Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

New system for tables

User:Multichill has proposed above a new system for setting up our (county) tables. It sounds good (so far), but I'm concerned that not everybody understands the change and what it might mean. Also, I'm not sure that Multichill has a complete understanding of what we want from our tables, and some of the quirks that we might have.

I ask everybody concerned with our tables (that's everybody here isn't it?) to join in and help describe what we want and need from our tables. But first I'll just copy some of the advantages he has stated above. Smallbones (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The advantages of the system:

• Make detailed progress statistics (example)
• Automatically suggest images to be added to the lists. See for example nl:Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Erfgoed/Belgische Erfgoed Inventarisatie/Vlaanderen/Ongebruikte foto's
• Plot items on the map: All monuments, just monuments in a certain region, monuments lacking an image (great for photo expeditions). (example 1 and example 2)
• Automatically categorize images at Commons (example).
• Automatically add coordinates to images at Commons (example).
• It's easier for the user to update an entry or find incorrect entries. (from above)

What we need, quirks, and questions

• We have a system of tables that breaks down the 85,000 or so US NRHP sites into:
  • State lists
  • County lists
  • And sometimes sub-county lists if the county lists are too large.
• The lists are updated every month with additions and a few deletions.
• There are overlapping lists, e.g.
  • The NHL lists (by state) have sites that are all (except for 4 in DC) on NRHP county lists (but sometimes with different names) and the NHL format is different from the NRHP table format.
  • Each (?) state has an overlapping list of NRHP bridges and canals.
  • Some historic districts (HDs) and Multiple Property Submissions (MPSs) have separate lists. The HD lists are not on the County lists, but the MPSs are.
  • Some particular topics (e.g. Masonic buildings, Odd-Fellows, Elks, etc.) have lists that include some NRHP sites, HD sites, and other sites identified as historic.
• There are questions about the maximum table size caused by long loading times. It used to be that over 100 sites in a county caused concerns, but now it might be 200 sites (as technology improves)
• Question on whether we need the first column with the site number (but useful when dividing lists)
• A big need (or an intense curiosity) on our progress. How many photos to go in the US, in Montana, in XXX county? How many red-links? How long would it take to get such info. If I want to go tomorrow (nice weather) to YYY county, can I get these lists myself, or do I have to wait a week?
• Some photos on address-restricted sites, we don't want and put a special graphic on, but other address-restricted site pix we do want, and others we just leave blank. How would that affect the above question?

I'm sure there are other questions and quirks. It wouldn't be fair to Multichill to expect him to know all of these unless we tell him, so please add on! Smallbones (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Great job of summarizing where we are Smallbones and thanks for taking on that task. Just a couple of things to add/clarify:

• In general, the state/county/city lists are updated weekly, not monthly
• The row numbers are also useful for quickly knowing how many listings there are in a table, which helps with the tables that tally the number of listings in a state by county and in the US by state. --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following the examples; but the things that concern me are the automatic processes: automatically categorizing Commons images, and automatically adding coordinates to them.

Most of us are well aware that there are bad coordinates in the database. Even if the errors were corrected, there'd be situations where we'd want to put in our own coordinates rather than the database's. To come up with just two examples, we might be uploading photos of individual structures within a geographically large site (an HD, a major battlefield, or the like); or we might be uploading a photo of a historical marker describing the site but not at it.

I've had plenty of situations, as well, where I did not want to use the official NRHP name as the name of a category. The official name might have been ambiguous, for example; or the site might have been better known under a different name.

I'm afraid that these automatic processes could become a rich source of irritation and error. I'd prefer that they not be introduced; or, if they must be, that they be designed so that an editor can quickly and easily shut them down. Ammodramus (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Automatic processes are meant to assist us, not annoy us. It can be enabled but it doesn't have to.

Automatic addition of coordinates will only happen if an image is not already geotagged. It always contains the source of the coordinates so you are able to hunt down errors.

Automatic categorization at the moment is only used to do the first pass. Take for example the Netherlands. Images start in Commons:Category:Rijksmonumenten. The bot only works on this category and will move images to subcategories example. If you don't put images in the root category, this bot won't work on them. multichill (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Maps! Ooh, bots and other automatic processes making more maps! Maps of kinds of places. Maps of photographed places. Local maps of photos wanted! Ooh, I want maps, especially on my smartphone when wandering in unfamiliar neighborhoods seeking unphotographed treasures. Yes, the coordinates in Wikpedia are objective, while most coordinates in Commons are POV, all for good reasons, but most photos have no coordinates. Presumably the automated coords would be placed low in the Commons, photo page so other bots would give priority to other coords in case of conflict. And of course they must say they are of objects and not where the camera sat.

Yes, automatons often apply categories stupidly in Commons but usually those are more easily found and corrected than pictures escaping notice due to undercategorization. So yes, I hope a way can be found to go forward with this project, not so hastily as to spread great confusion (for example by unwise categorization within templates) but without unreasonable delay. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks User:Smallbones for compiling this list. For bullet 3 under overlapping lists, my experience has been that The MPSs lists are not on the County lists, but the HDs are. I'd love to see an intermediate MPSs listing.--Pubdog (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The individual sites of the MPSs are listed in the county lists, as are single listings for each HD. Nytend and Ebyabe and probably some others have put in articles/lists of MPSs that are linked from the individual MPS sites in the county lists. I think the purpose of this is to avoid having individual articles on sites where the NRHP nomination only has one or two paragraphs on each of the MPS sites. In a few cases there might be an individual article linked to the MPS article, so I guess you could say it's an intermediate list. HDs are another matter. Other than the regular sites that are also in the HD, there is only one entry on the county lists for an HD. HD articles, which sometimes develop into lists are pretty common. BTW, a few weeks ago, I ran into a HD that is part of another HD (not a simple boundary extension) in National Register of Historic Places listings in Montour County, Pennsylvania. I sometimes think the NRHP makes these things up just to confuse us. Smallbones (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The older "Danville West Market Street Historic District" covers the western half of downtown, and the newer "Danville Historic District" covers all of downtown, so I guess a simple boundary extension to "West" would have really confused everybody! If you can deal with the PHMC website (I have multiple delays because I use a Mac and it requires the use of an unsupported Mac version of internet explorer) you should be able to verify this from the nominations, but the way I read it, the courthouse- the major building in the center of downtown - is not included in either district. Hope this clears up everything. Smallbones (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I too have seen instances where some HDs are "swallowed up" by later, bigger HDs. Very curious.--Pubdog (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Weird; I don't remember encountering that before. Perhaps it's something in the Eastern Seaboard states? The closest comparison that I can remember visiting is in East Liverpool, Ohio, where exactly one bank building is in both the East Fifth Street Historic District and the East Liverpool Downtown Historic District. Smallbones, I'm confused what you think I've done; as far as I can remember, I've never added MPS-related bits to the "comments" column — am I remembering wrongly, or are you talking about something else? Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I got the details wrong, but I was thinking about Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches and the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 50#MPS and TR categories. I do like the idea of separate lists/articles for some MPSs, and at some time in the future will probably try it out for School buildings in Philadelphia and Fire stations in Washington, DC. Intermediate may not be the best term. Smallbones (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Progress

I went ahead and converted part of the lists. On the first pass the bot converted the list in a template based format and tried to extract the reference number from the linked article. For the second pass I downloaded the full NRHP database and converted it to Mysql (the source is MS access). I imported this database at the toolserver (p_erfgoed_nrhp_p for anyone who has an account). In the second pass the bot tried to find reference numbers. For each item I use the state, county and date to find one or more items. If either the address or the name match exactly the number is added. This worked quite well. Some numbers:

• Number of items in the NRHP database: 85847
• Number of NRHP items in the big monuments database: 40874 (that's {{NRHP row}} with the refnum set)
• Number of items in both the NRHP and the big monuments database: 40789 (a join)
• Number of items in the NRHP database, but not in the big monuments database: 45058 (a intersection)

The gap between 40874 and 40789 can be explained by the fact that the NRHP database seems to be a bit outdated (all items which are in the big monuments database, but not in the NRHP one are recent). Some nice things:

• Detailed per county statistics at the Toolserver
• Images that can fill empty spots in lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Unused images
• A proof of concept map with all the monuments in the database (scroll to the US and zoom) at http://toolserver.org/~multichill/temp/map/
• A better map in an augmented reality browser (here). If your phone supports it you can also use this on your phone.

All updated on a daily basis (each night UTC). multichill (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding that an awful lot of the table entries generated by the bot are missing refnums. Isn't a lot of the functionality described above dependent on refnums? If so, there's an awful lot work to do to get all of the refnums in the tables. --sanfranman59 (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently I have two ways of adding refnums:

1. Linked article contains the reference number
2. Match it with the nrhp database, this only works with exact matches and the county needs to be set

At the moment I managed to match about 44.000 items, that's already more than 50% and I have plenty of pages left to work on. I guess this number will rise more and more once I convert more list and add counties to already converted lists. After that I can problably produce lists per county of items in the nrhp database but not in our lists making it easy to find the missing refnums. multichill (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: Don't spend too much time on hunting down refnums yet: The bots will probably take care of a lot of them. multichill (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the prompt reply. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I can use some help, see #Update 11th of December. multichill (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

formerly listed subtables

I noticed errors implemented by the Botmultichill bot in changing the presentation of "Formerly listed" sites. In this edit for Downtown Davenport and this edit for North Dakota, there were incorrect changes of the displayed text from "Delisted Date" to "Listed Date", for the section of Formerly listed properties. That's an error, to completely change the meaning to the opposite of what is factual. Multichill, notified, has commented that there is code in the bot to seek to avoid such errors. Multichill, could you please comment on how your bot seeks to address these cases (searching on what string, etc.)? Perhaps the "Formerly listed" sections are coded with different titles or otherwise are not uniform enough, across pages, for your coding stratgegy to work. Can you provide one or more examples where your bot did transform them into something correct? In particular, do you have a different row-template that you seek to put in for these rows?

Perhaps a manual editing campaign is needed to search the set of NRHP list-articles for instances of "Formerly listed" or similar phrases, or use of "NRHP-delisted color" template. "What links here" applied to the use of "NRHP-delisted_color" template yields 50 or more NRHP list articles that probably all have Formerly Listed sections, by the way. Would we need to visit all those manually?

I do in general admire Multichill's effort to transform NRHP list-tables into versions that are more easily translated into other language wikipedias. Has anyone else noticed this problem for formerly listed subtables, though? --doncram 19:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed my bot incorrectly editing formerly listed sites headers too. This shouldn't be too hard to clean up: I'll just look for == Former .... == {{NRHP header)things too change, but how do you guys would like to have this header? I see different approaches. I would propose to just have {{NRHP header}} with "delisted date" and the {{NRHP-delisted color}}. What do you think? multichill (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if they will all have "former" in the section title. Summit County, Ohio is another one messed up by the bot (and not fixed by me) which i find by checking a few in the "What links here" link above.

I personally think the date column should just say "Dates" as it does within National Register of Historic Places listings in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and allow editors to put in parenthetical "(listed)" and "(delisted)" after the one or two dates that can be given in a cell. That's the way i have set up many. Some have explained out the listed date over in the comments column; i happen to think it's compact and best to put all the relevant dates in a "Dates" column. There is no official WikiProject style guideline for this, I believe. Can anyone else comment on this style point? --doncram 23:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I like having both the listing date and the removal date in the table. Like doncram, I've been putting both in the same column. I think I usually make the column heading "Date Listed/Removed", but "Dates" is fine with me as well. It actually might be best to have two date columns so one could sort on either, but that means more work when transferring entries from a "Current listings" table to a "Former listings" table. I'm not a fan of using the term "delisted". The NPS uses "removed" as the verb for these actions. --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Created {{NRHP former header}} and my bot is now replacing obvious mistakes. You might want to tweak the template to meet your wishes. multichill (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

article tables lacking a city column

The bot made an edit to National Register of Historic Places listings in Lowell, Massachusetts, attempting to change a single row in the table to use {{NRHP row}}. A number of things were broken in the edit (multichill, please look at how it botched the citation). Note that this article's table does not have a "city" or "neighborhood" column (a feature other sublist articles I know of share), so the whole table would have to be converted to avoid breaking formatting. Magic♪piano 14:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The missing column makes the bot act up. Should be hunted down by now at User:Multichill/NRHP to skip#Cities. multichill (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot not converting NHS and other less common NRHP types?

I've come across a couple tables now where the bot didn't convert NHS listings to the new NRHP row template format. Is that intentional Multichill? The process that I use for renumbering rows in long tables requires each listing to have the same number of row elements. If a row or two in the table are formatted the old way while all of the other rows are formatted the new way, my system doesn't work very well. Is there some reason that we shouldn't be using the new row template for type=NRHP and type=HD? --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This is intentional for the first pass. Want to be a bit conservative. I now match on NRHP, HD, NHL & NHLD. I'll convert the NHS' in the second pass (this week?). multichill (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I did another pass. Seems to have caught most of them. multichill (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

when neighborhood column not wanted

(moved from separate discussion item "Table help")

Can someone remove the number column I don't see a point and the "neighborhood" column, they are all Davenport now on here CTJF83 22:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The number column is standard; it's a foolproof way of sorting (better than the alphabetical sort of the name column, since with numbers we can sort by last name) and a good measure of how many sites we have. Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Re the number column, I completely concur with Nyttend on this. We've discussed the value of having that column on several occasions in the past and have always decided to keep it as standard. No one knows better than I do what a pain it can be to update the row numbering when inserting a single row in the middle of a long table, but the benefits outweigh the inconvenience. I've got a method for relatively quickly renumbering long NRHP lists that involves copying the table into Excel, manipulating the data there and then pasting it back into the Wikipedia editor. I can renumber just about any length list in about 30 seconds or so. If you'd like me to renumber a list for you, feel free to post a request on my talk page.

The Neighborhood column can be useful in some cities. I see that there's an article about neighborhoods in Davenport. Is this not a useful way to identify the locations of NRHP sites in the city? If not, feel free to remove that column. --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Neighborhood/City column cannot be removed in lists that use {{NRHP row}} unless that template is modified. (Is this the right place to request that be made possible, similar to the showcounty option?) Magic♪piano 13:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We should. The column is useful in most city lists, but since the list in question is just downtown Davenport, they're all a single neighborhood. I removed every line from every NRHP_row template, but in preview the line still appeared; we need to request modification. Nyttend (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the information that the NRHPs in the Davenport list are located in Davenport? And why introcuding two different standards. (What would make later list rearrangements more complicated.) --Matthiasb (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In this case, they're all in the same neighborhood of Davenport. This isn't introducing a different standard; for years we've removed this column from the old table in cases where it's not needed. See National Register of Historic Places listings in Sandusky, Ohio for an example: Sandusky is a small enough city that a neighborhood column isn't amazingly useful for it, so we simply got rid of the column. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is/was also true in some of the sublists for Middesex County, Massachusetts, where the towns are small enough that the column isn't really useful; see e.g. National Register of Historic Places listings in Concord, Massachusetts. Magic♪piano 13:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(comment composed for Talk:Multichill, applied here instead:)

Hey, this is a serious problem which applies for a number of NRHP list-articles besides this Downtown Davenport example, namely any NRHP list-article that is focused on just one neighborhood, where it doesn't make sense to repeat the neighborhood in every row. The Downtown Davenport list-article, like others, was probably split out of a bigger table for all of the city, where it did make sense to have neighborhood appearing. The {{NRHP header}} and {{NRHP row}} might both need to be adjusted, to allow a user to suppress display of the neighborhood entry (which actually appears to be the field labelled "city=" in the NRHP row).

I think it would be preferable to allow an editor like Ctjf83 to choose to suppress neighborhood column display, rather than requiring one to blank out the city= field in every row entry. For one reason, suppose if two separate one-neighborhood lists are combined back into one two-neighborhood article, where you do want to show neighborhood again. But, currently, even blanking out that field won't help: that would just make a blank column display, i think.

Multichill, can a parameter be added to the NRHP header template, which would allow suppression? I am not sure if this would be easy, because the following NRHP rows have to understand the header is set differently. --doncram 17:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That's impossible AFAIK. multichill (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we set a hidden css class for the column? It would still be there for the bot, but not displayed. --Aude (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be an option, somehow, in the template to set it as hidden column --Aude (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

How would we do that Aude? multichill (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We could add display:none css styles to both the header and row templates, which is a hackish way. A more proper solution might be a site-wide hidden column functionality, and have come up with two solutions (css only, jQuery): Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#Hidden table columns. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Implemented the hiding, see #Improved templates. multichill (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot stripping out cites for dates listed, and sometimes dates themselves

On National Register of Historic Places listings in Orleans County, New York, there were two issues related to the listing date field (I had, last fall, been working on developing this for a possible FLC, so I'm, uh, a little interested in seeing this resolved).

• It stripped out the citations I had for those dates, and couldn't handle the remaining dates, leaving just "None".[1]
• I hand-restored the dates using the ISO 8601 format. However, when I restored the cites, the cells ballooned to easily the largest in the table, way larger than necessary. Is this a bot problem or a template problem? I can't tell.

Since I feel that any of these lists we put up for FLC, should someone decide to do so, will need to have the dates of listing cited (and it's easy to do so), this should be resolved.

Also in that vein, I had added alt text to the images that has also been stripped out. I think I can add a field to {{NRHP row}} that would allow them to be restored, but if someone else who's better at template fixes than I am can do so, all the better. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That stripping wasn't supposed to happen. I improved the template to handle these cases, see #Improved templates. multichill (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Counties

Hi everyone, I could use some (bot assisted) help with Category:NRHP list missing county. Every listing contains the county. This is used to find the right refnum and for the statistics. I already added a lot of counties myself. This is the strategy:

1. Pick a page - National Register of Historic Places listings in Middletown, Connecticut
2. Find the county - Middlesex County, Connecticut (please keep it in the [[<county>, <state>]] format)
3. Do a bot replace - replace.py -lang:en -regex "\|county=\s*\r\n" "|county=[[Middlesex County, Connecticut]]\n" -namespace:0 -page:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Middletown,_Connecticut
4. Review the edit and press ok - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Middletown,_Connecticut&diff=prev&oldid=465290971

multichill (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What you did in that Middletown, CT list looks fine. Are you suggesting I or someone else could run that script somehow? Is it even possible for me? Please explain more. I and others have used AWB; is AWB an option for this? --doncram 20:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I finished most easy ones in Category:NRHP list missing county. Now we're left with:

• Alaska: Census area/boroughs/changes ahum, needs to be done manually. This list can be used for reference.
• Parks: Most parks are in multiple counties so that needs to be figured out manually too.

If it's manual it's probably best to add the reference number right away (to prevent double work). multichill (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Boundary increase/decrease

Boundaries of historic districts change every once in a while. How to handle these?

1. Include all listings (original and updates)
2. Make the first listing leading and include updates in the description
3. Make the last listing leading and include previous listings in the description

Opinions please. multichill (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad you're noticing that there is an issue. I have wondered what on earth the bot is doing, when adding NRHP registration numbers, because the correspondence between NRHP-listed places and numbers is not 1:1.

I don't know what you mean by "include all the listings". If you mean insert new rows for each boundary increase or decrease, then, no, that is not what we have done, and I am pretty sure in general our consensus is that we don't want that. We have one row for each NRHP-listed place. It can have multiple dates associated with it, and the location info and the descriptions may have been edited to describe the complexities. Also, I and some others have, in many list-articles, gone to some trouble to present clearly the multiple listing dates, and descriptions, for the boundary increases and decreases. You need to be aware that there are some boundary decreases, in fact, maybe that has not come up.

Has the bot been replacing dates and location information by what is in the NRIS database? I sincerely hope not. Multichill, could you please clarify what, besides registration numbers, the bot has been adding from the NRIS database? --doncram 22:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing. multichill (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good, thanks. There really are a lot of cumulative fixes, relative to NRIS info, that we have accomplished. --doncram 20:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

About the boundary increases, decreases, is it best to list the multiple reference numbers in the reference number field? Also, note some boundary increases giving a new reference number in NRIS are also giving a new, expanded name for a given district. Hopefully our development of articles reflects, or will reflect, the multiple names and multiple reference numbers in their infoboxes. I was making it a point to start stub articles for places having such complexities, but not all cases have been sorted out (by constructing a stub article that clarifies, giving multiple reference numbers).

Could a bot go through the existing NRHP articles to identify where there are multiple reference numbers in the infobox, and use that to guide semi-automated updating of the reference number field in the list-articles? --doncram 20:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The few instances I've seen of this in the list articles has been option 2, where the date of the original listing is cited in the date column of the table, and any increases are cited in the description. That also to me seems to be the preferred option. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall a discussion of standardizing how we enter this information. Perhaps now's the time? I've changed my practices in this regard over time. My current practice is to note boundary increases/decreases in the Location column as such:

123 Main St.
Boundary increase (listed December 12, 2011): 125 Main St.

I used to enter this information in the Description column, but it seems to me that the Location column is the most appropriate place. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I expanded the templates a bit to be a bit more flexible (see #Improved templates). What I would propose:

• We use the original listing for the "refnum" field
• We use the original date for the "date" field.

Additional dates and increases can be put in the "date_extra" field and/or the "address" field (whatever you feel like). multichill (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oregon

Oregon is definitely the state causing me the most problems. Everything is different in Oregon (compared to the other states). I keep a list at User:Multichill/NRHP to skip#Oregon. If somebody could help with these that would be nice. Some of the problems:

• Name column contains extra information
• Date is in non standard formating

multichill (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oregon is in fact different than any other state, because there is a strong WikiProject Oregon that has done things its own way, in many respects. That is basically fine for them to have done. Some evidence of different-ness is reflected in long Talk page and/or archives of Talk page at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon. The editors' concerns there included that the NRIS database had inaccuracies which they could identify by comparison to the Oregon state system (which also turned out to have errors). All known discrepancies were resolved in a longish process.

But, it needs to be pointed out that there are known errors in the NRIS database, including about NRHP registration numbers. The known errors are mostly detailed out in a series of state-specific pages linked from wp:NRIS info issues. Many Oregon specific issues are detailed in particular at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues/Oregon. Note there are many NRIS errors where NRIS erroneouosly includes or excludes an item from a given Oregon county. We do not want a bot re-implementing NRIS errors that we have known about and fixed in wikipedia already. --doncram 22:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think the bot would add errors, it wouldn't dare to do that! ;-)

Anyway, I expanded the templates a bit (see #Improved templates) and now I have suitable places to store the references. multichill (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Update 11th of December

I converted some more lists. We now have almost 70.000 items with a reference number. Some statistics:

• Total NRHP listings in the main NRHP database: 85847
• Total NRHP listings in our database: 67191
• Total NRHP listings in both main and our database: 66890
• Total NRHP listings in the main NRHP database, but not in our database: 18957 .

I made a list of items not yet in our lists. This can be used to shorten Category:NRHP list missing refnum. We could probably use some tooling for that. Doing this manually is an awful lot of work. multichill (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what these databases are supposed to indicate (because I haven't been following your process as closely as I should; sorry), but I'm familiar with a lot of the Michigan entries on your list of items. Many (most, or possible all) of these are entries having articles whose names do not precisely match the NRHP name, for various reasons. Some of these reasons are fairly standard: appending a disambiguating city name in parentheses, for example, or substituting an em-dash for the NRHP's double-en-dash. Would listing these "standard" name changes be helpful? Andrew Jameson (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In general i want to support this initiative, and am willing to do some tedious manual editing to help out, as probably are others here. We've done many big technical cleanup campaigns before, could pitch in to get all the reference numbers added, splitting remainder to do by state, say. --doncram 20:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm reaching the limits of automation here so some help would be very nice.

Category:NRHP list missing refnum now contains 1592 items. Combined with this list you can work per state. At Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Reference numbers I added a short explanation on how to find the reference numbers. multichill (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I did Florida last night, then read this. :) This has a side benefit, as I've found some Florida articles that don't have NRHP infoboxes. Also, while updating I noticed refnums from certain weeks were missing. Not new ones, but from 1996. Perhaps they're not getting picked up? Anyway, keep up the good work, y'all! :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 19:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed it's not converting National Monuments to the new format. Is the bot only converting basic NRHP sites and HDs? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 19:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, found the problem, I updated the wrong regular expression. Now changed the right one and now fired up the bot to work on the already converted pages. multichill (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There are currently 0 pages needing one or more refnums, in Category:NRHP list missing refnum (that number will update occasionally, is to be compared vs. 1,532 total as of 12/18. I knocked off a couple, will keep at it. It seems new listings are the issue, mostly. I find that google searching per one of Multichill's suggestions, e.g. "site:nps.gov Cassidy House" works best to find the relevant NRHP new listings page. --doncram 22:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I found that the refnum was missing for sites duplicated across different counties, at least in Texas. Helped me find a duplicate I missed! Texas has been updated. 25or6to4 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Improved templates

Based on the input I got I improved the header and the row templates. For the header I added the "nocity" field to hide the city column. For the row template I did several changes:

• I added the "name_extra" field to add text after the name column. This can be anything, for example a reference
• I added the "alt" field to add an alt text to the image
• I added the "date_extra" field to add text after the date column. This can be anything, for example a reference
• I added the "address_extra" field to add text after the date column. This can be anything, for example a reference
• I added the "nocity" field to hide the city column

For an example without the city and some extra fields set, see User:Multichill/sandbox. What do you think? Do you like it? Did I miss something? multichill (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems ok to me, but I don't understand why the "name_extra" and "address_extra" fields are necessary. Can't I just enter a reference or additional text to the end of the name or address field? I've been doing that with the address field for boundary increases that have been listed the last few weeks and it seems to work fine (e.g. University of Montana HD boundary increase listed 12/1/2011. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That won't work for the name field. It's a nice field to put references in too. It just adds some flexibility without loosing functionality. multichill (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the extra adddress field. This way it was redundant. multichill (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

template to do the numbering

Thanks for improving the templates, but further improvement is needed. In particular, it doesn't make sense to go on with tables that require tedious manual re-numbering of the listed items. It doesn't make sense to propagate that system on to Wikipedias of other languages; it doesn't make sense to keep doing it here. When, I am pretty sure (because there are smart programmers around), it would be feasible for the header and row templates to take care of it. In particular, I saw a "nocity" solution by User:Aude before which nested his/her version of the row templates within the header template. That worked to allow for the suppression of the city/neighborhood column without requiring "nocity=1" to be added to every single row of a table. I think it would also work to allow for a program to count the rows. This would be a big gain for us in the English wikipedia NRHP project, an unexpected payoff from the templatizing initiative. --doncram 16:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thought of another feature that would be really great. Could the county and state totals be set to automatically update with new listings? That is, have a function count the number of listings in each county, and propagate the info upward. A hinky bit, though, would be listings in more than one county or state. Still, if such programming could be added eventually, it would be one less manual task to worry about. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 18:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess both could be solved with bots.

So say you add something to a list you add it add it as pos=new. Bot comes along a renumbers the list. Not sure how difficult it is to update the totals. I try to work project based so for regular maintenance you might want to look around. multichill (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico has complexities, more so than Oregon, because Puerto Rico does not have counties. Editor Mercy11 was raising some issues. I'm trying some edits at National Register of Historic Places listings in western Puerto Rico. Please discuss Puerto Rico complications here. --doncram 21:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

At Multichill's talk, Mercy11 posed that "I also notice that the new format is not Puerto Rico-friendly: in Puerto Rico there are no "counties" instead there are municipalities, and towns/cities always go by the name of their corresponding municipalities (that is, although they are geographically different, they are both always named the same, with the city/town always being a subset (geographically speaking) of its corresponding municipality). It appears the new table is unflexible and does not acccomodate this requirement. Another Puerto Rico-unfriendly feature I bumped into has to do with the Town/City column header, which appears unflexible as well: in Puerto Rico Municipalities break down into "Barrios", just as in the States counties break down into city/towns, but the table cannot be made to read "Barrio" as a column header." To reply to part of that, "Barrio" can be made to appear, as demonstrated by my changing "City or Town" to something else in an edit at the western Puerto Rico list-article already.

However, although I contributed to much of the original table-izing of Puerto Rico, I am not clear on distinction between municipalities and the city/towns. I think the "county=" field should just be filled with the relevant Municipality name. But should that link to an article about the municipality or an article about the similar city, if different? --doncram 21:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's correct: in Puerto Rico every municipality uniquely maps into a city/town and every city town uniquely maps into a municipality of the same name. Also, a municipality is headed by a mayor and a legislative assembly and so is its corresponding city/town. You might then ask, what then is the difference between a municipality and a city/town? The difference is that a municipality is made up of several barrios, some of those barrios are rural and some are urban. Since there is only 1 urban area within a municipality (with 1 or 2 rare exceptions which can be ignored for NRHP purposes) that urban area is what is named the city/town of the municipality, and goes by the same name as the municipality where it is located. Think of it this way: In Puerto Rico counties may have 1 and only 1 incorporated town. And while there may be other (smaller) urban areas in the rural areas of a Puerto Rican "county", if any one of those smaller urban areas wished to become incorporated with its own mayor and legislative assembly, it would have to become another county first. Hope this clears things up a bit.

From this, it follows that for every "county" (municipality) the NRHP features will all have the same city/town under the city/town column header. As a result it is silly to have a "city/town" header when it will be the same throughout the "county" table (see HERE for an example, and note that for the Ponce "county" the city/town is always the same, namely, Ponce) Due to this idiosyncracy it appears that for the case of Puerto Rico, the logical thing to do is to change the city/town column header to read "Barrio".

"I think the "county=" field should just be filled with the relevant Municipality name." >>>Correct.

"But should that link to an article about the municipality or an article about the similar city, if different?" >>>> It should link to the article about the municipality, which is the article about the city, which is the article about the town (that is, the same name is used for both the municipality and the city/town). (See THIS article's first line which states "Ponce is both a city and a municipality in the southern part of Puerto Rico", and this is teh case for every other municipality and city/town in Puerto Rico.

The question you missed asking was, what should go into the "city/town=" field? I propose that for Puerto Rico this field read "city/town (or barrio)=" and that it be populated iwth the barrio (ward) name where the feature is located. The reason is that if we don't add the barrio name then we would end up with redundant information for all the Puerto Rico NRHP features. (See: Barrios of Puerto Rico)

With that said, I would also prefer that the ref number were displayable on the table. I can see at least 2 advantages to doing this: (1) The refnumber is the key to the whole table, that is, it is the one single field which, acting only by itslef, uniquely identifies any NRHP feature, if a field is that powerful, it sould have a spot on the table, and (2) it could be used to cross-check if an error in the ref number has been made by sorting the refnumber column.

Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mercy11, thanks for responding here.

The NRHP works with "STATE", "COUNTY", "CITY" & "ADDRESS" (example) to identify locations. For all "non-standard" parts of the USA (Virgin Islands, Guam, Alaska, etc) the county is a actually a mapping to something else. The mapping for Puerto Rico seems to be that the county is filled with the municipality and the city with the bario. Probably best to stick to this list for the "county" and "city" fields. multichill (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? why is it best to stick to that listing, when in practice it will only lead to a mess and confusion?

As I believe said earlier, for Puerto Rico town and municipalities are nominally one and the same, which means that Camuy, Hatillo, Isabela, Maricao, and Quebradillas (to name the errors in only the first of 12 pages in your listing) are NOT cities nor towns in the county of Aguadilla.

In any event, I am not sure you know precisely what you state: You say: "for Puerto Rico the county is filled with the municipality AND THE CITY WITH THE BARRIO". But this is precisely the problem, namely, that the CITY field is not being populated with the barrio (and even if it was, someone with need to program the new table format just developed by yoiu guys so that the *HEADER* will in fact read "Barrio" and not "City/Town".) Thanks,

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Refnum meaning

I just realized how the refnums are constructed. Yeah, I know, I'm a genius. :) The first two digits are the year of listing. Example: 88001822 was listed 1988-09-08. I guess the last digits are the order of listing in that year. Though if it's listed in January, sometimes the first two digits are the year previous. Thought this info would be good to have on record for the refnum project, doncha know. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 17:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the first two digits and the sequence number is for the year it was accepted as a nomination by the NPS rather than the year of the listing. That's why the first two digits is often the previous year for listings announce early in the year. Sometimes there can be a long lag between the acceptance of the nomination and the listing. I've encountered new listings that have refnums that are several years old. --sanfranman59 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they open a new can of numbers each year. Some things don't get listed, that would explain the gaps. multichill (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. I've now run into a few that were NRHP-listed in May, and the refnums start with the last two digits of the year previous. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 22:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The reference number is used by the NPS to track nominations. (Of course the refnum is useful to our project.) The number is assigned once the nomination is received by the NPS. The first 2 numbers are the year it was received, followed by a one up numbering system. Because of the time delay between when a nomination is received and when it is listed, many of the listings in January and February of a given year were in fact received late the previous year. There are gaps in the refnums because not all nominations are subsequently listed. Many nominations are sent back to the originator for further information and never returned to the NPS. Some nominations only ask for a 'determination of eligibility' (usually as part of the Section 106 process) and are not intended to be listed. Other nominations are turned down because of an owner objection. The original ref number is retained, so that when a nomination is fixed to the NPS's satisfaction, or when owner rescinds his or her objection, it can proceed to listing even after a number of years. Some examples that come to mind are the Campo de Cahuenga and Snoqualmie Falls where the ref numbers are several years prior to the date of listing. Einbierbitte (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing refnums progress

In a week we had quite some progress:

Total listings from 75.000 to 83.000 listings

From 8000 to 2500 listings without refnum

From 1500 to 800 pages with missing refnums

That's partly because I improved a bot, but mostly due to the combined hard work of several users. Thank you for that! If we keep this up we should be done in January. multichill (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge Old Orlando Railroad Depot into Church Street Station (Orlando)

Last month I called for the merger of Old Orlando Railroad Depot into Church Street Station (Orlando). Both article are for the same building, although the Church Street Station article focuses a lot on post railroad station development. So far I've received no reply. I also posted this message in the Trains project. ----DanTD (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have been taken care of in the last few days. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Because I took care of it myself. Sorry Ebyabe, but it had to be done. ----DanTD (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Main NRHP template

It seems like we may have discussed this before, but I can't find the discussion if there has been one. When a county or state level NRHP template is used at the bottom of an article, should the main NRHP one be removed? I've always added the most specific one first (county NRHP template (such as Template:NRHP in Clarke County, Alabama) on individual property articles, the state NRHP template (Template:National Register of Historic Places in Alabama on county listing pages, and have always added the main NRHP template (Template:National Register of Historic Places) below the county/state one. An editor just began removing the main template when a state or county NRHP template is present (Examples: Scottish Rite Temple (Mobile, Alabama) and Gainestown Schoolhouse, although I added both back). Is this what we want? I've looked at a few in other states and they all seem to be following the same practice as myself. Or should the most specific be the only one, even though they don't contain the national info that the main template does? Thanks! Altairisfar (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. It looks like all your templates collapse down to 1 line each. If so, I'd say keep them all in (3 if you think they are needed). I've always just used the Pennsylvania NRHP template alone (in PA) or the US NRHP template alone, but your templates look fine. I dropped a note at User talk:Vegaswikian - I've always thought he knew what he was doing and probably has a reason for it - but who knows? Smallbones (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yea, template pollution. Navboxes should really only be used when the page is referenced in the template. In the case of the NRHP template, if there are no others, then use it! But once you have other templates that are local and include the article, then there is no need for an umbrella template. I think the worst article is at about 50 templates! No reason to encourage working in that direction. As you add templates, you encourage the editors that want to collapse all of them in a shell. That defeats the purpose of these templates. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves correctly (it has been a few years though), I was originally replacing the US NRHP template with the localized ones as I created them. A concern was expressed by someone that the national one should be there too. I'm perfectly happy with having just the one if it doesn't raise any objections. Altairisfar (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

One point to consider, that these templates are not used in isolation. We have some city templates being added to every article about anything having to do with a city. If a building is a skyscraper, then you can also have 2 or 3 templates for that. So it all adds up. I really believe that if the article is not mentioned, consideration to not using the template should be at the top of everyone's list. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As User:Smallbones indicates the Template:National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania is a good example that combines some of the fundamental information included in the general NRHP Template:National Register of Historic Places and should be a model for other states.--Pubdog (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

{{NRHP}} is not a navigational template: it's meant to provide information about basic National Register topics for any article. It's not meant solely for the purpose of going from one linked article to another in the way that a county template, e.g. Clarke County, is meant to do. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge - please comment

Please comment on a merge proposal at Talk:New Kent High School and George W. Watkins High School D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

threat to disallow use of NPS webpages as public domain (PD) material

Editor SarekOfVulcan has raised a copyvio allegation against me for my explicit quoting of an NPS webpage, which I believe is in the public domain. He has obtained some support, a tentative judgment by one wikipedia editor that "we can't risk this". Many NRHP editors have, over the years, relied upon NPS webpages as PD, and I am concerned that a change in wikipedia policy should not be made lightly. Please consider sharing your knowledge at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 November 25.

This is about summaries by the NPS of their reasons for weekly featured NRHP listings and for NHL designations and so on, on pages of theirs that many of us have relied upon. This is NOT about the use of detailed NRHP nomination documents themselves, which have consistently been viewed by us as having copyright owned by submitter (usually not a Federal employee/agency, hence usually not PD). --doncram 01:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Doncram isn't mentioning that that NPS webpage quotes word-for-word from a copyrighted nomination document. He also doesn't mention that "one wikipedia editor" is User:Moonriddengirl. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am offended by the edit summary "misrepresentation". Tone it down please, Sarek. --doncram 01:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Fall 2011 NHL noms

I had forgotten to check. It seems like a month or so ago, the latest batch of NHL noms were posted on the NPS site. Hopefully they will be going back to having two sets a year again, as it looks like.

This batch is heavier on the western states, perhaps because there are four representing Latin history (no doubt because our current Secretary of the Interior is a Mexican American whose roots go all the way back to New Spain).

There are 18 applications total — 16 new ones, and two for modifications and additions to existing listings. Most of them include a short executive summary (some of which have some nice pictures I'd like to see if we could snarf) in addition to the nomination, very helpful in getting the short skinny on why this deserves NHL status.

As usual, I have gone through to see what we have for when they get designated.

• SS Badger, Ludington, Michigan (nomination) Last car ferry, and last coal-fired passenger vessel, on the Great Lakes. We have an article and a nice pic.
• Central Branch, National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, Dayton, Ohio (nomination and executive summary) Part of a series of these NHDVS noms, this one, also known as Dayton Veterans' Administration Homes, was listed on the Register in 2004. It marked a change in care of disabled veterans after World War I. We have a HABS pic of one of the houses at National Register of Historic Places listings in Dayton, Ohio but no article yet.
• Central Congregational Church, Boston (nomination, executive summary). First church built in the Back Bay when that area was drained in the mid-19th century, from a design by Richard M. Upjohn. Not listed individually, but as a contributing property to the Back Bay Historic District. We have an article and photo under Church of the Covenant, its more common name.
• Davis Oriole Lodge Site, Mills County, Iowa (nomination, executive summary). Outstanding Plains Indian village site. Listed as "Address restricted" but apparently within Pony Creek Park, listed in 1971 and for which we already have an article but no photo (the one in the E.S. does seem to be a little revealing as to where).
• Drakes Bay Historic and Archeological District, Point Reyes National Seashore, Marin County, California (nomination, executive summary). Address-restricted listing believed to be the site where Francis Drake stopped on his voyage around the globe in the late 16th century, the first English contact with territory one day to be part of the U.S. A totally new listing, although it seems to me that the Drakes Bay article could be expanded to handle this (nice panorama there, too).
• Greendale Historic District, Greendale, Wisconsin (nomination, executive summary). One of three planned communities along Garden City principles built with federal money during the New Deal. Listed in 2005; we have no article, only the photo at National Register of Historic Places listings in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.
• McKeen Motor Car #70, also Virginia & Truckee Railway Motor Car # 22, Carson City, Nevada (nomination, executive summary. Only survivor of first generation of self-propelled railcars. No separate article or pic here yet but this one is in the collection of the Nevada State Railroad Museum and discussed at McKeen Motor Car Company#Surviving McKeen products.
• Murray Springs Clovis Site, Cochise County, Arizona (nomination, executive summary). One of North America's richest Clovis sites. No specific article yet, hardly surprising, but it is within the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. Interestingly enough, this is not going to be an address-restricted listing as the BLM is building an interpretive trail through the site.
• Nantucket Historic District, entire island/county/town of that name off the coast of Massachusetts (nomination (LARGE!), executive summary). Already listed a long time ago, this additional documentation is very additional, clarifying that the largest conventional NHLD in the entire country includes the two small islands off the western tip of the island, enumerates its 13,000+ contributing resources (the most of any historic district in the country, I think we can safely say ... see separate survey sheet) and goes into detail about exactly why Nantucket is so important, as an early colonial site, whaling center and early seaside resort.
• Nuestra Señora Reina de la Paz, Keene, California (Nomination, executive summary). Just listed a couple of months ago (so we have no article or picture), this was where Cesar Chavez holed up for the later years of his career heading up the UFW.
• Poston Elementary School, Unit 1, Colorado River Relocation Center, Parker, Arizona (nomination, executive summary). Only aboveground school building at a Japanese internment camp. Not previously listed, so no article or picture on our part. Would go on the La Paz County list.
• The Republic, Columbus, Indiana (nomination, executive summary). Significant modernist newspaper office designed by Myron Goldmsith, in a town with more than a few similar modernist NHLs. No article yet, or photo, because it hasn't otherwise been listed. Would go in National Register of Historic Places listings in Bartholomew County, Indiana.
• San José de los Jémez Mission and Gíusewa Pueblo Site, Jemez Springs, New Mexico (nomination, executive summary). Best preserved Spanish missionary church ruin marking major push from New Spain into what is now Southwest. We have articles and photos at Jemez State Monument as it's been listed since 1973.
• Stepping Stones (Bill and Lois Wilson House), Katonah, New York (nomination, executive summary). Home of co-founders of Alcoholics Anonymous and Al-Anon respectively. What would a new group of NHLs or noms be without a couple from New York so we can keep our huge lead over the other states? It's been listed for a few years, and so we have an article and picture that I took two years ago, sort of knowing this was the sort of place that would be an NHL at some point (and, this is a rare NY nomination that is totally owner-driven, with no involvement from the state).
• Trujillo Homestead, Hooper, Colorado vicinity (nomination, executive summary). Large ranch marks push by Latin settlers into northern reaches of Southwest in mid- and late 19th century. Listed in 2004 but we have neither article nor photo.
• United Congregational Church, Newport, Rhode Island (nomination executive summary). Recognized not so much for the outside as the extensive John LaFarge interior. Listed forty years ago; we have an article with an exterior picture.
• University Heights Campus, Bronx Community College of The City University of New York, The Bronx (nomination, executive summary). Stanford White-designed campus features Hall of Fame for Great Americans, already listed, with photos. Nom and ES state erroneously that it's on the highest point in the Bronx; I will have to correct them.
• Wawona Hotel Historic District, Yosemite National Park (nomination) Name change and boundary increase for existing listing.

Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm less than an hour away from Columbus, and I'm mostly done with photographing the Bartholomew County list, so I'm sure that I'll be able to pick up an image or images for The Republic. Nyttend (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Badger nomination has been a controversial topic in Chicago. [2] Teemu08 (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting ... should work that into the article. Never would've thought of NHL status as a way to dodge environmental laws. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The Republic

I drove over to Columbus today and photographed The Republic, along with all of the already-listed sites that weren't already illustrated. One question — how do we want to do the article? The Republic is the daily newspaper in Columbus, and the NHL-to-be is its headquarters. I'd support trying to do a combined article on both the newspaper and its headquarters building, but this raises the question of the title. It appears that the standard disambiguation style for newspapers would have this article entitled The Republic (Indiana) — that's the title currently on the List of newspapers in Indiana — rather than our typical method of disambiguation. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we can have separate articles on the newspaper and the building. The former hasn't always occupied the latter, after all. I have done something similar with Poughkeepsie Journal and Poughkeepsie Journal Building (which was listed as Poughkeepsie Newspaper Office, since the Journal hasn't always used that name). Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Something oddly interesting

I was adding a new Iowa listing, since the new ones for this week are up (they've been posting them on Thursdays instead of Fridays lately, hurrah). I decided to take a virtual roadtrip via Google Street View, and had a deja vu moment. Compare:

Jefferson, Iowa

Quincy, Florida

Courthouses are different, but otherwise the squares are eerily similar. I'd suspect they had the same landscaping architect firm, but it'd be unusual since they're so far apart. Mostly sharing for curiosity's sake. Anyway, happy December, y'all. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 02:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

They are, how odd. :) Altairisfar (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a typical Shelbyville plan; we have lots of them here in Indiana. Two of the best examples that I've seen are in Sullivan and Rockport; aside from the courthouse architecture, they're almost identical. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Last weekend for photo contest

Just a note that anybody who wants to participate in the Fall NRHP photo contest needs to upload their photos by 12:01 AM Monday December 5, 2011. See Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest Best Photo has only 7 entries so far, so here is your chance!

Smallbones (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fall 2011 NRHP Photo Contest results

Thanks to everybody who participated in the photo contest. A very quick count shows a dozen editors entering photos and 533 pix in the Commons Category "NRHP Fall 2011 Photo Contest" (though many folks didn't have that category on their pix).

• In the most photos challenge, User:Magicpiano came from nowhere, adding 186 photos in the last few days, to overcome a seeming safe lead by User:Visitor7, who had 149 pix.
• In the Washington DC challenge, User:Slowking4 was the clear winner, though I have to say that User:Farragutful was obviously too shy to enter the contest. Between them they've almost fully-illustrated the DC lists. Barnstars to both.
• For the (overall) Roadtrips Challenge, User:Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats, went coast-to-coast, 2387 miles from Oregon to South Carolina, to win easily. The Google maps method of measuring distance turned out to be a bit controversial (multiple numbers can result), but that didn't effect this result.
• For the Chicago Challenge, I've awarded User:TonyTheTiger the barnstar. Some might say, with only three pix entered, this was the easiest barnstar ever awarded, but those who know Tony, know of all the unsung work that he does throughout the project. A very well deserved barnstar IMHO.
• I've also awarded a barnstar to User:Visitor7 as "Best Newcomer" - for most of the contest he simply dominated it.

The Best Photo contest has moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Fall_2011_Photo_Contest#Challenge_.238_Best_Photo, where there will be a single round of !voting to determine best photograph.

User:Niagara looks like he might not be able to judge the "Most Unusual" challenge. There's a note posted that his computer has died. If we don't hear from him soon, I'll set up !voting similar to the "Best Photo" challenge.

I'll ask the other judges to post the winners of their challenges here. Smallbones (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't even know about the contest until last Tuesday. However, I had by then already uploaded somewhere around 90 images that were eligible. The rest were then a matter of alternating between driving around towns with long lists of unillustrated listings and then processing them. In the process, I reduced the number of unillustrated Middlesex County, Massachusetts listings (which has over 1,300 total listings on 15 lists) to fewer than 50, completed three sublists, and nearly completed two others. My submission was somewhat late because I needed to sort through and tag the earlier uploads.

Kudos to User:Visitor7 especially for his effort, and of course everyone else who played. Magic♪piano 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry we didn't get the word out to you earlier. Your barnstar is well deserved. Of course the ultimate reward is the photos themselves and seeing them in the lists and in articles. But I hope this was a fun exercise for all of us. Smallbones (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Of the photos submitted, the most unusual would be Visitor7's Lithia Fountain. What's more strange than a fountain in a town square that isn't decorative or shoots jets into the air, but is a bunch of drinking fountains that dispense a foul-tasting, effervescent, mineral water. I'll leave it Smallbones to award the actual barnstar.

Sorry about being late, I probably won't be back up to speed until Christmas. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, barnstar presented. Niagara should probably also get something for sponsoring the most unusual challenge, but I'm trying to think what would be most appropriate. I know - advice on buying a new computer! Smallbones (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the best photo portion of the contest, awarding the best photo NRHP barnstars based on the !votes to both Pubdog and Nyttend for their beautiful photos. I also awarded a NRHP photo honorable mention to Smallbones for a great photo and for organizing the contest in the first place. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States

I've been contacted by User:Aude concerning Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States, see also: Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012. (aka WLM) User:Multichill is also one of the prime movers behind WLM.

I was sorry to tell her that I'm a bit fatigued with Photo Contests right now, and that I think a full discussion can wait until after the New Year, but I think for now we can look into what WLM proposes, what we might like to do, and perhaps try to digest the lessons of the recent NRHP Fall 2011 Photo Contest. i.e. think now, talk later.

Random thoughts:

Aude is the founding president of the DC Chapter of Wikipedia and is involved with WP:GLAM, and I think the main mover behind Wikimania in DC next August.

• I've suggested that WP:NRHP, perhaps with WLM, can have a separate session at Wikimania, maybe even inviting HABS or the NRHP (the gov't agency, that is) to make a presentation. Anybody have good contacts with them?

While our little photo contest was fun, to make a significant dent in the 40,000 (pure guess) NRHP sites left unphotographed, we need to join with a bigger project, to get higher visibility, better organization, etc.

We'd likely have significant input, but not complete control, over how the contest was run in the US. e.g. I think we could still have "Longest Roadtrip" and "Most Unusual" contests, if we wanted.

enuf for now.

Smallbones (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones. There is no hurry and this can wait. Regarding Wikimania, it would be excellent to have a session about NRHP. I do have contacts at the NPS / NRHP, and they might also like to help out with the contest. (they did a Flickr contest) I also think it would be excellent and most successful if we have WikiProject members who want to take the lead on this. The chapter can help however needed. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Bit fatigued with Photo Contests ? That sound familiar ;-)

You guys already have the most important requirement for Wiki Loves Monuments: Good lists. That already saves you a lot of worries.

If all goes well I will be in San Francisco and Washington DC end of January/begin of Februari. Would be nice to have a eastcoast and westcoast Wiki Loves Monuments related meeting. Anyone willing to organize something?

As for NRHP/NPS contacts: Did you ever talk with them about Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues? Also their database dump could use an update.

multichill (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Listings owned by unexpected notable people?

I just finished Newberry House (for which I cannot thank Denverjeffrey enough for the photo, which is one of several that nicely complete the set I took walking around Aspen one afternoon in August 2010). Doing the research on it, I not only found further confirmation of its ownership by Jack Nicholson that I'd first noticed in the MPS cover sheet, I found something that has made for a great DYK hook.

In Aspen it's probably not surprising that one Register-listed house would wind up being owned by a notable person (other than, say, a notable descendant of the person who made the house notable by living in it in the first place). But I wonder how often this has happened elsewhere ... say, in LA. Has anybody else come across a listing that, upon further research, turns out to be owned by a celebrity or some other person who would merit a standalone article? Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice article. "Celebrity" and "unexpected notable people" are probably too vague since there are tons of places listed only for their association with historic persons, say the Governor of Pennsylvania in 1900 (which I don't think you mean) or authors well-known in the 1920s, but who haven't been mentioned since. So how about defining it as places associated with "nationally recognized entertainment figures" or perhaps "current media stars"? (In which case I'm stumped). Smallbones (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

bill blass residence, a historic house

For 2 cases of notable person owning historic place as of the NRHP listing, rather than buying it later:

1. Bartlett Arboretum (Kansas), owned by Dixie Chick Robin Lynn Macy. Actually she wrote the NRHP application. The notable person had the time and money and interest to get the notable place listed onto the NRHP.

2. Former Newton's Tavern, residence of fashion mogul Bill Blass, 1 of 12 contributing buildings in New Preston Hill Historic District. Blass died in 2002. I think (not sure) it was his main residence as of the 1985 district listing.

--doncram 15:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Gianni Versace owned a home in the Miami Beach Architectural District (or as I think of it, Art Deco Central). It's also where he was killed. I drove by it on my last trip down there, but didn't realize, so didn't photo it. That's all I've got. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 05:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone else took a photo of it, though. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 05:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Daryl Hall of Hall & Oates owns the Bray House in Maine, built in 1662. Teemu08 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Why is this fact not in the article?--Pubdog (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Hall's article in the Personal life section, but with a citation needed tag. Along with a lot of other stuff in that section. If a reliable source can be found, it should definitely be added. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 04:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be careful about publicizing these things unless we have really good sources, like the ones I found for Newberry House, which is after all one of three properties Nicholson owns in or around Aspen. Online tax records, or summaries of such in nomination forms, shouldn't be enough. If a reliable third-party source mentions this, then yes. I mean, I think they have greater privacy interests than most residents of NRHP houses. Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if exactly fits your criteria, but I would bet the record for the most notable people who (co)-own(ed) one building is held by The Dakota. - Station1 (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't thought about that one (or any other large urban apartment building, for that matter). But it's a special case. Perhaps I should have limited it to single-unit dwellings. Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A recent listing is the Wild Goose, the yacht owned by John Wayne. Einbierbitte (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons photos software update and rotated images bug

I just thought I would give a heads-up to anyone who uploads photos to Commons regularly. A recent software update has butchered the exif for thousands of rotated images. Basically, if you rotated the image (which is typical for tall buildings requiring you hold the camera sideways) your images might be affected, regardless of whether or not you uploaded them before or after the software update. Thus, the images may appear sideways in their respective articles:

• Old Gray Cemetery
• Medical Arts Building (Knoxville, Tennessee)

Fortunately for me, the bug only affects one camera I have used over the past year or so, but nevertheless, it took me about two hours to go through and find (hopefully) all the affected images, and it will take the rotatebot 2-3 days to fix them. If you notice that any images appear sideways in articles, go the image's Commons page and click the rotate button just under the image. Bms4880 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Would this affect images that I've rotated and then saved on my own computer before uploading, or does it only affect photos that were in the wrong orientation at the time of their uploading, and were subsequently rotated? If the former, would the problem be visible in thumbnails at Commons, or do the photos actually have to be included in a WP article before the bug manifests itself? 01:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mine were all correctly oriented when I uploaded them to Commons, and it does show up in the Commons thumbnails, not just those displayed on Wikipedia. Interestingly enough, the bug affects even the images in the upload history, and thus it makes it appear the image was uploaded incorrectly. And again, it only affects one of my cameras (a Canon Powershot). There are several complaints on the Village Pump, with the usual "tough luck" response. Bms4880 (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on what program you used to rotate the images. I always use Windows Photo Viewer, which appears to be basic enough that it doesn't keep any rotation information in EXIF. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the November change was in display. If you're using the new Wikimedia software version to look at an incorrectly turned picture, it will be displayed as not turned. My turned pix were mostly turned by Windows Vista or XP. Some were turned by Windows 7 or by 21st century versions of Google Picasa or a 20th century version of Adobe Photoshop. None, far as I see, have suffered from the change of Wikimedia software. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have always used Photoshop CS5 or better for images I've uploaded, as it always rotates it the right way however it was stored. The only time I have needed to use the rotation tool there has been in correcting tilts or the appearance thereof. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As you may have noticed you can rotate those images at commons through using User:Rotatebot. Normally there should be a small icon somewhere on the right below the picture to start the dialogue wether it has to be rotatet to the left or to the right. After that I takes some time to execute the rotating, atm. about 36 to 38 hours. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I just clicked the rotate button below the images. For the record, I use the same software (Microsoft Office Picture Manager) to rotate images for three different cameras, but the bug is only affecting those taken with my Canon PowerShot. Also, it's only affecting 90-degree and 270-degree rotations. Bms4880 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Shutdown Wikipedia tonight

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Turn_Wikipedia_off_RfC. Some of us think this is too short notice. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Vernacular Frame House (Delaware)

Vernacular Frame House

Delaware is pretty unimaginative when it comes to naming sites, e.g. 4 sites named "Fair View" in New Castle County. But the one named "Vernacular Frame House" takes the cake. AKA " Vernacular Frame Structure." Can anybody suggest a better name for the article? the nomination is short and plain vanilla, as the article will likely be. Smallbones (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, that phrase would describe, oh, almost half the listings on the Register. You'd think they could at least have used an address. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. What's worse, that phrase would describe almost half of the buildings in America, historic or not. Anyway, I suggest the "Ethel S. Roy House." Andrew Jameson (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

How about Red Lion Hundred Vernacular Frame House, or just adding a section to Red Lion Hundred? - Station1 (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I went with Ethel S. Roy House and don't think I'll even add Vernacular Frame House (Delaware) as a redirect. BTW, Elkman's tool shows that Madison, Ohio has Brick Vernacular House No. 1 and Brick Vernacular House No. 2. Smallbones (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

See a bunch of properties on National Register of Historic Places listings in Knox County, Ohio, such as the Gothic Revival House and the Early Greek Revival House. Moreover, check some bridges in Nebraska, which are listed as Bridge, Bridge, Bridge, Bridge, Bridge, and Bridge. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion - are architects who designed works on the NRHP notable?

The deletion discussion for Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson has some fairly large implications for this project, so it could probably use more eyes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fenway and Wrigley on their way to the Register?

From today's New York Times is this interesting blog post about the landmark status of Fenway Park and Wrigley Field and the different ways the two teams have handled what are practically the only regularly-used team-sports venues in the country not to have been replaced by second- or third-generation corporate-sponsor-named stadia or arenae.

It seems from it that Fenway has been accepted for a state-level listing by the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the application has been sent to the NPS, which strongly suggests it will be listed. So, we could be seeing this one show up on the pending list soon, and even listed early next year.

Wrigley is a different matter. Unlike the Red Sox, the Cubs haven't worked as closely with Chicago's City Council, which gave landmark status to the brick outfield wall, the ivy, front marquee and scoreboard (And hey, while they're at it, how about Steve Bartman's seat ;-)? Certainly that's a historic resource). It notes near the end that way back in 1987 the park was found eligible for the Register, but the team never followed up on that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait'll next year! Smallbones (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought Wrigley Field was already on the register. ----DanTD (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That surprises me too. I figured Wrigley would be an NHL. Bms4880 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly think it should be, as one of the oldest baseball stadia still in use and a physical legacy of the Federal League, the last real competition to MLB. However, as the experience of the Los Angeles Coliseum and [[[Soldier Field]] shows, NRHP or NHL status and pro sports venues generally aren't compatible because the owners like to be able to make whatever changes they feel they need to.

I wonder if New York will seek NHL status for the original Yankee Stadium field, now that the surrounding structure has been dismantled and the field itself remains for public use. So much of the historic value of Yankee Stadium comes from things that happened on that field (not just in baseball ... the 1958 NFL Championship Game, for a long time the NFL's Greatest Game Ever, took place on it as well) and legendary sports figures who played there. I think it should be an NHL, anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Fully Illustrated lists - progress from last year

Just to see how we are progressing, I checked a few numbers from the Fully Illustrated lists (totals not double checked) and did one comparison from last year at this time. Maybe when Multichill's lists get to be fully operational, we can see how his numbers look.

• Fully Illustrated NHL lists:
  • 659 sites in 15 geographic lists (states)
• 90%+ illustrated (but not fully illustrated)
  • 1146 sites in 20 geographic lists

• Fully Illustrated NRHP lists (mostly county lists)
  • 7036 sites in 214 lists in Dec 2011
  • 3846 sites in 122 lists in Dec 2010
• 90%+ illustrated (but not fully illustrated)
  • 1642 sites in 85 county lists
  • There's probably a lot more of these not yet included on the list.

No major conclusions to be drawn here, but to go out on a limb

• If we continue to add 3200 sites per year to fully illustrate NRHP lists, it could easily take 10 years to get to "completion"
• But if continue with the same percentage growth rate (ie nearly double the sites) on this list each year, it will take less than 4 years

All the best, Smallbones (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

NHL refnum oddity

Has anyone run into a case where an NRHP-listed site is assigned a new different refnum when it's made a NHL? I just ran across this with Fort Frederik. It's probably an oversight, since it was NRHP-listed in 1996 as Fort Frederick and an NHL as Ft. Frederik of US Virgin Islands. See this and this this for more info. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 22:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this happen before (though I have no specific examples offhand). I think in most of the instances where I've seen it happen, the boundaries of the NHL and the regular NRHP listing are different. Only part of a district is designated an NHL or something like that. Is that the case here? (I admit I didn't click on a single link in your comment. I'm currently working on assessing quality/importance of articles since I've been absent for a few weeks.)--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As an example, see the Fisher Building, which was originally added to the NRHP in 1980 as part of the Fisher and New Center Buildings entry, and assigned refnum 80001922. In 1989, the Fisher Building only was designated a NHL, and it was (eventually?) assigned refnum 07000847. Bizarrely, the NHL refnum corresponds to a 2007 date rather than a 1989 date. Assuming this isn't a database typo, it may be a unique occurance of a refnum being assigned after a listing action was completed. Andrew Jameson 00:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Mismatched figures in quality and importance statistics

I've been out for a while because of school and graduate applications, but now that I'm back, I've begun trying to straighten out our quality and importance statistics, found here. After a massive drive taken on mostly by User:Ebyabe, all 45K+ articles under this project's scope are now assessed with both quality (stub, start,...) and importance (low, mid,...). After the completion of the drive, however, I've noticed a few anomalies in the numbers.

While adding up each row on this page, all looked fine except for the stub row. Every other row's individual cells added up to the total in the far right column, except stubs (which in turn is throwing off the "article only" subtotal), which were off by 6. I thought for a second that this was an error in the code of the page, but I double-checked it, and everything looks fine (at least in that row). After ruling a code error out, I began to look for mis-tagged articles, such as this one, which is a non Talk-space article that had a banner tag on it. I found the article by sheer luck because I just went to a random page in the stub category and it happened to show up.

I commented out the project banner on that page, and that made the stub column be off by only 5. If my theory is correct, that means there are 5 more pages hidden somewhere in the more than 24,000 stubs that should not have project banners... or at least not be marked as stubs because they are not in mainspace. I am, however, unaware of any method to filter articles in a category by namespace, so my only method of finding them would be to manually search all 24K+ listings in that category–something no one in their right mind would do. Does anyone know of a better method? Perhaps an automated editing tool like AWB (which I can't use because I'm on a Mac) or an off-site category filter?

There is also still the possibility that my theory is incorrect, and there is another reason that the total is off by 5. If anyone has any ideas, I'm all ears! I'm going to continue double-checking the statistics, and I'll report back if I find any other anomalies. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Were you looking for these?

• user talk:FloNight/Baughman_Mill
• user talk:Cognate247/Hanover_Lutheran_Church
• user talk:170.158.96.99
• user talk:Doncram/George_F._Barber
• user talk:Alexiskferia/Draft_Eastville
• user talk:Doncram/Neal_A._Melick
• user talk:GreenwoodKL/Salt_Lake_City_Utah_Westminster_Institute_of_Religion

multichill (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was, but after fixing all seven of these, the total number is now smaller than it should be.... it's off by a one article. How did you generate that list? It was pretty simple to figure out why the number was higher than it should have been (articles tagged that shouldn't have been), but I have no clue why the number would ever be lower. Any ideas? That's the only thing that I can find wrong with the table of statistics (plus the fact that the stub error propagates to the article subtotal).. Help?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Could something like this happen if the banner were included twice, with two different assessments? Ntsimp (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a possibility, and as far as I can tell the only way this situation could have come about. If there is more than one template call on a talk page, and both templates have different importances (e.g. a contributing property article being rated Related-importance in one template and Low-importance in another), that would cause the article to be double counted as one adds the columns, but it would not affect the total stubs category, because putting an article in a category twice does not create two listings. I just tested this in a preview in my sandbox, though I did not save the edit.

Apparently there is one article out there (out of 45K+) that has two templates on it with different importances. I just tried using the catscan tool to find it, but I had no luck. Querying the intersect of Category:Low-importance National Register of Historic Places articles and Category:Related-importance National Register of Historic Places articles, as well as all other combinations (i.e. Low+Mid, High+Top, etc.), I was unable to find any overlap. I'm almost sure that article has to be out there somewhere, though... maybe the toolserver just isn't picking it up? I definitely know it's a stub, though, because all of the other classes work out perfectly.

Apart from the catscan tool I tried, does anyone know of any other way to find this article? Is it possible to find all articles with multiple template calls? That would no doubt shrink the number of articles that may need to be manually searched drastically, and in fact it would be good to know if pages have multiple template calls anyway because that's an error of its own. Thanks for the help, guys!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Old Santa Fe Freight House, ABQ?

File:Old Santa Fe Freight House, ABQ.jpg, a recent upload. Part of the Albuquerque railyard complex, I think -- context here.

Ring a bell with anyone? Pretty sure it's in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, but I actually don't see much Santa Fe RR stuff there. Part of a Hist Dist, maybe? TIA & Merry Xmas, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Santa

Santa Fe 3759, in Kingman, Arizona, Christmas, 2005

Christmas Tree Lane in Altadena, California

plus one not on the NRHP

We're sadly lacking in Christmas pix, these are recycled from last year. Maybe somebody could go out and shoot some for next year. Mine may not foot the bill, coming from the Virgin Islands. Ho! Ho! Ho! Enjoy and Merry Christmas! Smallbones (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Kearney County Courthouse, December 2011

Here's one from this year: the NRHP-listed Kearney County Courthouse in Minden, Nebraska, which bills itself as "Nebraska's Christmas City". Minden started lighting the courthouse square in 1915, when the city fathers decided to impress a state G.A.R. convention by illuminating the route from the railroad station to the square. Weather interfered, as weather has a way of doing in Nebraska, and the lights were repurposed for a Christmas display. Pleased to report that they haven't yet put a Santa Claus hat on the infantryman on the Civil War monument. Ammodramus (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Meridian City Hall, Christmas 2011

Not nearly as decorated, but this one is definitely from this year. Here's NRHP-listed Meridian City Hall lit up for the holidays! Originally built during the Great Depression, the building has been under restoration since 2006 and is nearing completion. The image is thanks to local photographer Nathan Culpepper.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Woah, what's up with the sky? Teemu08 (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't take it, but the photographer said something about an 8 second exposure and some ISO setting.. I'm not too literate in film lingo, so I have no idea haha. The image is on flickr (link on description page) if you'd like to ask the photographer.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Rescuing a NRHP article from a move to a broader article that covers it and 5 nearby non NRHP properties

Today I recreated Eustace Hall as a stand alone article. See its new talk page. It had undergone several name changes before being moved in July 2011 to Laboratory Row, which was then expanded to include 5 other MSU campus buildings. Its subsection in the Lab Row article now has a main article tag to Eustace Hall. Have others encountered similar situations? clariosophic (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What could possibly be wrong with including the one paragraph about Eustace Hall in the article about Laboratory Row, and dispensing with the separate one-paragraph article? All of the buildings in the longer article are of roughly the same vintage, and the Laboratory Row article includes that wonderful panoramic photo of the group of six buildings in 1912. I know that many NRHP WikiProject participants set great store by the NRHP infoboxes, but the Eustace Hall infobox could be included in the Laboratory Row article. IMO, historic buildings are more interesting in context than in isolation, and Laboratory Row provides a wonderful context for Eustace Hall. --Orlady (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

More former listing questions

Despite reading through the documentation for {{NRHP row}}, I'm still somewhat confused: how does one get it to display the color that we've generally used for former listings? The I.O.O.F. and Barker Buildings were removed this week, but I've not figured out how to get the former listings section of National Register of Historic Places listings in Posey County, Indiana to display properly — when I put "former" into the "type" line of NRHP row, it gave me a bland color (somewhat similar to the HD color, at least to my partially colorblind eyes) and the text <Template:Former color | 1> instead of changing to the proper color. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Type should be NRHP-delisted. Might also use the "NRHP former header" for the header. Check National Register of Historic Places listings in Allen County, Indiana. 25or6to4 (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect NRHP NYC Subway Station listings

I already posted this on the NY issues board, but there are incorret NRHP parameters used on the 145th Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line) article. While that station is historic enough to deserve NRHP status, all the documentation shows that the actual 145th Street Subway station with NRHP status in Manhattan is 145th Street (IRT Lenox Avenue Line). ----DanTD (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE - To be honest, I'm not so sure about 86th Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line) either. ----DanTD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

userbox for National Historic Districts

See you have a userbox for # of historic districts visited, would be cool to have one for those who actually live in one!  :-) Nikki (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)