Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:NRHP)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Stock post message.svg To-do:


Architectural categories at Commons[edit]

There's some variation by states in the architectural categories at Commons, and I'd like to get it straightened out, so that the category structures are uniform for all states. I'd like to ask if anyone here has strong opinions about what structure should be used.

The issue is how we should handle "Category:Victorian architecture in $STATE", and whether other categories, including "Italianate architecture in $STATE" and "Queen Anne architecture in $STATE" should be subcategories thereof. In some states, e.g. Alabama, "Italianate" and "Victorian" come under "by style", with "Queen Anne" under "Victorian". In others, e.g. Nebraska, "Queen Anne" and "Victorian" are under "by style", with "Italianate" under "Victorian". In still others, e.g. Ohio, "QA", "Victorian", and "Italianate" are all directly under "by style", and "Italianate" recurs under "Victorian". In "Architecture of the United States by style", "Italianate", "Victorian", and "QA" are all under "by style"; and then "QA" and "Italianate" recur under "Victorian". Clearly, this is a mess, and needs to be standardized and brought into conformity with Commons:COM:OVERCAT.

My own preference would be to keep "QA" and "Italianate" directly under "by style", both since users might not think to look for such categories inside "Victorian", and because "Victorian" strikes me as more a temporal category than a stylistic one—if, for instance, I win the lottery tomorrow, I could decide to build myself an Italianate mansion, but it'd seem strange to call it Victorian. However, in a number of nom forms I've seen "Victorian" used to describe houses that I'd personally be inclined to call Queen Anne, so we might want to keep it as a style category, parallel to QA and Italianate.

Thoughts on this? There are a number of people in this WikiProject who know architecture much better than I, and are more qualified to comment. I'd like to get some kind of consensus, or at least no well-founded opposition, before I embark on a mass recategorization campaign. Ammodramus (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ammo, I don't know the answer to your question, but have had similar questions myself. I hope my thoughts may help clarify, but if they confuse, please just ignore them. "Queen Anne" is especially troubling. Technically it should be "Queen Anne Revival" since Queen Anne died about 1710. But the styles vary in different places - so "Queen Anne" and "Queen Anne Revival" in the UK are very different styles and "Queen Anne" (with or without revival) is quite different in the US, and are somewhat different in California and New Jersey. The Eastlake-Stick style might be two different styles but usually isn't divided anymore, and I think of it as Post-Victorian more than Victorian. Italianate at least doesn't mean "Italian" but more like "inspired by the Italian" so can be any time period. Same with "Gothic Revival". Since Gothic Revival and Italianate were 2 of the top styles in the US during Victoria's reign in the UK, these are also troubling. Perhaps, perhaps, all these styles could be substyles of "Victorian eclectic", at least in the US. But trying to get a consistent worldwide naming system would be beyond my powers! Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, "Victorian" is problematic. One big issue is that people seem to think of it as including a massive range of styles, including the ones you mention and some others, and the phrase is routinely used by people who know nothing of "Queen Anne" or "Edwardian", including when they're describing buildings that definitely postdate the Victorian period. I never use any "Victorian" categories when categorising my own uploads, and recategorising "Victorian" buildings into their proper styles would be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Not as much response here as I'd hoped for. I thought about mooting this at WikiProject Architecture, but there appears to be very little activity at their talk page, so I don't think I'd find much help there.
I agree with Nyttend: It'd be good for buildings currently categorized as "Victorian" to be recategorized properly. Unfortunately, I'm not competent to do that. When I catgorize by architectural style, I have to rely on the sources: chiefly, nom forms. When the sources call a building's style "Victorian", I don't assign a style category at all.
My plan is to pull all the various style subcategories—QA, Italianate, Shingle Style, etc.—out of "Victorian", so that they'll come directly under "Architecture of $PLACE by style". I won't eliminate the "Victorian architecture" categories, but will treat them as though Victorian were a style of its own, parallel to the others.
I'll only do this within the United States: among other things, as Smallbones pointed out, what we'd call Queen Anne architecture isn't at all like what the British were building during the Augustan period. I'm also not going to touch Wikipedia categorization, but people who work more than I do with the WP category system might want to take a look at the architectural-style categories there. Ammodramus (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

99.05% illustrated in Pennsylvania[edit]

The most recent update at the progress page gives the following numbers

  • Pennsylvania 3,372 total sites 3,340 sites illustrated 99.1%

which is something I'd never thought I'd see! Congrats should go to @Nyttend, Ruhrfisch, and Gerry D:, Roy at Commons and many, many others. Don't worry, it's impossible to catch up to Washington DC (100%) or Massachusetts (99.6%). There are 32 PA sites left, but half or more are destroyed, address restricted, or otherwise inaccessible. The remainder are spread across the state, 1 or 2 in about 15 counties. It's a pretty big state with lots of mountains, so I doubt we'll get those soon, but if somebody is in Allegheny County outside of Pittsburgh, there are 3 sites, Centre County (2 sites), and Franklin County (2 sites) that should be accessible.

Before celebrating, I should check whether I've recorded the new site Twin Bridges Rural Historic District correctly. See:

It's in both Chester and Delaware Counties, not just Chester, so I made adjustments at 4 places National Register of Historic Places listings in Pennsylvania, Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Progress/Duplicates#Pennsylvania_Statewide and the 2 county lists. It's fairly complicated, could somebody check my work?

{{NRHP row |pos=84 |refnum=100001635 |type=HD |article=Twin Bridges Rural Historic District |name=Twin Bridges Rural Historic District |address=Roughly bounded by Creek & Bullock Rds.,Beverly Farm, Big Bend & Hill Girt Farms Estates, Brandywine Cr. |city=[[Pennsbury Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania|Pennsbury Township]] |county=[[Chester County, Pennsylvania]] |date=2017-09-18 |image=TWIN BRIDGES RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, SOUTH CHESTER CTY, PENNA.jpg |lat=39.860046 |lon=-75.598414 |description=Extends into [[Pennsbury Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania|Pennsbury Township, Chester County]] }}

Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This is an impressive accomplishment. I am glad to have been a part of it. Gerry D (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Smallbones: and congratulations to all involved! The Twin Bridges listings look correct to me. Where could I see a list of places that still need photos? I could try to make it to Centre County. I also wonder about "fair use" of the NRHP photos for the destroyed sites (like covered bridges from the PennDOT survey). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about a list per se, but you can see all of the counties that are unfinished at WP:NRHPPROGRESS. Just sort the Pennsylvania table by %Illustrated. Magic♪piano 01:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Pompano Beach Mound[edit]

Still a stub? If someone could take a look and see if this article is still a stub, or what improvement it needs that would be great. Thanks. MrBill3 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It's short, less than 1000 prose bytes (per this script)). Considering the length of the National Register nomination form, it is clear that more can be written about it. I judge that adequately sourced subjects should have at least 1500 prose bytes before being considered Start level. Tell us more about its setting, more about its excavation history, and more about why what was found was significant. Magic♪piano 16:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate your clear and specific suggestions. Very nice and helpful (especially in the all too often contentious world of WP editing). I have gone through the application and added most of what you suggested. It resulted in a significant expansion of the article. I am hoping to find some more information about the significance and importance of the artifacts from the museums. I have taken the bold step of removing the stub tag. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The byte count notwithstanding, I think that it is clearly better than a stub. Look at the descriptions at Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Assessment#Quality_scale and the examples for stub and start. I suggest making a couple of sections. (Well, I just did that - change them if you see a better way.) And it seems to be a lot more than 1000 bytes of text to me - a quick count of the number of lines and the number of charcters per line puts it close to 4,000 characters. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm changing it to Start - revert if you disagree. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for assessment[edit]

I have recently rewritten the article on Cap's Place. I welcome an assessment, constructive comments and assistance in editing the article. Thanks. MrBill3 (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting information[edit]

I am finding conflicting information about the owners of the Warren-Guild-Simmons House. Does anyone know how to fix this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Where does the conflicting info come from? There usually isn't much disagreement about historical owners - it's either listed in the nomination form or it's too complicated to be of interest to most folks, or maybe just unknown. I wouldn't worry about the current owners - that can change frequently and nobody updates it for the NRHP. Maybe you could do title searches at the county courthouse? Didn't think so. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox problems[edit]

Two new articles, Kemper Street Industrial Historic District and Lebanon in the Forks Cemetery have something causing them to be put in Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup but I can't see anything wrong and don't see anything in the template documentation that would explain what is causing this. MB 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Both were due to errors with the refnum. The Kemper Street HD was missing the leading zero, while the cemetery was missing the refnum completely. They're both updated now. 25or6to4 (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Historic district contributing properties in Portland, Oregon?[edit]


I'm wondering if creating Category:Historic district contributing properties in Portland, Oregon, as a subcategory of Category:Historic district contributing properties in Oregon, is appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Creighton School[edit]

The NHRP Thomas Creighton School was moved about six months ago to Universal Creighton Charter School, the name of a charter school currently operating in the building. Since the article is on the historic building (known as Thomas Creighton School) and has virtual no information about the charter school, shouldn't the article retain the NHRP name? MB 05:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • A viewpoint from WP:WPSCH here. If this school wasn't on the NRHP, it's likely it would not have an article here. Also, I can't help but have that Spidy-sense feeling that the page move was corporate motivated. I'd endorse strongly moving it back. John from Idegon (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Googling ("thomas creighton school") yields 1,470 hits. Googling ("universal creighton charter") produces 5,830. It doesn't seem possible to search the Philadelphia Inquirer website directly, but doing a Google advanced search for those two phrases, restricting results to the Inquirer website (, produces one hit for "thomas creighton school", and four for "universal creighton charter". Searching the Philadelphia Tribune and Philadelphia Weekly sites turns up no occurrences of either phrase.
I haven't looked for overlap (sites that use both phrases), nor have I attempted to assess the quality of the coverage; but the raw Google numbers at least suggest that the Universal Creighton name should be preferred, under WP:COMMONNAME. Ammodramus (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a conflation of two independent topics. "Thomas Creighton School" is the historic building with a nearly 100-year old history notable for being on the NRHP. It had a stub which could be greatly expanded. "Universal Creighton Charter School" is an organization, a K-8 charter school that is currently using the building. If someone finds it notable, there could be a separate article on the organization. This is one of eight charter schools operated by the "Universal Companies Family of Schools" which is part of "Universal Companies" ([1]). Per normal handling of secondary schools, they are covered in an article about their "district" or governing authority. I can't find an article on Universal Companies, but if one is ever written then that is where this school should be covered. The current article's title is of a non-notable topic and has usurped a notable article. MB 14:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Umm, this page was in no way a corporate move. It was based on the modern, common name of the school. And I don't see how it's a conflation of two topics. Although two different institutions have been there, it's still just one building. The NRHP designation was largely based on its architectural qualities, which didn't change just because it housed a charter school. "Thomas Creighton School" and "Universal Creighton Charter School" are really both just educational organizations; I don't see why you would regard them differently. The building only used the old name because that's what the organization that used it was called. kennethaw88talk 07:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It still remains that the subject "Universal Creighton Charter School" is not a notable subject. The school is NOT the building. The building is what is notable, NOT the school. The school could move next fall (hypothetical) and it would still be some variation of Universal Charter School. And it would remain as non notable as it is now. The building, tho, would remain where it is, and remain notable.
You can say this isn't a corporate thing but you'd be wrong. What's to say that the reason the ghits are higher for the school's name isn't because that's what it's called here? Internet marketing and SEO are real things. Somewhere earlier this year a discussion was had about how there is a book or a website that instructs bed and breakfast owners to try to get the article on the historic house they are in moved to the name of their inn. I've seen those hack pieces. At least they haven't done that here.
Article naming conventions are guidelines. We as editors need to apply them with responsibility. I do not think that a lot of editors realize how powerful Wikipedia is. And with great power comes great responsibility. English Wikipedia is the 5th most visited website in the entire world. 3 of the four more visited websites are search engines, with varying amounts of editorial content. That means that we, along with Facebook, are the main drivers of link juice. The right title on a Wikipedia article can be worth millions of dollars in sales. Essentially, we are giving the naming rights for this valuable asset (the article title) over to a commercial entity that has little to no interest in the historical nature of the building. The tall building in Chicago with all the setbacks is the Sears Tower, that big stadium in Dallas is the Cotton Bowl, and the building under discussion here is the Thomas Creighton School. John from Idegon (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with J from I's conflation argument. It seems entirely reasonable to discuss a building's past and current occupants in an article that's primarily about the building; and it's entirely reasonable to discuss any interesting aspects of an organization's physical plant in an article about the organization. If, for instance, the occupant of the building were Universal Creighton Charter High School (which, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, would presumably be notable), it'd seem strange and wrong to create separate articles for the building and the academic institution.
JFI's determination to keep WP from being hijacked for marketing or promotional purposes is laudable, but seems to be carried too far, to the point of "If an edit benefits a commercial entity, we're opposed to it". Let's look at a hypothetical in which the profit motive is presumably absent. A building is constructed for the public Jefferson Davis High School, and under that name is listed in the NRHP. Subsequent to the listing, the high school moves across town, and its name is changed to Medgar Evers H.S. A public middle school moves into the old building, under the name West Central M.S. What name do we use for the article on the historic building? Davis High no longer exists; Evers High is miles away. If a local resident wants to look up the history of that middle school with the big Corinthian columns, do we expect them to know that it used to be Davis, and to type that name into WP's search box; or do we do what seems like the sensible thing, and give the article the building's current name? If that's what we'd do for a non-commercial entity, is there a good reason for treating commercial entities otherwise? Ammodramus (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
When we expect people to search for something under the wrong title, we create a redirect. Ntsimp (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)