User talk:Appraiser/Archive6

Thanks for the invite re Minnesota pages. I am in Green Bay and my Oliver Bridge interest is mainly railroad interest. I am not sure that I can help more generally--Wickifrank (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox categorization

Hi, I saw you categorized User:Appraiser/List of registered Historic Places in Ramsey County, Minnesota. However user subpages should not be categorized. I have removed the category. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Lake Harriet

The IP address spammer might have been onto something, if there were an article for a Minneapolitan by the name Mark McGowan, and not just the Aussie politician of the same name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1904 tornado

I'll see what I can put together, but a couple sources I have read said that they don't even know for sure that it was a tornado because a funnel was never officially observed. But considering that event had a 1 minute sustained wind of 110 mph with a gust to 180 mph (both are Minnesota records yet today), I'd be shocked if this was not a tornado. I'll try to make a note of that though when I type it up. Gopher backer (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was able to find a little bit, but not a ton. Most of the information came from 3 references, and beyond that I couldn't find much. I did find a page where it does call it a tornado (http://climate.umn.edu/pdf/day_in_weather_history/august_wx_history.pdf) but that is pretty much a direct contradiction to what it says at this link at the same site (http://climate.umn.edu/doc/historical/tornadic.htm) and the book I have in front of me. Gopher backer (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Do you think it has enough significance and sources to be worth a paragraph in the History article?--Appraiser (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read your paragraph; thank you. This source[1] says 14 deaths. Are 11 of those outside of St Paul, ya think? I looked at all the pictures linked from that same website; the damage certainly looks like what I would expect from an extreme low pressure tornado (with "exploded" windows) and piles of sticks where balloon-construction buildings once were. Thanks again.--Appraiser (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it does. I think the fact that it blew part of the bridge over makes it a pretty big deal. A (likely) tornado hitting a downtown area is a pretty big deal I think. If you want to cut it down or whatever and just mention it too that would be fine I think.

I just noticed that on the GenDisasters reference it lists the 14 fatalities, and only 3 of them were in St. Paul.

The Dead: (fourteen)
At St. Paul: VIOLA ROBINSON, GEORGE KWETSON, LORIN F. HOKANSON.
At Minneapolis: RICHARD HILGEDICK.
At St. Louis Park: ALBERT OHDE, ANNA TAYDE, HEDGER CHILD.
At Waconia: GUSTAV MOYE, MRS. GUSTAV MOYE, FRED MOYE, HUBERT LEHMAR. 
At Hutchinson: FRED GROSS, MRS. GROSS
At Dallas: UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN
Fatally injured (two): CHARLES MOYE, Waconia; FRED PICHA, Waconia

Gopher backer (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you see this account? Sounds dramatic. I like how the Empire Theatre was "of the same character." (smutty I guess)[2].--Appraiser (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Grand Opera House (Meridian, Mississippi)

Thank you for correcting the coordinates of this NRHP entry. The coordinates are now correct.

If I may ask, how did you do it? Do you have software that does this automatically, or did you just manually change the coordinates? Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just used Google Earth, typed in the address and zoomed in to the building. It displays the coordinates of where the cursor is. It's easy to get the right coordinates if you can figure out which building it is; I deduced that from captions on [3], your photo, and the description, which says that its on 22nd Avenue.--Appraiser (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was unaware that Google Earth gave coordinates; I thought it would only give street addresses. Thanks for the tip! Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Pawlenty

Your snide summary comment is not appreciated. The one link was dead, the other had nothing to do with that sentence. Futhermore, how the actual conversation with Pawlenty might be biased because it was with FNC is beyond me. Please leave your own political opinions aside. Arzel (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is no secret that Fox News has an agendum; I would suggest that we should not use it as a source, just as we prohibit the use of blogs.--Appraiser (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you seriously would put FNC in with blogs. What are your views on MSNBC? Arzel (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't watch cable TV or read MSNBC online, so I have no opinion about them specifically. I do think the Meet the Press (NBC, Tim Russert host) is usually unbiased.--Appraiser (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Expand your horizons, how can you have an objective opinion if you haven't viewed these channels. Just as the right shouldn't drink kool-aid, netheir should the left. Arzel (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

NRHP and History of Saint Paul, Minnesota

Appraiser, these pages are simply amazing. And you took so many of the photos! I look foward to reading the history of Saint Paul as soon as my account is back in working order. I fell in this pool in my brand new Chesterfield coat at age five by the way! These pages are going to be very popular and serve many readers. -Susanlesch (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; in a few months I'll show you a better place to swim.--Appraiser (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Looks like you and Elkman have created so much this year the U.S. can add a whole new layer to the National Atlas. -Susanlesch (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

He has taken a ton of pictures in Hennepin County too. talk thinks it will take 50 years to start articles for all of the Registered Historic Places at the current rate. --Appraiser (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Brother Jonathan footnotes not working

Today I was reading the Brother Jonathan article for the first time. When I clicked on "footnotes" (references) numbered 7 8 9 10 and 11, nothing happened. I don't know how to fix this, would appreciate it if someone else can put things right. Mentioning this to you because you worked on it recently and appear quite experienced at Wiki. Have also made this request on the article's Talk page. Thanks.

Publius3 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of Saint Paul, Minnesota, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Charlemagne Tower

Thank you for your assistance with this article. The primary issue with that article was that the original author mixed up the details of the lives of Charlemagne Jr. (who was the ambassador) and Sr. (who was a lawyer and mining magnate). The language of the article would imply the the author intended Charlemagne Sr. to be the subject of the article, so therefore the list of the son's political achievements in the form as originally listed would be incorrect for this article, and should instead be in an article focusing on Charlemagne Jr. That may be my next project. Again, thanks for the help. Bowie60 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Hadn't thought of that. There is so much that needs to be added to this article, like his Civil War service and expanding on the other facets of his life, and I really only have time to do it in piecemeal. I did have a little bit of a problem with figuring out the licensing for the picture that I used in the article. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at that for me, it would be greatly appreciated! Bowie60 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(butting in because I have Appraiser's talk page on my watchlist) I uploaded a higher-resolution version of the photo from the Minnesota Historical Society site. The picture was first published in 1915. The {{PD-US}} documentation says that pictures first published before 1923 are no longer under copyright protection, so I think we're good to go. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good find, but it's a little confusing to me. On the MHS website [4], it says ca. 1915. Do you think that's the publication date? If it weren't for the fact that he died in 1889, I would have thought that ca. referred to the photography date.--Appraiser (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think that must be the publication date, because that definitely is Sr. The other picture on the site you referenced was of Jr., and that jibes with other pictures I've seen of him. If it would simplify the situation, I've found a portrait sketch of Tower that was published in 1894. Perhaps that should be used instead? Bowie60 (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I had contributed to the Charlemagne Tower page, thinking I was contributing to the mining magnate's page, and then realizing that someone didn't realize that there was a Sr. and a Jr. So many thanks for helping straighten that page out!MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Appraiser! I just completed my promised overhaul of the Charlemagne Tower article. I was hoping you might review the changes I made to make sure it still fits with the Minnesota Wikiproject. Have a great day! Bowie60 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota

Would you be willing to adopt a section or two of this article, to get it back in top shape for the state's 150th? Details at Talk:Minnesota#150th and following section. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Images & categories

What is the policy for mixing Articles and Images in one category? I've seen the Images of Minnesota category, but that is all images. I don't see a lot of the other way. See Category:Tornadoes of 2007. thanks, Gopher backer (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what Wikipedia's policy is. Category:Images of Minnesota, Category:Images of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Category:Images of Saint Paul, Minnesota are all images. In other categories I think it's OK to have some images until the corresponding article is written. You're probably wondering if I should have removed Image:Height of Land Portage.jpg from Category:Registered Historic Places in Minnesota. Since Height of Land Portage is already in the category, I didn't think the image needed to be there. Otherwise all the Registered Historic Place pictures could also be there, essentially repeating what's on Commons. Concerning the 2007 tornadoes, there are likely to be multiple pictures for each tornado and a relatively small number of articles, so putting images there might make more sense. But really that functionality is more suitable for Wikipedia Commons in the general case.--Appraiser (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Virginia NHLs

Hi -- I've noticed your work on many of the state NHL lists, and wonder if you have fixed up nearly all of them to the new format? I wonder if you might join in on List of National Historic Landmarks in Virginia, which needs development including the NHL colors, and I've invited several others to edit there too. I recently enjoyed editing the South Carolina NHL list, where several others were also contributing, and hope to share the experience doing the Virginia one too. Please visit! Cheers, doncram (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I will work on it; I've been working on all of them, going in alphabetical order (I just worked on Oregon). I am reviewing all of the NHL articles in the lists - not just the lists, so some of them take a while. I think Massachusetts took me a week. Actually I'd rather avoid working on the same list that someone else is actively working on due to potential edit conflicts. But I suspect that by the time I get to Virginia, others will be finished what they're doing there.--Appraiser (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay, great. Glad to understand where you are at. Big service that you are providing. I've known that you were pretty much doing that, just not clear how you were attacking it, alphabetical makes sense. And yes the VA NHL list got colored in. Thanks. doncram (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Chaska

Hello - I changed the reference from First National Bank to KleinBank because they changed hands a few years ago. I live in Chaska and drive by the bank everyday. Please revert my change back so the correct information can be listed. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabba9 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Representatives from California in the 79th Congress

If you can, can you please confirm & correct the list of Representatives from California in the 79th United States Congress? I'm trying to correct United States congressional delegations from California. See Talk:79th United States Congress.—Markles 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The names and parties are correct; I don't have any easy way to confirm districts numbers though. It is possible that mistakes are present with respect to district numbers.--Appraiser (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• What's your source(s)? —Markles 16:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

bioguide Are there some entries you disagree with?--Appraiser (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure. It's all a mess on United States congressional delegations from California, and I'm just trying to make sense of it all. Stay tuned.—Markles 19:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Commons - Category:Grand Portage National Monument

Hi, Grand Portage NM is a National Historic Landmark, as all National Monuments with a historical scope are automatically listed as NHL. Please see the official list and scroll down to the appendix. --h-stt !? 05:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a National Monument. It is not one of the 22 National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota however. The photographs in Commons [5] should not be in the category:National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota.--Appraiser (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But it is one of the 24 entries in the register of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota. --h-stt !? 07:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you both have a point. h-stt, the 2 National Monument items that you point to in the appendix are historical and are automatically listed as NRHPs (National Register of Historic Places), but they are not also National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) (which are all also automatically NRHPs). For what it is worth, I do think the list-article List of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota should have a separate section / subtable to list those two, as they are similar/related (they are of national importance, they are historical, and they are landmarks, though they are not NHLs. Please see List of National Historic Landmarks in New York for example: as well as covering the NHLs, my editing there covers 20 historic NPS areas like National Monuments that are listed in the corresponding appendix to what h-stt points to. In New York's case, 7 of those 20 are also NHLs, and 13 are not also NHLs. In Minnesota, the 2 are not also NHLs. They are all NRHPs though. And there are many other NRHPs in each state that are neither NHLs nor National Monuments. Hope this helps. :) doncram (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, Appraiser is correct that photos of Grand Portage is not an NHL, so the category name is not correct. What commons category should it be in? "Registered Historic Places in Minnesota" is applicable, but not very specific. "U.S. National Monuments" or whatever is its exact title would be relevant. "National Monuments in Minnesota" is too narrow to create. But it is already in useful category "Grand Portage National Monument", right? That may suffice. The Grand Portage National Monument article is enriched by the link to the category of 6 pics, added by H-stt. Again, hope this helps. I will call H-stt's attention to these comments. doncram (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So those NMs, NHPs, NHSs and so on, that are listed in the appendix of the register of National Historic Landmarks, are not NHLs themselves, just registered as they were? Thanks for clarifying, as I was under the impression that they actually were NHLs by definition. That means I have to use other categories for them on Commons and de-WP, where I categorized them routinely as NHLs. --h-stt !? 21:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost. Unfortunately the bureaucracy on this is complicated. Sorry that the U.S. National Historic Landmark article is not very good yet, it should be developed a lot more and made clearer. Appraiser and i and others are working actively on the state lists of NHLs and will get around to fixing up the National Historic Landmark article when we have a better grip on them all individually. The German de:National Historic Landmark article is probably deficient along the same lines. Basically, the U.S. has about 79,000 Registered Historic Places, which we call RHPs or NRHPs, and which are each listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The government provides some tax benefits for owners of these. Of these, about 2,442 have further been designated National Historic Landmarks. Those get no different tax benefits, but they get some more attention, they are like an "honor roll" of the RHPs.

Those NMs, NHPs, NHSs and so on listed in the appendix may or may not also be named NHLs. They are like NHLs in that they are historic, and they are of higher national importance than regular RHPs. Note in the New York State example, 7 of the 20 appendix-listed are NHLs, 13 of the 20 are not. It is not clear from the appendix which ones also are an NHL or not, we are still sorting those out as we develop the NHL list-articles and add sections on the similar National Monument type areas, as i did for the New York State list-article. Sometimes the National Monument has one name for a site, and the NHL name is different, as for example Martin Van Buren National Historic Site whose NHL name is Lindenwald.

All of those listed in the appendix are automatically listed in the National Register of Historic Places, that is to say they are Registered Historic Places (again which we call either RHPs or NRHPs interchangeably) as are all of the National Historic Landmarks. Being a Registered Historic Place is something already, there are about 79,000 of those. Of the RHPs, about 2,442 are NHLs. Of the RHPs there are a couple hundred NMs, NHPs, etc, which overlap with the NHLs.

Whew, i think that is about all i can say now, hope this is helpful again. And yes, it sounds like you will have to do some re-categorizing on commons and on the de wikipedia. doncram (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Hey, Appraiser, check out de:Grand Portage National Monument! I did just leave a note, over at H-stt's German language user talk page (following link from H-stt's English wikipedia talk page), to come back to the discussion here. It was a nice detour, i got around to editing my own userpage and talk page over there, that i had signed up for when i visited German language coverage of the U.S. NHLs a while ago. Easy to do, just hit the "bearbeiten" button. :) It would be a lot harder if i actually tried to write there in German. doncram (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And check out de:Liste der National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota. You show up plenty in the edit history of that article. I can't tell if it is a static page that was copied over and further edited/translated, or if it is a dynamic translation page. Neat though. doncram (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Liste der National ... in Minnesota" was imported from en to de. So User:Appraiser shows up in the history because that is the history of the en-WP acticle. m:Help:Unified login will help clarify that, when it is implemented in full. --h-stt !? 21:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a section in List of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota to document their importance. On Commons, both sites are in Category:National Monuments of the United States [6] and [7] as they should be.--Appraiser (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Kadoka, SD depot

Thanks for putting the template in the article. I keep forgetting to do that. Einbierbitte (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome :)--Appraiser (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Recognition

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I've been seeing your name pop up on a lot of articles in the past few days and thought you deserved (further) recognition for your efforts. Here's in appreciation of you! --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Church titles

Hello. Regarding the titles of churches such as these, may I suggest using something along the lines of St. X Church, Y or St. X Church (Y) rather than simply Church of St. X-Catholic? Two reasons, I suppose: one, the variants I suggested are standard; two, there are bound to be hundreds of Catholic Churches named after a particular saint, and probably more than one is notable. Biruitorul (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I'll move them. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - thank you. Biruitorul (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mislocated village?

The village of Belle Terre, New York is shown in the middle of Long Island Sound on the New York State map in its article. VerruckteDan suggested I mention it to you since you appear to have done extensive work of late on this series of maps. Can you help get the village back on dry land? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you changed the coordinates. However, the pushpin still shows the village in the middle of Long Island Sound on the New York State map. At least on my screen, whether I use Firefox or MSIE, on Windows XP. Any way to get it on land in Long Island? Truthanado (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I know; I don't have time to look at it today, but I will. I believe the New York map isn't the same one that I worked on. I need to find the one it's calling and fix the upper and lower edge latitudes.--Appraiser (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's right now. If any other New York dots are now wrong, please let me know in case I inadvertently screwed something up. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I use IE 7 and it looks OK on my monitor (on land, seems right position). I also checked the coordinates to make sure they were correct (and not actually for a point in the water), and they are correct. My original guess was that the calibration of the map was off slightly - not noticed if a dot is 3 pixels too high on land, but obvious on water. Since you tried this, I am not sure what else to suggest. I assume you have tried bypassing your cache? User:VerruckteDan may have some idea - he has calibrated many locator maps. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. The latitude was 10 seconds too far north in the infobox and also in the coord template in the article text. Epodunk and Google Earth helped find the error. We can sleep tonight. Truthanado (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pond Eddy Bridge

Thanks a lot, I was able to expand it very well. I am gonna keep this close to me as I don't wanna see the bridge go myself.^Mitch32^contribs 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I nominated it for DYK.--Appraiser (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiCookie

Just stopping by with cookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for fixing up the WP:PAREAS new category or two. about NE2's bridges, i expressed being perhaps a bit miffed about being involved in what i thought was a test case but don't want to overstate that, i see u have been involved in categories for those or whatever maybe some more positive response to his accomplishment is called for. thanks, anyhow. you are really great, what you have been doing. doncram (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Liston Range Rear Light

Do you think the template you added in this article is relevant? The template does not have any mention of Liston Range Rear Light. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Liston Range Rear Light is a Registered Historic Place, the article deserves the NRHP template. Is there a reason to omit it?--Appraiser (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Listening Point

[8] Another one for you or Elkman. Kablammo (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Appraiser (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Various lighthouse articles

Thanks for the cleanup. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Stan

You're welcome. When I started Category:Infrastructure-related Registered Historic Places I knew that bridges and railroad-related items would need their own subcategories. I had no idea that there were some many lighthouses! I think they will need their own subcategory too. eventually.--Appraiser (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I think they're are 850 (maybe 650) on the Great Lakes alone. 149 (counts differ, depneidng on which ones you count, and not counting the disappeared ones) in Michigan alone. I'm outa here. Back Tuesday. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Stan

Old Mackinac Point Light and Mackinac Point Light

I think we have two articles and one lighthouse. Please take a look. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Stan

yep. Thanks and have a good weekend.--Appraiser (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Pond Eddy Bridge

On 11 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pond Eddy Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gordon Parks High School (Griggs).JPG

Thank you for uploading Image:Gordon Parks High School (Griggs).JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Image:Gordon Parks High School (Griggs).JPG

Hello, Appraiser. You have new messages at Parent5446's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Inappropriate use of a barnstar by me

Don't know if you're into 'em, but . . .

		The Template Barnstar
		I am using this barnstar, despite its description, to recognize your (Appraiser) addition of the NRHP template to the bottoms of the articles I forget to add it to, I presume you add it to others as well. Thanks for adding the template and all the other additions you make around here. Special notice: This barnstar has been approved by IvoShandor for unauthorized usage, especially if it violates the description outlined at WP:BS, I mean, look at the shortcut.IvoShandor (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

IvoShandor (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Your templating and categorizing and other fix-ups are extraordinary! doncram (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures from Scott County and Washington County

I noticed you're starting to work on National Register articles in Scott County and Washington County. I have pictures of some of the sites in Scott County (mainly from Jordan, Belle Plaine, and Shakopee), as well as pictures of several sites in Washington County (mostly from Stillwater, Afton, Bayport, Lakeland, and Oak Park Heights). I'll see if I can get around to uploading them soon.

By the way, should we generate a new, separate county list for Washington County? Or Anoka, come to think of it? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw in your "To-Do" list that you have many of the photographs. If you could put them on Flickr or Commons, I'll use them. Thanks. My plan is to do all of the metro counties, one at a time. I'm only currently working on Scott.--Appraiser (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Category renames for Protected areas

I wonder if you could comment in the CFR discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 13#Renames of categories for National Parks, Protected Areas, related categories world-wide. As you will see, it is going badly. I am not very experienced in CFRs but I suppose now I do not expect any part of the proposal will pass, and that it cannot be saved. I don't care much about parts of it, but I do want to clean up with respect to use of the "protected area" term. I believe that "Protected areas in ___" is superior to "Protected areas of ___". Anyhow, I currently expect that to make any change will require coming back with a more focused proposal later. It would help if this discussion shows some positive comment, at least so that it will not be invoked in the future as reflecting unanimous opposition. doncram (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I read all the comments and responses and I'm not sure where I stand on the world-wide proposal. I'm pretty frustrated with the whole concept of "Protected Areas" because, as far as I can tell, there is no comprehensive list that accurately lists all of the sites under the IUCN umbrella. I don't understand how participants of the project can determine what to include/exclude without doing Original Research. That's why I'm spending most of my time these days doing NRHP sites. At least we have a list to go on. Ultimately I'd like to change all the NRHP articles that are formatted using the IUCN standard to use the NRHP standard, since we actually have citable sources. But trying to fix "Protected Areas" on a global basis seems futile. Sorry.--Appraiser (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, and thanks for responding. I didn't see ur response here until just now, but i do see your position as quite reasonable. The proposal did fail. By the way, Ivoshandor suggested to me, on my talk page, forming an NRHP taskforce with a somewhat different scope, and i replied to him that we could have use of an NRHP taskforce to address those NRHP/IUCN overlaps (mostly NPS areas). It would seem a positive activity of wp:NRHP, while it is a negative activity if it were hosted within WP:PAREAS. Do you think a task force on this would be helpful? The task force could be defined a bit more broadly, to clean up other aspects of the "higher" NRHP designations (NMEMs, NMONs, NHPs etc.) as well. I don't have any experience with task forces, not sure when it is useful or not, though i have seen a suggestion that task forces should not be created without at least 5 interested members (and then capacity to recruit more). doncram (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Notifications

No, it's not an oversight, you're just a little premature. It will get done eventually - if not by me, by someone else :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 19 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hooper-Bowler-Hillstrom House, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Light" NRHP categories

Sounds potentially doable. Can you clarify what "former Light" category (or categories) you're referring to, exactly? Alai (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wondered what this was, actually thought it was perhaps about lighter/funnier fare covered by the perhaps-too-serious National Register, and I followed over to bot request. Is "Lights on the National Register of Historic Places" the right title to use? To me the category name sounds like spotlights directed at the NRHP, or lighter/funnier content on the NRHP (like coverage of any Clown Hall of Fame, etc.)... I see the category would be intended to cover both lighthouses and lightvessels, so "Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places" wouldn't be exactly right either, at least not to cover both. But, in many/most of the ones on the NRHP, there is in fact no light anymore. For inactive lighthouses, I would call them lighthouses still, but I wouldn't necessarily call them lights, since they are dark. I suspect there are lots of lighthouses, few lightvessels. So on balance i would think having 2 categories might be best: the bot-assisted category could create "Lighthouses" on the NRHP, with manual switches of some over to "Lightvessels" on the NRHP. My 2 cents, not asked for, hope you don't mind. doncram (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Separate categories would perhaps allow nicer nesting into "Category:Lightships" and Lightvessels in the United States and so on, too. doncram (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't actually planning to include lightships, since they don't fall under the infrastructure category. We should probably have a Category:Ships on the National Register of Historic Places. I'd be OK with "lighthouse" instead of "light", although many of the titles omit the "house" suffix (e.g. Grosse Point Light). I'm not worried about the fact that many of them are now dark, since their function was to be a light.--Appraiser (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I also think we should say "Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places" instead of just "Lights on the National Register of Historic Places". "Lights" sort of sends the impression that a Tiffany lamp in a historic house might belong in that category. (But not a Debbie Gibson lamp, of course.) Also, since the parent category is Category:Lighthouses and not Category:Lights, it would have a consistent naming structure. A category for ships on the National Register would be good, too. (Would shipwrecks belong in a separate category from ships still above water?) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I modified my request, substituting "Lighthouse" for "Light" for consistency.--Appraiser (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my misreading, then. I'm not that going by title is an entirely great idea, since it might not be 100% reliable. But there will typically be other "light" or "lighthouse" categories (or stub tags) in place on these articles, correct? I'll certainly look into this, but I can't necessarily promise an especially speedy response in detail -- couple of other irons in the fire right now. But hopefully that'll give you a chance to sort any last details of the precise task at hand... Alai (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe everything in that infrastructure category with "light" in the title qualifies, but when you're done I'll check them to ensure we didn't pick up any incorrect ones. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

nhl ships

I notice from selected ones on my watchlist that u r categorizing ships and shipwrecks, seemingly doing so state by state. Perhaps u r visiting each of the NHL state lists and scanning for ships? But there is List of NHL ships that has them all. Sorting that by state and working from that list might be easier, or maybe u r doing that already. Anyhow, it's good work u'r doing. doncram (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any idea how to capture the non-nhl nrhp ships?--Appraiser (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Wisconsin barnstar

		The WikiProject Wisconsin Barnstar
		For you great job of photographing Registered Historic Places in Wisconsin, I hereby award you the WikiProject Wisconsin barnstar. Thank you for crossing the border to take these pictures! Royalbroil 15:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :)--Appraiser (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but HELP!!

Hi, Appraiser. I really appreciate the barnstar. It was very kind of you to give it to me. The reason I moved it is that it didn't have an end. When I tried to move it to my userpage, every bit of text below the barnstar code we=as consumed within the parameters of the barnstar (see here). Do you have any idea what's up? Thanks again, BobAmnertiopsis_{ChitChat Me!} 18:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

public domain

Since information on govt servers is in the public domain, does that mean I can blatantly copy & paste information from government servers into Wikipedia (assuming I reference it properly?) Thanks, WxGopher (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That issue was discussed quite a bit with respect to members of congress; I can't find the large discussion, but a small one is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Members#Bioguide. The bottom line is that it is legal, but probably not good style with respect to WP guidelines. But I can think of exceptions, such as quoting a John Kennedy speech in its entirety (while he was acting as a govt. employee). What are you thinking of using?--Appraiser (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't really have anything specific in mind for right now, but it is something I've wondered about. What spurred the question was this article. The person just pretty much copied & pasted from this source. WxGopher (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as expected, the article could be much better if the cited material supplemented the article, instead of comprising 90% of it. But I don't think the issue rises to the level of scrapping the article or the quoted paragraph. Thanks for sharing.--Appraiser (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

AME and AME Zion church cats

You added Foster Memorial AME Zion Church to Category:African Methodist Episcopal Church. I created a separate cat for AME Zion churches; per African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church the two are separate denominations. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Category

[[

Radeau Land Tortoise, prepares to fire her barge cannon, just before she sank.

Why you add that category [9] ? PMG (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What kind of ship do you think it was?--Appraiser (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Seriously, watch this video: [10]. It's described as the "oldest intact warship" in America and a "floating fortress". I'd say a 1750 "battleship".--Appraiser (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Railroad-related Registered Historic Places

Shouldn't this be under Category:Infrastructure-related Registered Historic Places, instead of just Category:National Register of Historic Places. Btw, wowzers on the categorizing! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking the same thing; my hesitation is that I don't know how many locomotives are nrhp. I thought I'd review the contents of the category once the existing articles are slotted to make a determination. BTW, thanks for helping with the Florida ones. :) --Appraiser (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there's a madness to your method. Ok. :) And quite welcome you are. I was going to try getting them all, but you found a few I'd missed. The South Florida ones, mostly, as I've not visited them. Yet. Cheers, and g'nite. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

historic NPS areas section of NHL list-articles

Hi, i keep noticing you doing great work, recently i thot you were fixing up some California NHLs. Anyhow, i noticed this edit of yours to the List of NHLs in CO, which i think is taking things in a different direction perhaps. For those National Park Service area sections of the NHL lists, I have been aiming to make them tables of the historic, landmarked, sites of national significance that are not themselves NHLs but are administered by the NPS. And the other criteria is that they be listed by the NPS in the PDF document list of NHLs, in its Appendix C section (page 111 for Colorado). This is what I have implemented in many of the NHL articles now. I no longer list all the NPS areas in the state, i just list the historic ones that the NPS lists in the NHL list document.

I noticed all you did was rearrange. But actually i would be dropping all but the 4 listed in the Appendix C. There are many National Monuments and National Parks that are natural areas but not particularly historical (and not deemed important enough for the NPS to include in Appendix C), and I no longer would list those.

Hey, the Fourth of July drive to finish starting the NHL articles is moving along pretty well. Lvklock is being a big help, identifying problems to fix, but that reveals all the difficult ones that i was avoiding until i could forget about them, alas... cheers, doncram (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:the edit to the Colorado list, I just moved the NMON, NHS, and National Trails to the first section, and moved the others to the "other" section. The subsequent changes you made are fine with me - I'm not sure why the others were there either.

Re:the July 4 drive - man, I think that's ambitious. I've been going through them, adding the nrhp template and categories, and fixing type= and locmapin= as necessary. As you pointed out, they really should all reference the NHL description page and be broken out of larger articles in many cases. I also think all of the lists should have the "description" column filled in. The California list needs lots of work in that regard. Perhaps aiming for July 4, 2009 would be more realistic? Anyway, we plug along. P.S. I'm hoping that by adding appropriate railroad, lighthouse, and ship categories we can recruit folks for the project from those other interests.--Appraiser (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)