Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Detroit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Michigan / Detroit (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Detroit task force.
 
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Elwood Bar[edit]

The location of the Elwood Bar has changed from the NHRP listing. Should the address and co-ordinates be updated on this page?Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Other communities in Wayne County[edit]

I'm not necessarily against seperating Detroit out from the remainder of Wayne County, as was done recently. However, there seems to be a natural rationale for tucking structures located in Highland Park and Hamtramck into the Detroit list, as those two communities form an enclave within Detroit. Comments? Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I separated the Detroit sites from those in Wayne County outside Detroit because putting them all in the same standardized table resulted in a page that exceeds the 100k recommended limit for WP articles. Since I'm not familiar with the geography or place names, I did so based entirely on how the sites are identified geographically in the NPS database. For those of you who do know the area, if it makes sense to move other sites from the Wayne County table to the Detroit table, please do so. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Geographical sorting[edit]

It occurs to me that sorting these sites by geographical location would be a useful feature for people (like me!) who want to see sites that are physically close. They could be sorted, for example, by location along major roads, much as I've been doing here: User:Andrew Jameson/NRHP. Seems like this could be done by adding another column and assigning each structure a number based on location (W005, W010 etc. for those structures along Woodward; G005, G010 for those along Gratiot, etc.) and hitting the sort button would automatically put them in order. However, I don't really want to go through the effort of doing that if it's gonna be reverted as inappropriate. So. COmments? Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's go ahead with it, put the listing by street under the Detroit list, if you like, and have the Wayne County list as the alphabetical list, see how people like it. That way both can be used. Either could be used for your list by street. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
In other city-specific lists (e.g., San Francisco & Los Angeles), the city column is replaced by a column with neighborhoods. Would this work in Detroit? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I like that, because it has precedent, which makes me feel better. However, except for a few specific areas (downtown and Eastern Market come to mind) the NRHP properties tend to be strung out along the main roads rather than clustered. I think maybe using the city column to seperate out the properties by road, and then assigning them a sortable ID by address (i.e., Woodward1548) would provide more information without taking up more space. Andrew Jameson (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent disagreements[edit]

While layout/formatting isn't a big deal, the question of "NRHP Properties in Highland Park" is outright wrong. No such property or district exists, and no source exists to verify it (believe me, I looked), so adding it is introducing error. Plain and simple. Nyttend (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Point one: (This may not be a big deal, but I thought I owed you an explanation of my thought process.) Images on the list have different form factors, anywhere from tall-and-thin to short-and-squat. Forcing a consistent width makes the tall-and-thin images very tall--up to 600px--and gives these images undue weight, as they take up a disproportionate area on the screen. Conversely, a consistent width makes short-and-squat images very tiny. Since these images are often streetscapes or panoramas, it makes it doubly difficult for readers to pick out details of individual structures in the images. A small change in the image size pulls the extreme large and small images back toward a reasonable mean so images of different form factor are not wildly different in presentation. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Point two: The main purpose of any article is to present information that is useful to the reader. Highland Park is an enclave within Detroit; the NRHP properties located within Highland Park are (quite properly) listed under that city, and "NRHP Properties in Highland Park" is simply a reminder that NRHP Properties do exist within Highland Park. Highland Park's location leads to the interesting situation where there are NRHP properties along Woodward Avenue south of Highland Park in Detroit, north of Highland Park in Detroit, and within Highland Park proper -- meaning the NRHP properties in Highland Park are geographically between other properties in Detroit. For those readers already familiar with the locale and the distribution of properties, this is not an issue. For those readers not already familiar with the subject, I think it is useful to have a reminder that other properties exist that are geographically (but not politically) within the boundaries of Detroit.
If your disagreement is that "NRHP Properties in Highland Park" is confusing and implies an individual property or disctrict, then I'm fine with any reasonable rewording. If your disagreement is that giving readers this additional information is not appropriate, then, well, I disagree. However, I'm amenable to a concensus decision, so, if you'd like to bring it to the NRHP WikiProject talk page, I'm fine with that (but please drop me a line if you do so). Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Point Three: (Now that I noticed this) I would prefer to abide by WP:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle thus my previous request on editing: "See talk page--please discuss before reverting again." I'm disappointed you'd rather unilaterally revert than discuss the issue. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
As far as the layout — having a uniform 100px width has worked well on other highly-illustrated pages, whether county-level and city-level NRHP lists or statewide National Historic Landmark lists. For an example, see Hennepin County, Minnesota, which has been put together by the editor who designed these tables in the first place. The list for Boston is another good example. What's more, part of the reason for the amounts of size being taken up is your high-quality descriptions: the height of each row in most other lists is completely dependent on the height of the image, while even properties such as the courthouse (#216) don't add any extra space. There's nothing wrong with having a little extra room with properties such as the Vinton Building, but it looks a bit odd for them to be varying in width.
As far as Highland Park — you rightly say that our point is to help the reader, but what help is it to say "This property is in Detroit" when it's really outside of the city? The way that these lists are done nationwide is to separate by political boundaries: otherwise we couldn't have any good definitions of what was in the city or not. If we include Highland Park, why not include some other municipalities, or why not merge this list into the Wayne County list? We tell the reader that the properties listed here aren't the only ones in the county: it's only natural to reason that Highland Park might have some. This one is separated from the county list for size reasons: at a size of over 160 KB, it hardly needs any table bits about sites that aren't in the scope of the list. I'm sure a local would understand this situation, but when I read it I'm confused — some time ago I copied all the Michigan county lists into files on my computer, and not until yesterday did I discover that "NRHP Properties in Highland Park" was not the name of a listing. Alternate solution to the issue — look at what I've added. Nyttend (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I just came across this, and really don't follow what's gone on, but would asking for another opinion or two be helpful? I've never seen Wikipedia:Third opinion used before, but it looks potentially helpful. Or maybe Nyttend's last-mentioned changes help, or you are working it out. Anyhow, you both are great contributors. :) By the way, though, i think Nyttend was implying that it was Elkman who developed the NRHP table format. As i recall it, it was very much a joint effort including User:SEWilco and several others, too. Elkman's implementation into the table-list generator certainly has had a huge impact though. doncram (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I was altogether confident that Elkman by himself had developed the generator. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
For the record, Elkman created and provides the generator, yes, but the table format was worked out in group discussion at wt:NRHP. Its archive is the "Standardizing lists of NRHPs" entry in the archive list, after archive #10 (and is named oddly because the discussion was growing fast and someone chose to move it to a separate page). In the discussion, the main participants were SEWilco, User:Sanfranman59 (leading the San Francisco table example), User:Murderbike (leading the Pierce County/Tacoma example), User:Appraiser (leading the Dakota County, Minnesota example), and me. Ebyabe, Dmadeo, Clariosophic also commented, and Elkman commented just once (but had participated in developing the Dakota example). It was a great creative, collective burst of activity. doncram (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

<---De-indent

Image sizing: I think Hennepin County, Minnesota would benefit from changes in image sizing, also. My point, as I said before, is not table vertical spacing, but rather image area on the page--in particular short-and-wide streetscapes or panoramas where the image detail is lost and they become useless to the reader. Varying image size a bit improves the utility of the images.

Highland Park: I think your alternate solution is better than no solution at all, but I still like the original solution better, because it offers a much greater utility for a modest increase in additional space. As for your objections:

what help is it to say "This property is in Detroit" when it's really outside of the city? The way that these lists are done nationwide is to separate by political boundaries: otherwise we couldn't have any good definitions of what was in the city or not. As I said before, Highland Park is an enclave within the city of Detroit. The natural geographic grouping of properties truly within the city would include properties both north and south of Highland Park. When the properties are geographically sorted, a link reminding the reader that Highland Park properties are geographically between properties in Detroit is useful, I think. Since the Highland Park entry link is to another list, I don't think there's any blurring of the definition of what is within the city or not.
If we include Highland Park, why not include some other municipalities, or why not merge this list into the Wayne County list?: As I said before, Highland Park is an enclave within Detroit. It might make sense to also include Hamtramck (probably grouped with Highland Park), but since other municipalities are not enclaves, it doesn't make sense to include them.
We tell the reader that the properties listed here aren't the only ones in the county: it's only natural to reason that Highland Park might have some. A fair point, but why not make it easier for the reader?
This one is separated from the county list for size reasons: at a size of over 160 KB, it hardly needs any table bits about sites that aren't in the scope of the list. To be honest, this article probably needs to be split in two, anyway.
I'm sure a local would understand this situation, but when I read it I'm confused — some time ago I copied all the Michigan county lists into files on my computer, and not until yesterday did I discover that "NRHP Properties in Highland Park" was not the name of a listing. So propose a rewording of that phrase that you wouldn't consider confusing.

I appreciate that you're finally willing to discuss these issues. I should reiterate that, if we can't come to an agreement, I'm amenable to a concensus decision taken from a little wider cross-section of editors. If you'd like to bring it to the NRHP WikiProject talk page, I'm fine with that. Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was suggesting getting some other 3rd party or two, but my own opinion about the 10 properties in Highland Park and Hamtramck is that they should all be included in this Detroit article with some clear mention of that in the lede and with clear distinction where they are listed. They could appear in a separate table and section. Or, if a "Neighborhood/Town" column was added to the main table to identify neighborhood names of all other listings, the two towns could be handled like neighborhoods. Several other city NRHP lists are being split by geographical neighborhoods (e.g. List of RHPs in Baltimore and List of RHPs in Seattle) and/or are being prepared for that by adding a neighborhood column (e.g. List of RHPs in Boston) and/or are getting a neighborhood column just for sake of providing more information to readers (perhaps Tacoma?). I don't recall encountering any enclave situations in these NRHP lists yet, although I am aware there are many enclaves in other cities. Beverly Hills within Los Angeles is one other, but LA is so irregularly shaped anyhow that it wouldn't help matters there to merge in BH. Hamtramck and Highland Park are true enclaves in an otherwise solidly massed city shape. It seems best to me to include these true enclave-type listings in the city list, so that their coordinates are included in the linked Google/LiveSearch map. Just including them all with clear labelling would avoid the confusing appearance of the "NRHP Properties in Highland Park" link. doncram (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
As a general rule, I think that lists of entities "in YourCityNameHere" or "from YourCityNameHere" ought to be limited to entities that are actually in or from that city, not in or from some place sorta near that city. (For this reason, I don't like the scope of Category:People from Knoxville, Tennessee and similar categories.) However, enclaves such as Hamtramck and Highland Park that are within and completely surrounded by the city are a special case, and it makes sense to incorporate them into the Detroit article, with a clear mention in the lede (as Doncram suggests) and a clear indication in the table that a particular property is in Hamtramck or Highland Park. This comment is based on asking myself "what makes sense for the reader in this case?" I probably would not say the same thing for Los Angeles, which also has some enclaves completely within its borders, but has a far more complex geographical situation than Detroit. --Orlady (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hum. The idea of merging Hamtramck and Highland Park properties is a little bolder and more unconventional than I was thinking. However, you make a good point about reader utility, and simply including the Hamtramck and Highland Park properties within the Detroit list would eliminate the "NRHP Properties in Highland Park" moniker, which seems to answer Nyttend's objection also. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And Another Thing (Splitting the article)[edit]

This article is pretty long right now. I really hate to split it up, because any split reduces the utility to the reader, who now has to search two different articles to find a particular location. Nonetheless, the load time is pretty slow. So. If a split is needed, the best split I can think of is geographically. Both "Downtown" and "Midtown" Detroit are geographically bounded by freeways (and thus there's a clear demarcation between these areas and the rest of Detroit, as well as between the two). The definition of "downtown" is well-understood; "midtown" somewhat less so as it's of recent coinage, but it's pretty well established by now. My quick count (with some +/-) is that Downtown contains 44 entries and Midtown 68 entries, so those two constitute almost exactly half the listings.

Thoughts? Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What we've done elsewhere is to use official neighborhood boundaries if they exist. Does Detroit have such? If so, we could do a two-step process: first determine the neighborhood in which each lies, and then when we split it, each list can include the sites in a specific group of neighborhoods. 44 and 68 wouldn't be unworkable, but it would be better if we could get a few more groups, each with a few less listings. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The first step is to add a neighborhood column and to gradually identify the locations of all 242 properties. If there exists an official MECE partition of the city by official neighborhoods, it would indeed be best to use that. Some mention of any such partition should be added to the existing Neighborhoods in Detroit article (I don't see mention of an official partition there yet). Neighborhood names used in a "Neighborhoods" or "Neighborhood/Town" column should link to either an article about the given neighborhood or to a section of the Neighborhoods in Detroit list-article (perhaps to a new section about official neighborhoods). doncram (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Detroit really has recognized city districts or neighborhoods that both a) completely partition the city, and b) are commonly understood (other than "east side" and "west side," which suffers from being too coarse as well as placing a substantial number of properties literally on the dividing line (Woodward) between the two). This problem plagues the Neighborhoods in Detroit article too, BTW. The best partitioning I can come up with is "Downtown" and "Midtown" (well-defined and reasonably well understood), "New Center" (well-known, but with somewhat fuzzy boundaries), "North Woodward Corridor" (vague boundaries (probably including Highland Park) and a term not all that common), "Southwest Detroit" (well-known term, but with somewhat fuzzy boundaries), "East Jefferson Corridor" (descriptive, but not a common term at all), and "Miscellaneous East Side" and "Miscellaneous West Side" (both of which would actually have very few properties). The problems with this, including the subjective nature of the number of partitions, are obvious, yet I can't really think of anything that isn't worse in some way. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Another difficult NRHP list to partition is List of RHPs in NYC's New York County, New York (Manhattan), which Dmadeo dealt with by splitting at 14th, 59th, 110th streets. It makes for slightly awkward article names, but it is an objective although arbitrary split. For New York City landmarks, finer partitioning is needed, and a couple editors are proceeding in adopting use of low-profile Community Boards of the city. Few New York City residents know about these, but they are well-defined and of good sizing. And it seems mildly beneficial to educate readers about the Community Board boundaries, in the process of learning about NRHPs.
For Detroit, browsing, i find: this page of Detroit city maps. The "Neighborhood Cluster Boundary Map" there appears to offer a workable partition of the city into 10 numbered sections (plus Hamtramck and Highland Park). The names of the sections are not given there. I suggest hanging your hat on that partition. It is very much like the city planning districts that i and some others used in splitting the List of RHPs in Baltimore (in which the greatest number of NRHPs appeared in the downtown district, and we chose to group and present pairs of districts, otherwise, in defining split-out pages). The "Neigbhorhood Cluster" areas appear to be districts used for Federal community block grant applications/funding, or for some similar neighborhood services planning and managment purposes. There must be related planning documents refering to those sections, which would give usable names like "Midtown south" etc. It is overwhelmingly helpful to have a partition that is complete like this, and that is not your own invention. It won't hurt Detroitians to gain some understanding of those districts, in the process of browsing NRHP articles. doncram (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Two major issues with the "neighborhood cluster" idea. The first is that these clusters are seldom used outside of governmental urban planning entities. Also, so far as I know, the clusters have no names beyond "neighborhood cluster #4" and the like. So although the clusters have the advantage of being officially sanctioned, the partitioning system is completely opaque to most readers, who would have no idea what the boundaries of "neighborhood cluster #4" were without first researching what neighborhod clusters actually *are* (and even after that, it's hard to remember if a particular cluster is #4 or #6 or #9). At least "between 59th an 110th Streets" is immediately understandable even to a reader who only has a casual understanding of Manhattan. So clusters, IMO, introduces a drop in usability of the article.
In addition, of the ~230 properties in this listing, probably 75% plus are in cluster #4. A handful would be in clusters #3, #5, and #6, three or four properties in each of clusters #1 and #10, exactly one in cluster #2, and no properties at all in clusters #7, #8, and #9. For NRHP purposes, any useful partitioning system *must* finely divide the cluster #4 area. At least a split into two articles: "downtown and midtown" and "everything else" gains a rough 50/50 split with reasonably understandable boundaries. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] You say that there's a nice boundary due to the freeways. Is there any way that these two could be split, so that we have smaller articles than about 115 per list? Nyttend (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, lessee. "Downtown" has ~44 entries and "Midtown" ~68 entries; it would be difficult to split either one farther than that. For the rest, you could split the remaining properties into ~80 "east side" properties and ~45 "west side" properties. The problem with this is that a fair number of "east side" and "west side" properties are located on Woodward, which is the dividing line between the east and west.
You could get around this by introducing a "Woodward corridor" section, which would contain ~25 properties (reducing "west side" to ~25 and "east side" to ~70). Problem is that the "Woodward corridor" is kind of fuzzy in its extent, so there's a degree of arbitrariness here. If you *do* introduce a "Woodward corridor," you might as well introduce an "East Jefferson" corridor, which would split off ~50 of the east side properties. But now you're back to what I proposed yesterday, essentially, with its inherent disadvantages. Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
About the names for the neighborhood clusters, yes it would be nicer if there were names known for the numbered clusters. To repeat myself "There must be related planning documents refering to those sections, which would give usable names like "Midtown south" etc." Andrew, can you do some research there in Detroit to try to find out what are names for the clusters, or to establish there are no names? I was meaning to suggest that you browse through the city website's documents. Just now browsing further at the City Planning Commission department website, I find some more potentially helpful maps within the "Development Information package", showing "Clusters and Zip Codes" on page 12, and showing "Census Tracts" on page 13. This cluster map also does not provide names. Perhaps you could browse around bit yourself at the CPC department or elsewhere in the Detroit city websites, and then call the CPC: their webpage states "For further information, please contact the CPC office at 313-224-6225." doncram (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The 13 page "Executive Summary (color version)" of the 2004 Master Plan draft, at this page has useful text discussion of each of the 10 clusters in turn on pages 3-6, and then a great map overlaying traditional neighborhood names and clusters on page 8. It looks like the clusters haven't been given names other than the numbers, but the clusters are very well-defined and useful.
Perhaps grouping together clusters 5,6,7,8,9,10 as one "Western Detroit" NRHP list-article, would make one good chunk of the NRHPs, and clusters 1-3, Hamtramck, and Highland Park makes a useful group, too. Then cluster 4 on its own, or cluster 4 split out further into "Central Business District" and "Cluster 4 Other". The article name for the western chunk could be "NRHP listings in western Detroit" (with lede defining it as official neighborhood clusters 5-10), or the article name could be "NRHP listings in neighborhood clusters 5-10" (with lede explaining these are the western sections of the city defined by the City Planning Commission). At the "NRHP listings in Detroit" article, it would be necessary to have a map showing the clusters and to have links to the split out articles. doncram (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I was previously aware of the "cluster" concept (I'm a member of another group that uses them), but I've never heard names attached to them. I've browsed around a bit further, and didn't come across anything. I can't categorically state that they're *not* named, but given the other disadvantages of the cluster concept, I'm not sure this is a fruitful direction.
It probably makes most sense to group clusters 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and the portion of cluster 4 west of the Lodge into "West side Detroit," clusters 1, 2, 3, and the portion of cluster 4 east of I75/375 into "East side Detroit," and split the remainder of cluster 4 into "Downtown," Midtown," and "New Center/Central Woodward," using I75 and I94 as the dividing lines. That has the advantage of having clear boundaries and not really relying on the relatively obscure cluster concept. "Central Woodward" is not exactly common (although New Center *is*), but it's not exactly unknown and the definite boundary helps. The final count here would be "Downtown" = ~44 entries, "Midtown" = ~68 entries, "New Center/Central Woodward" = ~25 entries, "West Side" = ~30 entries, and "East Side" = ~75 entries. If desired, the 9 Highland Park entries could be tucked into "New Center/Central Woodward," although since Highland Park would actually be on the boundary between "New Center/Central Woodward," "West Side," and "East Side," it probably makes more sense to leave it by itself. Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict, not taking into account Andrew's comment here) Western Detroit would get just a few, maybe 5 or so, which is okay. Hamtramck and Highland Park get 10. Eastern, other than those, gets about 35. Maybe H and HP should be in one page, as neither "Western" nor "Eastern" would naturally include them. That leaves 242-(5+10+35) = 192 in Cluster 4. Split cluster 4 at Fisher Freeway: about 90 below, by my rough count. Call that "Downtown Detroit" defined as south of Fisher Freeway in official neighborhood cluster 4, and explain it in lede as comprising of most of the Corktown, Central Business District, Lower East Central, and Near East Riverfront neighborhoods. Therefore remaining about 100 in cluster 4 above Fisher Freeway. Could that be called "Midtown"? I don't see where midtown is defined anywhere. Perhaps call it "NRHP listings in Detroit neighborhood cluster 4 above Fisher Freeway". That is semi-awkward but okay. Whatever this is called, explain it in lede as being defined as cluster 4 north of Fisher Freeway, and comprising most of Jeffries, Lower Woodward, Middle East Central, Middle Woodward, Upper East Central neighborhoods. doncram (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Both [Downtown] and [Midtown] are pretty well defined. Downtown is bounded by the Detroit River on the south, I75 on the north, I375 on the east, and the Lodge Freeway on the west. Midtown is bounded by I75 on the south and east, I94 on the north, and the Lodge Freeway on the east. I would recommend against re-defining the boundaries. There should be 44ish ind 68ish properties in Downtown and Midtown, respectively. Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
And I guess I'm not really happy with something like "NRHP listings in Detroit neighborhood cluster 4 above Fisher Freeway" because there's probably only twenty-six people in the world who know what that means without reading an explanation. Not really user-oriented, IMO. Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, 'tis thou who is causing the whole problem, the whole need for splitting, by thou's adding so many pics to the page!  :)
I think this discussion is making a lot of progress actually. Grouping the western ones and the eastern ones is going to be okay, and I am fine with your calling them "West side" and East side" rather than Western vs. Eastern. We seem to agree that if we are making split, then keeping Hamtramck and Highland Park separate makes sense (almost opposite to idea I supported before, of adding all 10 into the Detroit list-article). I think putting those into National Register of Historic Places listings in Highland Park and Hamtramck or the other way around would be useful now. I think it will help to use the neighborhood clusters terminology in explaining, in the lede of articles, exactly what is meant to be covered in the west side and east side areas (either defining as exactly all of certain clusters, or explaining as west of the downtown and midtown, covering all of certain clusters and some of others). I also think it would also help the Neighborhoods in Detroit article to add some discussion of the neighborhood clusters partition of the city, and don't think that should be controversial.
What remains then is how to define central areas to split out. If Downtown, Midtown, and New Center/Central Woodward, can be well-defined with sources, then those could be used. I am concerned that "New Center/Central Woodward" might be a fabrication by you, which if so i think would need some refining. Also I am not sure if Downtown and Midtown are well enough documented to be able to specify borders exactly. Your links for Downtown and Midtown go to subsections in the Neighborhoods in Detroit. The Downtown one already had a "citation needed" tag. I just added a "citation needed" tag to the definition of "Midtown" there.
Currently, i think my proposal is "better" because it relies upon objective divisions of the city used officially by the city, which can be clearly explained, plus it uses the Fisher Freeway which is objective and cuts almost all the way across cluster 4. On the Google map, I see that Fisher Freeway extends straight to the right, while the numbered highway 75 splits and turns towards the top. So I am deliberately saying Fisher Freeway, while understanding that it is the same as 75 for the most part. I think this partition brings all chunks down to manageable size: the most in one chunk would be 120 or so for the central Detroit area above Fisher Freeway, which is fine, in my view. You could convince me that some other definitions of central areas makes sense by finding sources / showing me maps that have those definitions. doncram (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
For neighborhood boundaries, I'm using the definitions at the bottom of this page. Additionally, here's a downtown map (warning ! huge pdf!) from the Downtown Detroit Partnership and a map of Midtown here from DetroitMidtown.com. The New Center has well-documented boundaries (I wrote that article, so I know the boundaries a spelled out correctly with citation), but the defintion of Central Woodward is kind of fuzzy and not well-accepted.
However, if 120 entries or so is a reasonable article size, why not just split out "Downtown and Midtown" into one article and leave the remainder of Detroit (plus Highland Park and Hamtramck, in this case) in a second? That would be two articles with about 115 entries apiece, with no particular need to define further partions of the city. Andrew Jameson (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
(And a few more comments): 1. The Neighborhoods in Detroit article is kind of an organizational mess; I pointed there as an explanation rather than a citation. 2. I'm still not really enamored of the whole "cluster" thing. Despite the fact that the designations are sanctioned by the city, hardly anyone uses them, so as far as the reader is concerned, they look arbitrary. 3. If articles are split in such a way as to put a split line through Highland Park (like East Side v. West Side would), then I think Highland Park/Hamtramck could just stay part of the Wayne County listing. If all properties surrounding Highland Park are in a single article (like Downtown/Midtown v. the remainder), then I think there should at least be an explicit link to, if not an incorporation of, the Highland Park properties. Andrew Jameson (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent, almost a year later) This list article still loads really slowly, and remains one of the biggest NRHP list-articles! What Andrew Jameson last said: "if 120 entries or so is a reasonable article size, why not just split out "Downtown and Midtown" into one article and leave the remainder of Detroit (plus Highland Park and Hamtramck, in this case) in a second? That would be two articles with about 115 entries apiece, with no particular need to define further partions of the city." That sounds good to me. Andrew, can i just try to proceed with that? I'd be willing to make a good try at splitting it that way if you would be willing to check and clean up around the edges. That is, splitting this 234 item list-article into National Register of Historic Places listings in Downtown and Midtown Detroit, Michigan vs. National Register of Historic Places listings in Detroit, Highland Park, and Hamtramck, to be implemented by moving the current article to the first one, then splitting. And setting up a short cover page, linking to the two, at the current name. --doncram (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that sounds reasonable--I was unwilling to do this before because there didn't seem to be a concensus as to methodology. I can pretty easily check the split once you implement it. I would also suggest revisiting the "neighborhood" column--Downtown and Midtown are well-defined areas, and it makes more sense to use those designations than the street addresses I was using. The main Detroit article would still be problematic, but perhaps we could hash something out. And I definitely support pulling the Highland Park and Hamtramck properties into the main Detroit list. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Image(s) Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

City areas - definition[edit]

Referencing recent edits by User:Jackdude101: There was an earlier discussion of how best to organize this article by neighborhoods (see above at Splitting the Article) that discussed some pros and cons different ways of doing so. I believe a reasonable consensus was achieved. I'm amenable to re-opening a discussion, if you have an alternate proposal, but arbitrarily changing a single entry is probably not the best way to approach it. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National Register of Historic Places listings in Detroit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)