This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Hi, User:Zigzig20s, for me I find the National Register doc is not available, neither the pics nor the text. Unless it's just me, then could you please remove it from display in the article (either delete or comment out)? I think it cannot have been your source for anything in the article. By the way, IMO it is usually a great convenience that the draft NRHP infoboxes etc come in with the draft NRHP inline reference, but both the pics link and the text link need to be checked, and then the inline reference needs to be customized further, right? --Doncram (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Zigzig20s for clarifying. Well, that is not the NRHP document, so I think the NRHP document reference should be removed.
And what's available at the "asset detail page" or whatever it should be called, is just selected fields of info out of NRIS, for which you already have a reference, so I personally would not choose to construct any other reference pointing to that URL at all.
There are a few editors who have chosen to construct references to the asset detail page, because for whatever reason, but I personally think it is an awful place to direct readers to go to. Especially in cases like here, where what shows first is "The PDF file has not been digitized" and it looks like a mistake. And, it simply is not the NRHP document, so the article should be edited to remove suggestion that the NRHP document has been a source, IMO. --Doncram (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the architectural style is reported in NRIS. You have it from the Elkman NRHP infobox generator (whose source is NRIS version 2013a). Yes, it is true that this item and some other items from NRIS are also reported at that webpage. So, i agree it is okay to cite the webpage instead of or in addition to citing NRIS, but also I don't see the value of doing that. To me that seems somewhat unhelpful to readers. But okay.
It would be somewhat more useful as a citation if the property was NRHP-listed after 2013, where Elkman (i.e. NRIS version 2013a) does not have any information. --Doncram (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
