Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in New York/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Applications for New York NRHP Sites

Propose pulling out New York City Boroughs and pasting into a List of Registered Historic Places in New York City to cut down the file size approximately in half -- Dogears (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

done long ago, now down to 1 county per list. doncram (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Clickable map of NYS counties needed

Anyone willing to spend a little time creating a clickable map version of the existing map of NYS counties? I would like to have a clickable version in List of RHPs in NY. Although i haven't figured out how to, there are other wikipedians who know how to do this, including Ebyabe who did it for the Florida counties map. doncram (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Resource Area

I justed posted a question to Talk:National Register of Historic Places#Multiple Resource Area about MRA's. There are 95 in New York State alone http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/research/mpslist.htm and I don't see them listed here. My question arose after seeing 270 properties listed in East Hampton Village on its MRA. http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=100354 All but 20 were in existing districts but those additional 20 are significant in themselves. Americasroof (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Working" columns need to move out of mainspace

I came across this page during the discussion about disambiguation pages for NRHP sites, and noticed that it currently has a column labelled "Table-ization complete (disambigs and other info in prior list fully processed)". This really isn't appropriate for an article in mainspace, where readers may come across it. This sort of "work in progress" listing should be in project space, or user space. I gather that these list pages are in transition from simple lists to tables, which is fine — but we don't need to show that to readers who might simply want to find a particular NRHP listing. Would anyone mind if the table were copied to somewhere like Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/New York, and the "table-ization" column deleted from this article?

Also, are there other NRHP lists in the mainspace which contain "in progress" notes like this? If so, they should be moved as well. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 03:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're absolutely right. I put it in when i thought it would be really very temporary, but it has turned out to be a far bigger job. NY has, by the way, probably the highest number of NRHP sites. And no, there are no others like it in mainspace, others have not chosen to work this way. There are several other to-do lists of NRHP tasks, but all in wikipedia or userpage space. I'll move the tally somewhere. doncram (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the "in progress" bits out of the mainspace article. This talk page is a perfectly acceptable location. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Table-ization still in progress

County Approximate count of
properties and districts
Table-ization complete
(disambigs and other info
in prior list fully processed)
15 Erie 120 Yes
20 Greene 83 Yes
23 Jefferson 135
24 Kings (Brooklyn) 139 Cross-check Talk page table needed
26 Livingston 81 Yes
27 Madison 76 Yes
31.1 New York (Manhattan):Below 14th 173 Yes
31.2 New York (Manhattan):14th-59th 146 Yes
31.3 New York (Manhattan):59th-110th 97 Yes, close enough, some issues
31.4 New York (Manhattan):Above 110th 76 Yes
31.5 New York (Manhattan):Islands 14 Yes
31.6 New York (Manhattan) 503 Yes, pretty much
33 Oneida 67 Yes
34 Onondaga 116 Table 3 merger needed Yes
36 Orange 161 Yes. Some town vs. village info not captured perhaps.
41 Queens 84 Mostly, but need to add back neighborhoods
42 Rensselaer 82 Yes
44 Rockland 65 Yes
46 Schenectady 64 Yes
53 Sullivan 71 Yes
56 Ulster 160 Yes. Some town vs. village info not captured perhaps.
TOTAL ____ to go, out of 4,996 or so total

Formatting / other of this list-table

Mwanner added pics and suggested dropping row numbers here. I went to delete the row numbers, per the suggestion, but then I see/recall that Dutchess, Manhattan, and other counties are subdivided so there are rows 14.1, 14.2, etc. The numbering sorts them into that. There needs to be some more complicated format used so that the Dutchess ones stay together and/or you can get back to that, if you sort by count. Need to find some format examples from some wp:FL Featured Lists, perhaps? Do let's improve this. doncram (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen the discussion at wt:NRHP. So I gather you would approve of the picture per county for the NY list; I may try to get to it soon. And sorry I missed the function of the decimal, but given that the names of the Dutchess lists all start with "Dutchess...", they would still stay together in any alpha sort (same with "New York (Manhattan)...", etc.). So it still seems to me that the ordinal column is unneeded (but maybe I'm missing something?) -- Mwanner | Talk 17:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not at all obvious to me that the table in this article needs to list the sub-county articles for Poughkeepsie, Rhinebeck, sections of Manhattan, etc. Why not limit the list to the counties? --Orlady (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Because, the statewide list article is providing an index to the sublists, too. Providing an index to all of the geographic list-articles provides a service to readers who are trying to get to one of those subareas, and saves them from being forced to go through more layers to get to where they want. There will be some readers interested in sublist for Poughkeepsie who do not know which county Poughkeepsie it is in, for example. Also, by including the sublayers conveniently along with the higher layer, it clarifies what the higher layer is. For example, having 6 sublists for New York County conveys visually, accurately, that there are lots of NRHP sites in Manhattan (too many for just one list-article), reinforcing the stated number. The smaller subdivision list-articles that Daniel Case is choosing to make for Dutchess county and thereabouts is okay and not misleading, too. I think readers will not be disappointed by the visual suggestion of more content there, as those smaller lists are well-developed, well-illustrated lists. In terms of examples, I am looking for list-articles that have main categories with subordinate sublists, and all are presented together. As is done now, but better formatted. I know also that I can construct something that looks better, perhaps without being sortable, without finding examples first, but i am still interested in finding examples. doncram (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the "picture per county" initiative, my vote would be to keep things as they are right now, with a small collection of thumbnail images from around the state. Not all counties currently have photos (much less articles) for any of their NRHP sites, so the table would have many omissions. More significantly, while I think that captioned photos of a few selected sites from across the state illustrate the character and diversity of the state's NRHP sites, tiny uncaptioned photos of arbitrarily-selected individual sites from each county would not do much more than provide eye candy. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to find some example table layouts from featured list-articles that address geographically organized information, with subdivisions. Some positive examples would be, well, a more positive way to discuss this...  :)
I'm not sure what you have in mind. However, I am aware of two sets of featured lists that are in complex hierarchies of articles -- these might be examples of what you are after (although only one set has geographically organized information):
--Orlady (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll consider those. At first glance, they do not contain the kind of hierarchical list tables that i have in mind, but seriously thanks for trying to respond with something positive.
Also, Orlady, I am also not necessarily able to engage in pleasant conversation here, while other stuff of mine--in which i am less invested, but still--is being put up for deletion. And I don't know if you are intimating that you might want to start working the negative side and deleting stuff here too, just because I and others here don't have a perfect system worked out. Please, specifically, do not start deleting components of my work here such as reversing my editorial choice to put in subarea lists that have separate list-articles. I have put hundreds of hours into further developing this system of lists. The Onondaga County one was an early prototype for the list-tables that Elkman's generator produces easily now. The implementation of list-tables for all 62 counties, recently, even using Elkman's table generator, has been extremely timeconsuming to do right. That doesn't mean i own it or feel that proprietary about it, but I do think that Mwanner, Dmadeo, Daniel Case, Lvklock, DanTD, and others who have developed parts of this system have more standing here, at least in terms of chatting about deleting stuff or not. Coming from a non-contributor, suggestions of deleting stuff come across poorly. Not saying you are doing that here, but you are doing it elsewhere, and it complicates thinking about dealing with you here, even if you are legitimately trying to be constructive, only, here. doncram (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
About selected pics vs. one pic per county, I don't know. It would perhaps be nice to develop a different look-and-feel than the county lists themselves. This state-list has the state map image, which is different. The state-level list also perhaps should be really quick-loading, as many readers may be reaching it like a splash page, on their way to finding something more specific. Don't want to delay them with a very slow-loading page. I dunno, will browse for examples. doncram (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
One way that some readers will arrive in impatient splash-mode style, is from disambiguation pages like First Presbyterian Church where i have been putting in bluelinks to state-wide lists for NRHPs not yet having articles, rather than making a lot more effort to find the specific county- or city-list that is relevant. This is a "temporary" issue, as the disambig pages will drop such bluelinks once the individual NRHP articles are created. Anyhow, I am inclined to keep this statewide list-article short and quickish-loading, but i do want it to document the number of NRHPs in the state (which is an important contribution, not available anywhere else). doncram (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

MPS, MRA, etc. documents

Many of New York's listings on the NRHP are described in the following Multiple Property Submissions, Multiple Resource Area, or Thematic Resources studies. For each there is a NRHP document available on-line (and should be found by searching at http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrcover.htm. These can be used, at least, to develop articles on the NRHPs. For a while I thought these were each wikipedia-notable, although i don't now. Anyhow, the list of MPSs etc, is:

Statewide count of listings

Is there some reason we're not willing to trust the counts of the number of listings in each county? "More than 5,000" for the total is unsatisfying. The current counts sum to 5,031. Just wondering. --sanfranman59 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I set this one up and put it that way. It was the first state-wide list with a county-by-county table, if i recall correctly, and I wasn't all that confident that it would be easy enough to maintain or otherwise go over well. So my first judgment was to put in an approximate number that wouldn't seem to be demanding constant revision. Actually the total then was 5,002 or something very close to that, just over 5,000. Please feel free to put in a more exact current count! doncram (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you know if table-ization complete for NY now? --sanfranman59 (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, i did it all a long time ago. I recall it took a while to do it all properly, to address some feedback u gave me. I don't think standards have much changed, so i think it is still done; i am not aware of anything else needed. Besides perhaps revising the state-wide page for consistency to the other states. But maybe no one fixed categories, or other details in the sep. county pages. doncram (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)