Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

Address Restricted image consensus?

Was there a consensus reached here to use the Address Restricted image in the lists? I thought there was, but I'd like to confirm that. Several times now, User:Nyttend has removed that image after I've added it (usually including some kind of snarky, passive-aggressive remark in his edit summary ... e.g., "Most likely, the site doesn't look like the words "Address Restricted""). I don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other about it. I'd just like to know whether or not I should be using it when I work on the lists. --sanfranman59 (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I just hate it when major contributors to the project take each other on. I'll suggest the two of you hash it out together. You're both adults and have the interests of the project at heart. As far as the consensus, my reading was that putting the "Address Restricted" pic in was a good idea if anybody thought that it's actually a site that might be potentially damaged by having a photo inserted, but that somebody else might put in a photo if it was clear to him that the site wouldn't be damaged. In case of disagreement please just work it out between the two of you. If I may add something to the consensus, I'll suggest waiting until there is an actual photo, so that there is an actual conflict rather than a potential one, before taking up arms. Smallbones (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was about what yours is, Smallbones. When I was breaking out some of the state lists recently, I was adding the AR graphic all over the place. I've not noticed any issues. I'm sure this can be reasonably resolved. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow ... and I thought all I was doing was coming out here to the project talk page to try and get some guidance about consensus. My intention was to try and get the lay of the land on this issue and then to hash it out with Nyttend. I didn't realize that doing so would identify me as someone who's not behaving as an adult. Pardon me. Now I'm remembering why I don't spend as much time as I once did posting messages here. I'll go back into my cave now. --sanfranman59 (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I over-reacted. At least we have the consensus pretty well described. Smallbones (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just re-read our old discussion of the use of the AR graphic. It looks as though we reached consensus on the general question of using the graphic, but still haven't resolved how extensively and under what circumstances it can/should be used.

On one end of the continuum, there's the position that the graphic should be used for all AR sites. It sounds like that's what Ebyabe would advocate, given "adding the AR graphic all over the place". On the other, there's the view that the graphic should only be applied by editors who've investigated the location, and made at least some attempt to seek suitable illustrations.

I'd like to push for the latter position. I don't think that any harm aesthetic or informational is done by leaving a white space; and I'm afraid that the AR graphic might tend to steer away editors who might otherwise be able to find suitable images.

As an example from very recent experience, I'd like to offer the Sewee Shell Mound in Charleston County, South Carolina, where I'm visiting. The mound is an archaeoogical site, and was very much AR when it was listed: so exactly the sort of thing that seems to call for the AR graphic. However, a Google search for the phrase reveals that there's now a Forest Service interpretive trail at the site. Had I seen the AR graphic, I might never have done the Google search, might never have found out about the trail, and might never have photographed the site.

--Ammodramus (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I sometimes get a tad hyperbolic. :) I wouldn't have thought the AR graphic would discourage people from taking pictures of sites. Worth discussing. --Ebyabe (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am guilty too of adding the generic AR graphic. Like User:Ebyabe I sincerely hope its presence does not deter anyone from replacing it with an appropriate photo.--Pubdog (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use the AR placeholder image except when a photo is found to be viable without giving away the reason for the Address Restriction. Sometimes it does make sense to have an image for an AR but it general it doesn't. For example, the Pilot Island NW Site is AR listing but a sign was installed in the general direction (as seen on this image). Another except that I have encountered is that there are a few AR where it's public knowledge where it can be found on public property so there's no real reason for the AR. Anyone with the internet can figure it out the location in a few minutes. There are many AR listings in my area for shipwrecks on the Great Lakes and native American mounds. Most of these should not be researched by us to give their locations away. Royalbroil 02:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There are 3 things we can do with the photo space of an AR site in the list: 1) put in the A/R graphic, 2) don't put in anything, and 3) put in a photo. 1) The AR graphic is appropriate if you have any reason to believe that the site could be damaged by a photo that might reveal its location. When in doubt this is the option to choose, but just being listed as AR by the NRHP isn't enough since they have made so many mistakes and have no way of updating this info when reason for the original restriction becomes obsolete. 2) do nothing when you don't have any good info. 3) If you have a photo that doesn't reveal location, or you have a photo that you've taken yourself - and having visited the location you know that the site is now publicly known (perhaps with signs, etc.), please add the photo.

One reason I'd like to have a clear rule on this is to know when to quit looking for a site to make a list fully illustrated. I figure if I go looking for a site listed as AR and after a couple of hours searching on the web and on the ground I still can't find it, then somebody is keeping the location secret for a reason and I should put in the AR graphic. If I do find it, but it looks like there is nothing public about the site, then I'd add the AR graphic, or perhaps take a "general location" -type shot. Many of these sites are in the middle of empty fields or swamps and a picture of something nearby without landmarks on it might be useful without being harmful. And of course if you find the site with a state historical marker right next to it - take the photo! Smallbones (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the AR picture is totally unneeded. If there's no picture there is no picture. Everyone sees that. What's the point in adding the picture? Do you believe that the readers are that stupid? The reason, why there's no picture doesn't matter: he just won't see anything – there's no picture of the site. So the AR picture does not transport any new information. Thus: remove them all. --Matthiasb (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is that when you see no picture, you don't know whether that's because no one has gotten around to taking a picture yet, or whether the site can't be depicted for some intrinsic reason. Choess (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi --- I used the AR on National Register of Historic Places listings in Erie County, New York for the Eaton Site so the list could be claimed as fully illustrated. I hope that's OK?--Pubdog (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Matthiasb is right in that the AR graphic doesn't convey any useful information to the general WP reader. However, if used as Smallbones suggests, it could be helpful to WP illustrators. I'd like to see it applied only by editors who've made a serious effort to obtain an image for the site. In that case, the presence of the graphic indicates that someone's already tried to illustrate the site, and a further attempt might be wasted; a blank space suggests that a search for an illustration might not be altogether futile. Ammodramus (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering earlier, had pretty much to do with the typhoon season article over there in DE:WP. Do you actually believe, that editors are watching those list and look wether each listing has an image included? Maybe, but won't it be more effective to put those articles in which the NHRP infobox is lacking a picture into a hidden category, which with the using Template:GeoGroupTemplate even would produce a specific map for which sites pictures are needed… so you could plan your next photo taking trip ;-) Besides even when the NRIS does not provide coordinates it still coul be possible that we have images. I agree that the placeholder image prevents illustrators from loosing time in efforts for looking for prictures that don't exist but… still illustrators won't know if for one site really does not exist a picture (in the article, on commons, somewhere on a *.gov website, maybe in the LoC collections) or the location really isn't known and rather won't look because of the AR image is there. So using it has advantages and disadvantages. It's a pity that AFAIK there's no possibility within the MediaWiki software to replace the tag image goes here which we have in the list by a template to create a list where a picture is missing, so going the way through the infobox might be a more customized approach to get users involved in making pictures by themselves. However Ammodramus makes a valid point in saying that the placeholder image makes sense if the presence of the graphic indicates that someone's already tried to illustrate the site. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

PS: Needless to remind that the approach through infoboxes would work only for existing articles. ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My main activity on this WikiProject is adding photos to the lists in Utah. I don't care which way the consensus goes on this little point, as long as we still get to count the lists as 100% illustrated with or without the ARs. Ntsimp (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Stubs done for West Virginia

Hi all... thought y'all might like to know that stubs are done for West Virginia, where the nomination form is available at West Virginia Division of Culture and History. Probably, fewer than 20 in WV without a stub. Cheers!--Pubdog (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I normally cringe nowadays when someone announces the creation of large numbers of stubs, but I've looked at some of these and they're...OK. Stubby, yes, but each seems to provide a decent, if terse, summary of the historic place. Good job! Choess (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks User:Choess. I know what you mean, but I think you can be assured that in each case the NRHP nomination has been referenced and reviewed to provide relevant info and links in each stub. Cheers.--Pubdog (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

NRHP topnav or not

Hi folks --- I recently readded to the NY County lists a resurrected template New York NRHP topnav. I found while working on WV that the West Virginia NRHP topnav box on each list was very helpful. In both states, there is also a template for U.S. National Register of Historic Places in West Virginia and U.S. National Register of Historic Places in New York near the bottom of each county list. Same situation exists in Maryland, ref National Register of Historic Places listings in Prince George's County, Maryland

ISSUE: Should both a topnav and state template be included on county lists or should the topnav templates be removed? Compare National Register of Historic Places listings in Albany, New York to National Register of Historic Places listings in Erie County, New York to see the difference. Don't much care either way, but I think a policy should exist in such circumstances. Hope this makes sense. I need to move back to stubs. Cheers ... --Pubdog (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The template at the bottom might be able to hold more information (e.g. NHLs, bridges, covered bridges, city districts), but overall if I had to choose, the topnav is more accessible. Maybe both? Smallbones (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there's room for both, 'cause they serve different purposes. The topnav one is more immediately useful, though. --Ebyabe (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a fan of this idea — with no personal offense meant towards Pubdog; this is obviously a good faith effort that we disagree on. My issue here is that the top-nav box is 100% redundant to the bottom-nav boxes, which hold exactly the same information, plus more. The bottom-nav boxes also follow the unwritten pattern of using navboxes at the bottom of an article and they use the same template setups as other bottom-nav boxes. I guess you need to look at it this way: in National Register of Historic Places listings in Albany, New York, you have literally no use for the top-nav box. I'm looking at this at a city level. I don't care about, say, Monroe County. Maybe this could be acceptable in county-level listings, and more likely, in National Register of Historic Places listings in New York, where somebody may actually be looking for a quick link to a county-level entry. But even at the county level, you probably don't care much about the other counties. I've made it to Rensselaer County, why do I care about what's in Franklin County at that point? A small percentage might; few will I suspect. And for those few, there's already a nav box on the bottom, holding literally the same information. Frankly, I think the top-nav box is a space-waster in municipal-level (county and lower) NRHP list articles. I could only support use of this in the state-level articles. upstateNYer 03:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio Revert on Circular Congregational Church and Parish House

I had to do a substantial revert on Circular Congregational Church and Parish House because most of the text was copied from the congregation's website. Unfortunately I do not have the time to do a proper rewrite myself. Mangoe (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I did some basic corrections and cleanup, but it could still stand expansion. Station1 (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Color designations in Infobox NRHP

Has anyone else noted that color designations for state and local designations are no longer displaying within Infobox NRHP? I noticed with Mississippi Landmarks and Alabama Register sites that use Infobox NRHP. Examples: House on Ellicott's Hill and Mount Sinai School. The colors are still intact when used within Infobox historic site and Infobox bridge. Examples: Belvoir and Bankhead Tunnel. Changes were made to both Template:Designation and Template:Infobox NRHP today, so I'm not sure which one contains the error. Altairisfar (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have been corrected. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was fixed a few hours after this post. Altairisfar (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

WP NRHP in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject National Register of Historic Places for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Time for a Photo Contest?

Given that the above, by my calculations, should run in two weeks (say October 18), I think it offers a good opportunity to run a NRHP Photo contest. Note that Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments is completing a photo contest where it says it got 165,000 pix from 5,000 (80% new) editors. I have followed them at a distance and wouldn't want to do anything as big and complicated as all that, but I think we can do something quite simple and easy along the following lines.

I do hope that folks won't offer alternatives to this that involve lots of planning, big efforts by multiple project members, etc. Rather, I'll ask: can we do something simple and quick along these lines?

For Oct. 21 - Dec. 4 A photo contest where different editors or projects (the sponsors) offer prizes (e.g. barnstars) to the photographer(s) who satisfy specific criteria selected by that editor or project listed on a special page, say Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest.

Editors who want to compete for the prizes (contestants) must self-report on the contest page and the sponsors must also be the judges for their prize, i.e. check the claims of the top contenders for the prize.

For example

I might offer a barnstar on the page for the photographer who fills in the most empty photo boxes on the county lists, provided that they upload the photos to Commons during the contest period, put a specific category on them (say Category:NRHP Fall 2011 contest), and provide the diffs of the additions to the county lists.

On Dec. 5, I'd check the diffs on the top 2 or three contestants, and award the barnstar.

Project WP:Chicago might want to do the same except for the Chicago and Cook County lists.

Somebody else might want to do something similar for the state of Florida.

Others might offer prizes for NHLs, the DC lists, etc.

So in other words, if you want to participate as a sponsor, it's up to you. We'd probably have to do some notifications to other projects, and to editors in general, and perhaps get some clearance from Commons.

Any comments appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not fair to grad students who have more schoolwork during the second half of the semester :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And some of us have photographed just about everything within driving distance. :) Not a bad idea. Perhaps we could even do it two or three times each year, so there's regular encouragement. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 22:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Conversely, it might be a good inducement to get Ebyabe to learn SCUBA diving so that he can photograph those unphotographed shipwrecks and get out to the isolated fish cabins :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I about fell out of my chair with that comment. :) If anything, I'll hit more of southern Georgia. I hope this photo idea works out, though. I can't recommend NRHP roadtrips enough. They say travel broadens the mind, which is why I can't sit up straight, since my head's so big. OK, I need to go to bed. 'Nite all. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 03:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Site merged into NHP

A battlefield site in Texas was merged into another local, yet separate, National Historic Park back in 2009. Should the articles and/or their listings in the tables be merged? See Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park and Resaca De La Palma Battlefield. 25or6to4 (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

MPS and TR categories

Question: If a category is created for a multiple property submission or thematic resource, should the category name use the MPS/TR abbreviation as the NRHP lists it or should it be spelled out? I created a few several years ago and am guilty of doing it both ways. There should be consistency, but right now there isn't. There is an ongoing Cfd discussion on one that I did here. Thanks. Altairisfar (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think they should be spelled out. Everyone doesn't know that MPS or TR stands for (I'd expect several people even in this project don't know what they are). Same thing with NRHP if it ever shows up. Spell it all out.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It may not matter though, the nominator feels that all MPS and TR categories should be deleted and I don't feel strongly about it either way. Altairisfar (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think making lists instead of categories is better, but maybe that's just me. It can also be a way not to make stubs for every "House at" or "Building at" listing, if they're in an MPS. See some examplification at National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submissions in Florida. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 22:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice way of doing it, thanks for the example. I had created two lists a good while back, but they aren't set up in nice tables like that. Altairisfar (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)