Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

WLM 2016 map

I just noticed the map for WLM 2016 which has the US on it. It might be useful for some folks. [1]. You do need to zoom in to see all the details. Playing around with it a bit, it looked accurate in PA.

I believe it's based on their overall database at Commons [2] which is pretty close to (but not exactly the same as) our tables. I suppose the same caveats should be repeated as we do for our own tables. Any maps based on NRHP data can be off a hundred yards or more, depending on your location in the US.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

: Are the red ones where photos are needed? yes. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

One error I noticed. The map placed the West 114th Street Historic District in the middle of the East River south of Soundview, Bronx, when it's actually in Upper Manhattan. Oh, by the way, there are still tons of images from New Rochelle Historic Sites that need to be added. I took some already that I haven't uploaded or named yet, but there are many others that I missed. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Another thing; I see that two historic houses on Awixa Avenue in Bay Shore, New York have three images each (thanks to me), but apparently the lack of coordinates for these houses is making them not show up on the map. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That's the nice thing about a smartphone or geotagging camera. The coordinates where you stood easily lead to the coords of the object. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

There are cameras that have GPS built in too. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Not very many, alas. I had to accept the ultrazoom lens on my Nikon Coolpix P520 to get its useful features, mainly GPS. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You remember my camera from September 2015, right? I'll have to check to see if I can get geotagging software on it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

But besides built-in GPS units, there are attachments that you can plug into the camera to transfer GPS data to the EXIF data (e.g. the Nikon GP-1). I have one for my camera, but I don't use it, mainly because it is cumbersome and has a cable running around that can get caught on something. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

We might attract wider, more expert attention by transferring this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Alas, the Coolpix S3600 has no GPS receiver and cannot load software anyway. An attachment is indeed cumbersome in the field, especially when I'm bicycling and my larger Nikon Coolpix P520 camera itself is a bit much to handle. Having visited a Best Buy yesterday and found no GPS camera at all, I'm thinking more of resorting to a camera with Wi-Fi feature, that can transfer a picture instantly by radio to my Nexus 6P smartphone which, perhaps, could use its superior aGPS to geotag the photo. The question there is, is the software available?

Okay, now the Rafael Guastavino Jr. House and John Mollenhauer House on Awixa Avenue in Bay Shore, New York still aren't on the map... and I still have images for both sites. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why no one had added coordinates. I've done it now. Ntsimp (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Cars and trucks in front of sites

Two months ago, on my excursion to the New York Tri-State area, I was able to hit the East End of Long Island, and one of the sites I captured was the Jamesport Meeting House. Unfortunately a full shot of the old church was obstructed by a westbound Chevrolet Silverado passing along New York State Route 25, although I did get a few signs at or on the building. Should I add any of them instead, or should I just let that one with the truck in front of it in the way be the main pic? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A photo of the building partially obscured by a vehicle is certainly better than nothing. A photo of a sign is not a good substitute for the thing itself. Jonathunder (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, a photo of the building with a truck in the front is better than nothing, or just a photo of a sign. (In general, this is why I try to take multiple pictures of buildings, in case one is affected by passing vehicles, sun glare, the camera being crooked, etc.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

In general, if you can, wait for automobiles to pass. Also, walk around to try to get an angle with few signs, power lines, poles, and trees & bushes in the way. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I snap photos from many angles, since it's so cheap. Sometimes I walk back and repeat a shot because the same truck isn't parked there anymore. Crooked camera is easy with simple retouch freeware. Heck, it's even bundled in Windows 10. Easy retouch is also why I like to shoot too wide, and at home crop away those boring bits that are not useful for context, location finding, etc. Some places, we shall have to start using today's lovely little drone cameras. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, it did just drive in front of me seemingly out of nowhere as I was trying to take the shot. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: Here's what I've got so far:

• 
  The truck that got in my way.
• 
  One big sign in the front yard
• 
  A Riverhead Town Landmark plaque...
• 
  ..a smaller sign on the opposite side of the door...
• 
  .. and some old sign carved into the top of the door, probably from the 18th Century.

I know it wasn't much, but it was all I was able to get at the time. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't here for the bus. I was here for the church.

Surprises happen. This pic was one of eight from the same street corner, same intended subject. So, I used a later one for the original purpose, and this one for an unexpected purpose, and didn't bother uploading the discards. Even the pix I upload, the majority don't go into articles; they're just in case someone might want them. When I shoot fifty, upload ten and use three, that's a pretty good afternoon's photography. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The secret of good photography (well, one of the secrets) is to shoot lots. With an SLR I shoot a couple in bursts to allow choice for shake, birds, bugs or cars, or I do a three-shot exposure bracket. Electrons are pretty much free. Pictures of details are valuable too as we fill in the big here's-what-it-looks-like-from-the-street categories. My peeve is with stationary cars, traffic signs and overhead wires. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

To add to that, first start with a good camera. Then, get out and walk around the site to look for good angles. There are tons of photos here that all the photographer saw was the building (or whatever) and didn't see the road signs, poles, power lines, traffic signals, trash cans, trees, bushes, cars, etc in the way. Find angles to cut out as much of that stuff as you can. And not only do you need to find good angles, you often need to move in or zoom in to exclude that stuff. But if you are too close, it messes up the perspective. And also watch the angle of the Sun - avoid shooting into it unless you know how to expose properly. And also consider the shadows. (Some cameras can cope with them a lot better than others.) Personally, I think buildings (especially brick ones) look good in direct sunlight. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A few more hints in Wikipedia:Photograph your hometown. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit it --- my old car made it into a couple photos. Cheers-----Pubdog (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• 
  US Post Office Tonawanda NY
• 
  Buffalo Trunk Manufacturing Company Building.
• 
  C. W. Miller Livery Stable

The listings...They move!

So a while back, I brought up the question of what to do when ships on the Register relocate from one state to another.

As a background, I was looking at two ships originally listed as NHLs in Michigan; I ended up dealing with a total of five NHLs:

• SS Columbia, originally located in Michigan, moved to Ohio, now in Buffalo, New York (planned move to NYC).
• Ste. Claire (passenger steamboat), originally located in Michigan, moved to Ohio, now back in Michigan.
• USS Edson, originally in New York, now in Michigan.
• USCGC Fir (WLM-212), originally in New York, now in California.
• United States lightship Nantucket (LV-112), originally in New York, now in Massachusetts.

To account for the moves, I added sections to the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York and the List of National Historic Landmarks in Michigan titled "NHLs Formerly Located in Foo." This is a separate section from "Former NHLs in Foo," the difference being one section is for delisted NHL, and the other for relocated NHLs. I also made sure each NHL was also listed in the main section of article in the state it's now located: SS Columbia is in the New York list, USS Edson is in the Michigan list, USCGC Fir (WLM-212) is in the California list, and United States lightship Nantucket (LV-112) in the Massachusetts list. I completely removed the SS Columbia from the Ohio list.

I think that's a reasonable solution: each NHL is listed in the state article where they are actually located, so anyone who's interested can find them. At the same time, they're also mentioned in the state article where they were originally listed (so the bookkeeping is correct) with an appropriate explanation of why they're not on the main list (i.e., "moved to..."), and not comingled with delisted NHLs.

Please take a look at the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York and the List of National Historic Landmarks in Michigan (and the Massachusetts, California, and Ohio lists) and see if this looks reasonable to you-all Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think so. Looks like it makes everything nice and neat. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks really good. Note that the Fir also makes an appearance on the Washington list. Suggest you put that in this new format too. — Ipoellet (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the placement of Nantucket on the Massachusetts list. It is already on the Boston list, where it belongs. (N.B. I note that the edit I reverted did not update the numbers of the listings -- is this a problem in other places?) Magic♪piano 18:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Westchester House

I've had a message on my talkpage regarding this hotel in New York, asking that the article be moved to the title "Sohotel" as that's the name of the structure currently there. On the one hand, I can see the point...on the other, I'm not convinced the new name is notable enough to warrant being the subject of the article. So I decided to do the democratic American thing and make someone else do the deed solicit opinions before coming to a decision. What do y'all think? Is the move warranted? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Indiana ostensibly done

Hi all --- stubs and SHAARD refs (or equivalent) added for all Indiana NRHP. Only articles left to stub are archaeological sites and the few that do not otherwise have SHAARD NRHP forms.

It has truly been a pleasure to have the opportunity to celebrate Indiana over the last 15 months. I have enjoyed learning about the many exceptional places in that great state. I'm also glad I was able to fill so many gaps in the articles during this (tho they be lowly stubs), the 200th anniversary year of Indiana becoming a state! (saw that on a license plate just this last week) Cheers all --- --Pubdog (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! Now we have articles to go with all those photos that Nyttend took. (And if you're looking for a new state to work on, might I suggest Missouri? It has all of its nomination forms in convenient lists on the state DNR's website, but has been languishing near the bottom of the progress table for a while now.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Well done! Maybe Iowa next? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

WLM-US this year

I was somewhat surprised to see that there is a WLM-US this year, though I heard about WLM-Ohio a couple of weeks ago. Please see Commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States for details. I think the organizers will be surprised at the work involved, but we should wish them well and take advantage of everything that they are helping us with.

We've already gotten about 40 pix posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Unused images, most look like they've been handled pretty well today. There are about 600 pix already at Commons:Category:Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States, most likely of sites previously illustrated. We should definitely look through these to see if there are better photos than the ones we currently use.

Probably the most important thing for us is to help and attract new photographers to WP:NRHP. A kind word here and there, would be appreciated by all. And if we can find somebody who will help fill in the missing pix in North Dakota or Alaska, etc., so much the better.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually sitting on a handful of things I haven't uploaded from the past few months; this is going to be as good an excuse as any to get them sorted out, I suspect. Just have to remind myself to getting around to it... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: "I think the organizers will be surprised at the work involved, but we should wish them well and take advantage of everything that they are helping us with." A bit surprised, yes, and thanks for the kind words! I'm one of the organizers for WLM-US this year. As you noticed, we were originally going to host WLM in Ohio this year, but after some organizational interest from around the nation and support from the international team, we decided to go national at the last moment. Lots of work, but overall going smoothly. That all being said - if there's anything from WikiProject NRHP's perspective with which I can help with, don't hesitate to let me know. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I'm planning to send a "thanks for participating!" message to all WLM-US uploaders in the next few days. I can put a line in there pointing them towards WP:NRHP if they're interested in participating, if that would be helpful. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yikes: NPS replaced NRHP nom doc by later NHL nom doc

Recording this here, in case it might help someone sort out any similar case later.

Owner, lost at sea during house's construction

1. User:W Nowicki created Washington Place article on the "Governor's House" in Hawaii, bringing it to this version in 2009. It included use of 1972 NRHP nomination document, then located at http://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/73000666.pdf, with "author=Robert M. Fox and Dorothy Riconda" and "date=September 22, 1972" noted.
2. Sometime later another editor added 23-page NHL nomination document (omitting date and authors though) that is located at http://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NHLS/Text/73000666.pdf (viewable in MSIE but not Chrome).
3. NPS sometime replaced the NRHP document by a different copy of the NHL nomination. By the way, this copy is 50 pages, including 27 additional pages of maps and photos. So then the NRHP reference link was wrong.
4. In these edits, I think i have done all that's possible: delink the NRHP doc reference, add author and date to the NHL doc reference, link to the longer NHL document while noting the other one exists.

If the authors and date weren't noted, it would have been impossible to figure out what happened. Maybe it could be worthwhile to review completeness of NRHP and NHL doc referencing in NHL articles? Anyhow I like the article: W Nowiki did a good job including with the illustrations, IMHO. :) --doncram 01:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention to detail and appreciation! An obvious thing to try would be another archive. I cannot get the "wayback machine" to work right now. But these are all minor issues, in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

RM notification 15 May 2024

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Jaeckel Hotel#Requested move 22 August 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

vocabulary for describing deteriorating stone

ftp://ftp.thc.state.tx.us/cemeteries/Monuments_and_Sites_15_ISCS_Glossary_Stone.pdf holds ICOMOS-ISCS's "Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns". The Texas Historical Commission provides it as a resource in a directory for writing about cemeteries. Referring to it would give me some confidence to describe in words the condition of stone surfaces, say in a caption to a closeup photo of a stone wall, a foundation, or a gravestone. Seems like Wikipedia editors' reporting on current conditions shown in photos would be allowable and helpful. For example, to describe "sugaring" of marble as at the Empire State Plaza's Agency buildings, described on page 21.--doncram 04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to disagree. This suggestion—that we cite an original or found photograph to support an original statement re. the condition of the stone—seems like a fairly clear case of OR. Specifically, it's contraindicated at WP:OI: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments..." [italics in original].

I've pushed the limits of this policy a number of times, generally on one of the many occasions when I've found erroneous location information in NRIS data. However, I think that this is justifiable in that it's documenting errors in published sources, which might otherwise being taken as reliable, and thus preventing those errors from being incorporated into and promulgated by WP articles. This differs significantly from using an original photo to support an editor's own statement. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You're completely right, of course. How about put it this way: this glossary would give me confidence to interpret an NRHP document or other source that commented on the condition of deteriorating stone, so I could focus some detail pics on what is described and properly caption them. It also potentially could help me write primary source material such as a new NRHP nomination, or to write a newspaper article or a blog about an existing NRHP site...which potentially could be cited, depending.

I appreciate you recognize some gray areas, too. --doncram 03:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism check

The article for Green Pastures (Austin, Texas) has the text of the Texas Historic Commission plaque cut and paste into the article. Double checking that this is plagiarism before removing. 25or6to4 (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless there's evidence that the text is public domain or freely licensed, copying the text of historical markers is typically considered plaigarism. In this case, I don't see any evidence that it is in the public domain, and the Texas Historical Commission's copyright page for their website indicates that their works are copyrighted in general, so I'd expect the same policy would extend to their other works. (Depending on the age of the historical marker and whether there was an original copyright notice, it could fall into the public domain for age-related reasons, but the burden of proof for that is on whoever added the text/wants to keep it in.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

More infobox merge requests

Is there any way we can merge the infoboxes for the New York State Capitol? The usual embedding parameters aren't working for some reason. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You may want to look at Pennsylvania State Capitol as a model. It uses {{Infobox designation list}}, instead of Infobox NRHP if that's not a problem. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Old gas station on US 17 in South Carolina

Back in September 2015 when I drove up north and took that detour along US 17 so I could gather pictures of Charleston, South Carolina (Amtrak station), I spotted an old gas station in Beaufort County, South Carolina just north of the end of the overlap with US 21 which is now used by the "Carolina Cherry Company." I know that station's not NRHP listed, but is there any local historical significance to the place, or is it just an old gas station refurbished for another business? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

to use or ....... not to use?

An image I came across today. Agathoclea (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request

FYI, I have requested release from an NRHP-related editing restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Doncram. Any editor is free to comment there. The request would allow me to move my own draft NRHP articles to mainspace without going through the Articles-For-Creation process, and it should essentially end the arbitration case.

A list of new NRHP place articles I have created since May 2016 is linked there, and, FYI, a more complete record of my creations is here. I considered seeking comments in some kind of process here or at my talk page, in advance of making the amendment request, but that might have seemed an imposition. However I am happy to discuss the request and anything related to it at my Talk page, or here, or in the formal amendment request itself. --doncram 14:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)