states, "What links here" page—by—page-(so I went thru 10's of 1000's of links) until finding things. I won the lottery on the Guatemalan magnolia. It ended up in the Category:Trees of Guatemala, but also Category:Indicator species of North America, (for the Cloud forest). So Dear,Sir... carry on, and have future enjoyable trips!... Michael (from the SonoranDesert(s), ..Arizona -Mmcannis 14:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I third this! Having delved briefly into editing wikipedian categories I was quickly discouraged by the complexity and mess of it all. Nice work where others (me) fear to tread. Pfly 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing Barnstar

		100,000 Edits
		I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

hold for cat discussion until find example

There are some categories that are used only for categories, and never for articles. Some of these categories have been made into 'hidden' categories, and yet they are never in fact 'hidden' since the hidden feature only applies to articles and not categories. So the hidden category always displays on the category screen as 'hidden'--which is obviously a contradiction. I suggest, that category categories not be classified as hidden. When I have tried to remove the hidden classification in such cases, someone always just adds it back in. Without something said in this categorization guideline I have nothing much justify my removal.

==yyyy== a mafia xxAssassination of foreign dignitaries==== On very rare occasions, the United States government has conspired with organized crime figures to assassinate foreign heads of state. In August 1960, Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the Office of Security of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), proposed the assassination of Cuban head of state Fidel Castro by mafia assassins. Between August 1960 and April 1961, the CIA, without the help of the Mafia (who had taken the money and done nothing), pursued a series of plots to poison or shoot Castro (CIA, Inspector General's Report on Efforts to Assassinate Fidel Castro, p. 3, 14). Those allegedly involved included Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, Santo Trafficante, Jr., and John Roselli.

in article:

xxPlots to Assassinate Fidel Castro=== In August 1960, Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the Office of Security of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), proposed the assassination of Cuban head of state Fidel Castro by Mafia assassins. Between August 1960 and April 1961, the CIA, with the help of the Mafia, pursued a series of plots to poison or shoot Castro. Those allegedly involved included Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, Santo Trafficante, Jr., and John Roselli.

National Park System / Service areas

I just noticed you've made changes in many categories covered in an ongoing CFD. Perhaps you did not notice the note I posted at wt:PAREAS. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 2#Various categories of "National Park areas" by state.

Also, I have not often participated at CFD, so I may not have set up the discussion properly. I am not aware of how I might have given notice at all or some of the categories that I was proposing to be changed. I would be happy to learn if I could have done better. doncram (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• I saw and see no notice on the category that it is being discussed in any way. In any case, I don't how to post such notices though I have seen them from time to time. Hmains (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hmains. Could you please stop changing categories on National Park Service / System articles and categories for now, and perhaps undo recent changes you have made. As I informed you above, there is an ongoing CFD.

However I notice on one article that you changed one of the categories under discussion, Category:National Park areas in Massachusetts, to Category:National Historical Parks in Massachusetts. I suppose there may be more than one NHP in the state of MA, but the system of categories that is useful is to have one MA level category for all the National Park System/Service areas in the state. Please don't debate here, but rather discuss at the CFD. If you have changed any other of the National Park area categories, would you please revert them so the CFD decision can be carried out. Or, I will possibly revert some of them. I honestly wish you would stop making changes in this area at least for a while, and participate in discussion and learning what are the meanings of the different types of places and what is intended by category hierarchies, first! :) doncram (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not plan to revert anything since I am doing what is normal in category structure. I also see that your CfD is not properly formed and will be thrown out as soon as reviewed by an administrator. You are not following any of the Cfd rules which are well established. I will not write anything there. Hmains (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) this change suggests that all National Natural Landmarks are National Park Service areas, which to my understanding, is not the case. Many of them are privately owned, not legally protected, and not open to the public. dm (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding National Natural Landmarks: This was one of the last areas I worked on last night and I probably depended too much on the article National Natural Landmark saying these landmarks are administered by NPS. What can you find to be the case? What do you suggest should be the parent categories for the Category:National Natural Landmarks of the United States and any one of its state subcats. This might include creating a 'NPS National National Natural Landmarks' subcat and state subcats, if warranted by their relationship to NPS. I can make the changes in bulk to whatever we come up with. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmains, I notice that you have gone through the National Monuments of STATE categories again, adding them to "Protected areas of STATE" again. As I believe i have explained to you already, that is incorrect to do, because not all National Monuments are protected areas. It is true that in some states, all the current National Monuments are protected areas, but they should be individually added to the PA category. There is an open thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas#Are U.S. National Monuments "protected areas"? about the topic. I will explain again there that I will be reverting all your changes. Please discuss there if you wish, but honestly I don't understand your actions. doncram (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Your comments continue to have no basis in fact. You need to read the articles involved including National Monument; read the Templates involved for each state; read the entire category structures. You are completely wrong in all of this and alone in your personal opinion on this. I am following the established pattern found in this area of WP. By your actions, leave categories orphaned so they do not even belong to the state in which the monument is located. This alone is intolerable on its face. Hmains (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand much of what you are talking about. You're not making sense to me. About my comments having "no basis in fact", that is not true.

In fact I have a good understanding of what a Protected area is (which is, briefly, a natural protected area that may be listed by the international IUCN) and what a U.S. National Monument is (which is any place designated as such by a U.S. president under the Antiquities Act, and which can include non-natural areas such as the African Burial Ground in NYC and such as a cottage/memorial in Washington, D.C.). U.S. NMs are not all PAs. So, the whole category of NMs should not be included in parent PA categories at the U.S. national or at state levels. Many individual NMs are indeed natural areas, listed by the IUCN, and individually should be put into PA categories, of course.

Okay, i just checked the National Monument (United States) article, which I see did include in its lede an incorrect assertion added by Orlady on November 29, asserting that all U.S. NMs were PAs. That is incorrect and I have just removed it. Unfortunately Orlady, new to the topic area, made incorrect assumptions about what "Protected areas" are and, before discussion at wt:PAREAS was complete she added incorrect information to the NM article and other places. I removed the incorrect info from other places but did not realize it had been edited into the NM article. I am sorry for you and other Wikipedia readers that incorrect information has been put into the wikipedia and was not removed immediately. Unfortunately you relied upon that.

About my actions leaving "categories orphaned so they do not even belong to the state in which the monument is located", I don't understand what you are talking about. Could you please try to explain? I will watch here for your response. doncram (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your disruptive and results-oriented editing serves no purpose. Read the articles before you change them to support your personal point of view--which has no basis in fact. Hmains (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm, well, I am sorry you are jumping to these conclusions, and also sorry that we started off in a bad way. But the purpose I have been serving is to correct the information which is put into Wikipedia, and in this topic area, that includes removing some incorrect info/categorizing you have been doing, following others such as Orlady. But the material in Wikipedia does need to be accurate and to be based on sources. The term "protected area" is defined at IUCN websites, used as sources in the protected areas article. There is no source anywhere in the NM (US) article or anywhere else that states all U.S. NMs are PAs (especially because it is simply not true), and I have been removing the incorrect info. I dunno what to do now if you continue to disagree. Could you please try to locate any source which supports your view, perhaps? doncram (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmains, observing from the POV of someone who has had to deal with similar disruptive categorization, it's illuminating to see you admit that your editing is not oriented towards any result. KarlM (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is: 1) no reason to think that IUCN owns the definition of 'protected area' as it does not; 2) no reason to think that US protected areas fail to fall into the IUCN definition as they clearly do; 3) no reason to think that the US and its sub-governments cannot protect areas (even tiny areas) from private development by making them legally 'protected areas', as they do it all the time. Hmains (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

National Monuments and "local" ones too

Re your comment on my talk page: As it happens, Doncram and I have a long history, and I need to be careful to avoid personalizing the interactions regarding Protected area, the U.S. National Monuments categories, etc.

Second topic: I see your name on the establishment of Category:Local monuments and memorials in the United States and Category:Local monuments and memorials in the United States by state. I would like to get the word "Local" out of those category names, as it implies a narrower scope than it believe to be appropriate, as many monuments in the category commemorate topics of greater-than-local interest. Since any stationary monument is inherently local, I'm not sure it's necessary to include that name.

On the subject of national and local monuments, I just dealt with the article National Monuments Foundation. The organization has a pretentious name, and the article was categorized in the U.S. National Monuments category for about 19 months, but the organization has nothing to do with U.S. National Monuments. It claims to have a nationwide scope, but in fact it appears to operate solely in Atlanta. I moved it to Category:Monuments and memorials in the United States. I'd like it to be in a narrower category than that, but in light of its national pretensions, I hesitate to slot it in a category called "local."

In naming these categories, did you consider any words other than "local"? (I think "Other than National" is the right concept, but it's not a good name for a category.) Would you have a problem with eliminating Category:Local monuments and memorials in the United States and replacing Category:Local monuments and memorials in the United States by state with Category:Monuments and memorials in the United States by state? --Orlady (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I created these for state and local areas that are not owned/managed by tghe US federal government. A better name is possible, but what? Category:Monuments and memorials in the United States by state would invite editors to make it and its subcats into parents of Category:National Monuments of the United States by state, which would be wrong. Hmains (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've been mulling this over, but have not formed any real good ideas for an alternative name. I think the distinction you are trying to make actually is one between "US federal government monuments and memorials" and "other monuments and memorials in the U.S.", and "local" is not the right term for the latter group (which might, for example, include monuments established by governments of other countries -- a monument that would be decidedly not "local").
  
  Meanwhile, though, please take another look at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas#Are U.S. National_Monuments "protected areas"?. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing helps the convinced and stubborn Hmains (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, when we find a better name than 'local', I can help change things, but I have not thought of it yet. Other countries of the world do not have such extensive information or maybe such extensive monuments as the US so we cannot get ideas from there. Hmains (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ice field" vs. "icefield"

Just noticed your new category; IMO it's wrongly named and should be Category:Icefields, which is the normal English usage and also, as you'll note from various items, the form used by the sources.Skookum1 (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I just used the main article name. Both can be changed, but not just one of them, please. Hmains (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Assyrian Americans

I have nominated Category:Assyrian Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Assyrian-Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Municipalities in the United States, redux

Re: this edit, as you know, I created these categories and then objected on your talk page, above, when you changed the sorting the first time, with me explaining why I believed it was sorted better as it was. You only responded with some kind of smartass remark rather than with any substance, and now you're continuing to make the same changes without any explanation. Please stop any further such edits while we discuss it and explain your position to me, and/or get a third-party opinion one way or the other so it's not just me complaining and you ignoring me (which the kids call "edit warring"). postdlf (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• I only edit things as I see them, when I see them. I do not go back into history. Now that you remind me, however: It seems to me that the Municipalities categories have no more intrinsic importance as a category than their sibling categories and so they should placed alphabetically with the rest. You seem to think incorporated settlements are more important and so deserve a special sequence. I believe you said they have more population and more economic importance so they ought to come first. I don't equate this importance with category sequencing. And whether you or anyone else created the categories is of no importance--the creator is not owner and sole editor in WP as you know. Hmains (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply. I was merely pointing out that we're the only two to have edited this categories; me when I created them, and then you when you changed the sorting. Which doesn't mean ownership, but it makes us the relevant "community" for resolving disagreements over that content. So we need to work it out.
  • I hope you didn't mean to imply that importance is never appropriate for category sorting, because it's a widespread practice across many different subject areas.
  • As for whether municipalities merit such highlighted sorting, I'm still not clear on why you think otherwise, only that you do. By any measure (population, government power, economics, name recognition), the most important settlements in a state will be municipalities, not unincorporated communities. So I don't think they're on par with those, nor do I think they should just be in an alphabetical (which in category names, means factually arbitrary) list with other, much less important settlement subcategories like "settlements on the X river" or "fictional cities and towns in X" (all of which should be renamed to (fictional settlements, incidentally). But I'm now also wondering if the metropolitan areas subcategories may have an even greater claim to prominence. Thoughts? postdlf (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• My first point is that it should not matter what you or I think about the importance of any particularly subcat of a category (which must surely be WP:OR), but that Wikipedia:Categorization supports such action. My experience is that subcat order is alphabetic except when a different order is used to make the category system make sense--but this is not based on content. My second point is that importance of municipalities (which I do not doubt) translates to sort order. For example, in a category of countries of the world, China, Germany, India, Russia and the United States go in their proper alphabetic order, not some order based on population, land mass, GDP or some other measure of importance. Such content ordering is done in sortable lists, not subcat order. Hmains (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort order; the example of the sorting of the Australia stubs is probably most on point. It's not a question of emphasizing members of the same group over others, but rather sorting different groups. In a series of sovereign states, China and the U.S. are not substantively different; they are equally sovereign states whatever their other attributes. But real sovereign states are substantively different from fictional ones, or from "microstates" that purport sovereignty; just as a municipality is substantively different from a neighborhood or a fictional settlement. postdlf (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • Yes, I know what this says. I see no support therein for any editor to make decisions on what subcats have more important content and further decide that those subcats should be sorted first. The 'Australia stubs' is an example of sorting by category convention, not by content or opinion of content. I do not see anything like what you are doing implemented across WP. What you are doing looks unique or at least very rare. Which is why I change it. Hmains (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

History of the United States

I apologize if I made the article too long. I just feel that this article lacks detail about this president. I mean, if other presidents, like Ronald Reagan, get to have their own section in this article, then surely, JFK deserves at least a little extra detail about what happened in his presidency, rather than just two or three sentences. I understand that there are also subarticles that include more detail about what happened then, but there are still other sections of this article that include more detail than the section that is about JFK. I've removed certain parts of my previous edit to made the article slightly shorter. But please, all I'm trying to do is to include just enough detail in the article to explain most of what happened at that time in history without going into specific. --Joker123192 (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for understanding. If you do have the ability to summarize (I don't do that well), it would help this article if more could be summarized here and details moved to the sub-articles. It is just very difficult to figure out what to remove. Various editors repeatedly have to do this summary work on this and other overview articles. The major sections are based on some historical context of major changes to the direction of US history--and are not based on presidential terms and hopefully not based on WP:OR. Within those major sections, trimming and movement downward to sub-articles is always good, especially as historians get further away in time from the events and gain perspective. Hmains (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

McLean Game Refuge

your change to McLean Game Refuge was a good change. However, it needed to also be added to Category:Visitor attractions in Hartford County, Connecticut. I've found that when you move an article down a category level, it sometime needs an additional category to be properly described. IMHO dm (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Be my guest. I am not involved in 'Visitor Attraction' categories since there are never any references to determine what is a visitor attraction or not, so it all seems to be in the mind of the editor. Hmains (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that. On the other hand, taking something and pushing it under "geography of XX " alone doesnt quite work by itself. It's more than a geological feature. dm (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

When I started, it was simply sitting in the County category. I think I improved it by moving to the county geography category; further improvements are always helpful. Hmains (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Historic districts and protected areas

Hi. I see you have added some U.S. historic districts to "protected areas" categories. This is incorrect. U.S. historic districts are not, in general, protected areas, because they aren't actually protected. --Orlady (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• You lose again, trying to push your agenda definition of protected areas onto WP. They are protected because the US and state laws designating them as protected protect them from unhistorical changes. Very simple. Hmains (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, and I'm not pushing an agenda. I am not Doncram, and I am not talking about National Monuments. Listing of a property or historic district on the National Register of Historic Places does not provide legal protection. Very simple. --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry, my apology. And I am not saying that Historic places are protected--they are not. I am saying that Historic Districts are proteced by laws which is all I am dealing with. See Historic district (United States) which discusses the protections the laws provide. Is there anything wrong with this article? Hmains (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Some historic districts have legal protection -- for example, a city might have zoning laws that restrict development. However, the vast majority of the historic districts with articles are merely listed on the National Register. As the article indicates, that listing is essentially just an honorary status. It does mean that before the federal government can demolish the district, a report must be prepared, but that's pretty trivial as legal protection goes. These aren't "protected areas" by anyone's definition of that term. --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I put things back the way I set them, pending discussion. Please read some of my notes. I don't accept that just becaues a templete is coded 'hd' that the article automatically describes an 'historic district'. The article text needs to show this is an historic district (very doubtful for a single structure, for example) and there should be some reference showing it is an historic district. What I suspect is that the template (or its content) was just copied from article to article without checking the facts in each case. Thanks Hmains (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nearly every property with more than a couple of buildings tends to be described and classified by the National Park Service as a historic district, particularly if there isn't a single, dominating structure. The western dude ranches are almost all HDs, and I've never noticed a case where the database output has been wrong. Case in point, the National Register nom for the 4 Lazy F Dude Ranch is clearly described as a historic district in the nomination, and the lede states as such. Acroterion _(talk) 01:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the text I did not see in the lede in this particular article.

But are you saying that the content of the templates in all these article are being computer copied from a National Register database? And as such, the computer output is the reference source that is to be accepted without question? This does not seem like something any editor could check out the truth of and we are to take this on faith. Hmains (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

[EC] Those templates are automatically generated from a National Park Service database. If the template says "hd", it means that the item is coded in the database as a "historic district" and is officially listed as such in the National Register (regardless of whether it looks like a district to you or me). I learned this because I made the mistake of suggesting that some of these were miscategorized (I was proven wrong). --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Elkman has done the most work with the NRHP database that generates the basic infoboxes. Apart from the occasional coding error, the data has proven to be accurate when checked against the NRHP nominating documents. The noms are available for about 15 or 16 states on line, and the HD criteria are pretty consistent. Farms are almost always HDs, and as I said, groups of more than a couple of buildings, largish tracts of land or clusters of relatively small buildings are almost always classified as HDs. It's an odd distinction, but that's how the NR works. Urban historic districts with multiple owners are almost always called historic districts in the title, but they represent a subset of what the Park Service calls a historic district. Acroterion _(talk) 01:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If so, so be it. Is this documented anywhere in the HD cateogry, for example so editors will not start making mistakes like mine and wasting time. But given that anyone can edit anything in a WP article, we can never know without lots of work whether the content of the article template came from automatically the NPS computer or from an editor. Are WP templates periodically replaced by new text from the computer? What does the article history look like for computer inputted text? I still think we need to have text in the article saying it is a 'historic district' if it is so and references such as the NRHP application that User: Acroterion just added to one such article (which I now see exists only for 15/16 states). And I will put the articles back to their state prior to my edits since I have the best list. Hmains (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we're in a time of transition. The old system, NRIS, wasn't much to look at. It's the source of the database, but it was dynamically generated and hard to reference. The new system, NPS Focus [2] does state at the individual property listing whether it's a building or district for every one of the 80,000 properties, as far as I can tell, but it's dynamically generated too and hard to reference. Full documents for 11 states now exist on NPS Focus (several others are on state SHPO websites) and where available can be permalinked. Acroterion _(talk) 02:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently my reply regarding the lack of protection for historic districts got overlooked due to the discussion of the HD element in the NRHP infobox. To repeat:

Some historic districts have legal protection -- for example, a city might have zoning laws that restrict development. However, the vast majority of the historic districts with articles are merely listed on the National Register. As the article indicates, that listing is essentially just an honorary status. It does mean that before the federal government can demolish the district, a report must be prepared, but that's pretty trivial as legal protection goes. These aren't "protected areas" by anyone's definition of that term. --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

--Orlady (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. National Register status is a recognition of significance, not a measure of protection. In terms of protection, it is a faint shadow compared to, say, a Listed Building under the National Trust system in the UK. Even National Historic Landmarks are occasionally destroyed or heavily altered on purpose; you just can't do it using Federal funding. Acroterion _(talk) 04:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. My goal is to get historic districts into some better category structure than just 'landmarks in foo' or 'history of foo', since these trees do not often extend down to local entities. If protected area is not appropriate, as I can now see, how about 'Geography of foo' since districts are some kind of land area. Hmains (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been rather extensive discussion of the historic district categories at the NRHP wikiproject -- over a period of several months.

Until a few months ago, all several thousand US historic districts were in a single national category. That category is automatically assigned by the nrhp infobox. A bot process was started to place them into state (and territory) categories. After that process was completed, the auto-categorizing feature for HD categories was supposed to be removed from the infobox template. Unfortunately, that bot process has not been finished -- the bot owner has been otherwise occupied, apparently. Until all of the individual HDs are in state and territory categories, I think that further futzing with their categorization only adds complications to a complicated situation.

Historic districts are not necessarily geographic entities ("places"), so they should not be treated as such, except on a case-by-case basis (for those district articles that do double duty as "place" articles). Historic districts are, however, topics under "history", and most individual districts are also included in National Register categories. Because some historic districts are not listed on the National Register, there is an opinion that these categories should not be placed wholesale into National Register of Historic Places categories. --Orlady (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Even at the national and state levels, they are physical objects that need to be in a physical-type category, not just in a legal 'places' category. Are they 'geography' or are they 'buildings and structures' or what? A choice is needed. Hmains (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither and both. (I don't understand your contention that it is necessary for them to be one or the other.) Many HDs include buildings or structures, but some are just landscapes or archeological sites. Some HDs are very small in land area (for example a house, grounds, and outbuildings).
Some HDs are not even physically contiguous (examples: 1767 Milestones consists of individual milestones spread over a distance of some 100 miles or so; William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures includes a house and some nearby railroad properties that are historically associated with the house, but apparently not contiguous). I know of a National Register listing for a historic district in my local area (this is an HD that does not have an article) that consists of two neighborhoods that are physically and historically distinct plus another building (not related to either neighborhood) that is located sort of between the neighborhoods and was used to define a contiguous historic district. I suspect the reason to combine those different components was to reduce paperwork in a government agency. --Orlady (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not dealing at the article level, I am dealing the category level. The category is 'Historic Districts in foo state'. Does that category go into 'Geography of foo' state or ' Buildings and Structures of foo' state or what. One or multiple is fine. Historic distracts are physical: they need to physcal category trees. There is not much other than Geography and Buildings & Structures available Hmains (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the characteristics of the articles and subcategories in a category ought to be considered in determining how that category should be categorized. Let's take this part of the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places -- that's an active wikiproject whose participants have a lot of relevant knowledge and opinions. --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cemeteries

I see that you are now placing "Cemeteries" categories into "Buildings and structures" categories. I don't generally think of cemeteries as being either buildings or structures. Can you please explain the logic you are using? --Orlady (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just expanding the category structure down to the state level what has existed as the category structure at the US level and international level for some time (2005 or so?) in WP. Hmains (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Son of a gun! Actually, it looks to me like US cemeteries have only been in the US "buildings and structures" category since this edit in late 2007. Regardless of how long this arrangement has existed, it should never be too late to ask "does it make sense?" By what logic are cemeteries considered "buildings" or "structures"? --Orlady (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I did it to match all other countries where I see this change was made in 2005--not by me. I can only imagine the the editors who made the change and accepted it for 5 years had in mind; I have no way of knowing. Looking at the available category structure, I can only think they belong to 'structures' due to their being a collection of headstones, markers, monuments, and above ground coffin/urn containers. If not this, what major physical-type category tree would they belong to? Leaving them just in human death category trees is clearly inadequate. They need to be placed into city/county categories which do not have any good physical type choices. At the local level, they currently just end up sitting in the city or county category itself. Hmains (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with User:Hmains here. Cemeteries are physical features on (and in) the ground. They need a category tree that rolls up to somewhere physical as well as into Category:Human death in the United States. In Massachusetts right now, they are a Wikipedia subcat of Category:Landmarks in Massachusetts, which is maybe OK, but probably a little strong. In Commons, they are a subcat of Buildings in Massachusetts, and, as I look at that category, it looks like the right place.

I'll argue that a cemetery is a "building or structure". Of the ten that I've photographed for Commons, all have had chapels, offices, or crypts that are actually buildings, but even a simple grave is a sort of a structure -- the casket keeps the dirt out of the occupied portion. I can't think of a better place to put them.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hearing nothing further, I will proceed to put cemeteries and their categories into Buildings and Structures cats and parent cats, as applicable. Hmains (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

Category:Historic districts in Massachusetts

I note that you have added {{DEFAULTSORT|Historic Districts in Massachusetts}} to the subject, with similar edits elsewhere. Am I missing something -- or are you?

As I understand it, the template you added has no effect because the default sort is already as called out -- we use the DEFAULTSORT template only to change the sort from the PAGENAME to something else, maybe "Massachusetts" in this case. The only case in which your change would have any effect is if there were a DEFAULTSORT in a template called by the page, in which case yours would override the template's.

If I'm not missing something, then I think the addition is a mistake because it confuses even experienced editors. I don't know off-hand (and DEFAULTSORT doesn't say) whether it overrides the explicit sort shown in [[Category:National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts| ]]. Since that's the correct sort, I want to know that it will remain in force.

The sorts for categories can be very complex -- for the subject, two sort under its name, one sorts under the blanks, and one (History of Massachusetts) could, arguably, go either way, although I think you have made the correct choice. Given that, I think using DEFAULTSORT is a mistake -- much better to have the sorts show explicitly for each parent category.

I am not manually adding the Default Sort anything. This is automaticall done by AWB. Questons on AWB need to be taken up with the AWB editors. I believe that AWB auto implements what is in the MOS, but I just use whatever AWB provides. Hmains (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two answers to that -- first, as the AWB manual points out, YOU are responsible for everything AWB does. Second, AWB shows you what it's going to do before you hit "save" -- if you don't like it, change it. Sure, this slows you down, but the whole point of AWB is not superspeed, but eliminating some drudgery. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree with the general edits that AWB does in general and see no reason to disagree with them here. I accept that the editors who maintain AWB are correct in what they do and and if someone wants AWB general edits to change, then they need to take it up with AWB. I am not going to second quess AWB Hmains (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I also note that you have added Category:Protected areas of Massachusetts. I know that you have debated this before and I'm not interested in opening that debate again more than a crack, but please note my opposition. Very few HDs in Massachusetts have any meaningful protection, witness the half dozen NRHP sites in Quincy that are no longer there. I think that calling them protected implies a status they don't have and might lead some readers to complacency about their continued existence. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC) If you choose to respond, please do so here.

I will replace the 'protected area' category with something else as soon as I know what to replace it with. See long discussion above. Hmains (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I copied much of the discussion to the wikiproject talk page here. As you will see there, my current view is that historic district categories don't need to be in a "physical" category because each and every individual historic district should also be in a physical-type category appropriate to what it is. Keep the historic districts category as purely a "history" category. ("Historical district" is a designation, not a physical attribute.) --Orlady (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You have your opinion and I have mine. I see nothing particular in WP that would lead me to follow your opinion. I am dealing the 'is' facts, not 'shoulds' Many of district acticles have no other category than the historic district category. Hmains (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Many of those uncategorized historic district articles exist because of contributors who have been enthusiastically creating minimal-content stub articles for entities listed in the National Register of Historic Places database (the typical article says "Podunk Historic District is a historic district in Podunk, Indiana" and contains a infobox that contains latitude, longitude, a location map, and date listed on the National Register). Many of these stubs do not include any information about the historic district, which makes it pretty difficult to categorize them. The underlying problem is not with the category system, but with stub articles that contain too little content to identify their subject matter. Shoehorning all historic district articles into one overarching physical category will not cause them all to belong in that category, and it will not cure this basic problem with the stub articles. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)