Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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:


Development
Images
Maintenance


NRHP navigation templates[edit]

If this has been discussed before, my apologies. My understanding of navigation templates is that they should only be added to the bottom of articles if the article is displayed as an entry within the navigation template. At the same time, I am guilty of adding NRHP navigation templates for specific states (see Canterbury Castle, for example) to articles, even though these templates never display links to specific NRHP sites. I always remove Template:National Register of Historic Places from articles about specific NRHP sites, because I think this template is way too general to be helpful, but does this project have a preference re: inclusion of state NRHP navigation templates? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been mentioned before: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 65#Transclusion of NHRP templates
The Wikipedia style guideline at issue is at: WP:BIDIRECTIONAL
I'm not sure it was discussed adequately before, so I'm glad you brought it up again. Yes, it is the general practice of members of this project to include {{National Register of Historic Places}} on the articles for each individual listed place. I personally had been previously unaware of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, and I've been mulling whether we should make a change, or whether there's a case for WP:IAR with regard to the NRHP nav box(es). — Ipoellet (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Yes, I think more discussion would be helpful. I already said this above, but I think the main NRHP template is way too general to be included on articles about specific NRHP sites, but I'm on the fence about the inclusion of state NRHP templates. I could see how readers might be interested in viewing NRHP sites for counties within the state, but at the same time, I also think following WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is important. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Whenever anyone chooses to develop a state-, county-, city-, or neighborhood-level navigation template they go around replacing the national-level template, which is fine. But the national-level template does work well in giving some links for more info about NRHP stuff, in a "see also" way, and it includes links to the state-level lists, so a reader can indeed browse to other NRHPs in the same city or county if they drill down through that. I think it looks better than putting explicit "See also" links to the city- or county-level list-article, which is also done. And the good thing is that the national-level template is maintenance-free, while lower-level ones would require updating. I don't know if anyone does systematically update the ones that do exist, and we don't have any bot to support that or any tool to monitor it. I would be wary of creating a lot more low-level ones if there is not a process for updating supported by a tool (like wp:NRHPPROGRESS tabulation supports creation of separate articles). Maybe there should be some decision, though, about including or dropping "See also" explicit links when any level template is present. --doncram 18:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
These are not navboxes: they're basically like a sidebar information template with a different format, or in other words, like a chunk of See alsos compressed into a collapsible box. There's no significant difference between this and just listing all of the links in a See also section, except for the fact that this template doesn't occupy much space, while the other would. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Google doodle Susan La Flesche Picotte today[edit]

I'm curious what viewing statistics will be today for the NRHP article on Susan La Flesche Picotte House in Walthill, Nebraska, and for the NHL article Dr. Susan LaFlesche Picotte Memorial Hospital, given that today's Google Doodle is about Susan La Flesche Picotte, and the Wikipedia article about her is the top hit it suggests. The bio article links to the two places via picture captions, so there may be some traffic. Traffic otherwise is only 1 or 2 or 3 views per day. By the way I think the pic of the hospital here, which is in the article on the hospital, is nicer than the one in the bio article, so readers who click through get that as a reward. Too bad there's no NRHP nomination available for the house article, which is pretty short. --doncram 18:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The nomination form for the house article is available online through the Nebraska SHPO, if anyone's interested in expanding the article. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 18:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Wow, hey, I know I had looked for it when I worked on the article in December 2016, and I did try searching again a bit now, and I am surprised you can just find it like that. Hmm, I do see there is a little "New" button on the link for the document at Nebraskahistory.org page on Thurston county now, so maybe it was not available back in December. Anyhow, great, thanks! --doncram 18:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
the house got 770 views; the memorial hospital, which is linked from the text as well as from a photo caption, got 2491 views. --doncram 05:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Issues with North Cascades National Park listings and template[edit]

The National Register of Historic Places listings in North Cascades National Park and corresponding template Template:NRHP in North Cascades NP seem to have a few issues with listed properties.
As we can read in the North Cascades NP article and the North Cascades NP map, the North Cascades NP itself is a part (comprised of a northern and a southern unit) of the North Cascades National Park Complex. The complex contains the NP and two NRA (Ross Lake NRA and Lake Chelan NRA).
Some NRHP properties (like the two Backus-Marblemount Ranger Station Houses) from the Ross Lake NRA have been included, while most of the properties from Lake Chelan NRA are not.
I'm a little uncertain if i should add missing ones, considering the template and listing page being about the NP Complex, or should remove properties that are not belonging, considering the template and listing page being strictly about the NP. ProprioMe OW (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I created most or all of the park lists. Given the interlaced nature of North Cascades with Ross Lake I think they should be combined. Some of the properties were ambiguously located, and the list could certainly be updated and revised. Lake Chelan is less certain to me, since many of the Lake Chelan properties area across a divide and have little to do with the North Cascades units. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Address restricted.PNG in county lists[edit]

Address restricted.PNG

I recently reverted an edit where an editor had inserted Address restricted.PNG repeatedly in the image column of an NRHP county list. In my edit summary I suggested that there was something of a consensus at WP:NRHP that we aren't using that file like that. However in looking for past discussions where this topic has been addressed, I came up with very little - certainly less than a consensus. So either my search was pretty ineffective, or my memory of past discussions is incorrect. Can anybody identify the past discussions I'm missing, or provide a fresh opinion on this topic? — Ipoellet (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe there are those with strong opinions each way. I've wavered myself. It's annoying to have a county list that can probably never get to 100% due to an AR. On the other extreme, National Register of Historic Places listings in Carbon County, Utah has over 300 listings, nearly all of them ARs we're not likely to learn more about. It looks like there hasn't been a project-wide consensus, with inconsistency between states and even counties. Is total consistency desirable? Ntsimp (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Merging/splitting county lists[edit]

Previous discussions touching on this topic:

Earlier today, I merged the listings in National Register of Historic Places listings in Syracuse, New York into the Onondaga County list (150 total county listings), then cleared and redirected the Syracuse article to the county list. A few hours later User:Doncram contacted me on my talk page to disagree with my edit. I think the issues raised in this matter merit a community discussion.

I did the merger with the thought that I was implementing a consensus that came out of the discussions linked above. However, upon re-reading the earlier discussions I'm less sure that a consensus was actually reached. The principle that was in my head and that I was acting on was (in my own words):

WP:NRHP's primary grouping point for lists of NRHP listings is the county (or equivalent), and we prefer county-level articles/tables unless there's a IAR-style reason to do otherwise. We generally decompose county lists to a sub-county level when the overall county exceeds 200 listings (for reasons in the earlier discussions), but only to the extent necessary to keep individual articles under 200 listings. Each county with under 200 listings should be consolidated in a single list.

Doncram's concern with regard to the Syracuse/Onondaga lists was that the merger lost analytic information in the lead and data identifying the specific neighborhood for each listing in Syracuse (which was in the table's city column). He also suggested he has thoughts about broader principles with regard to list length, but didn't specify in detail on my talk page.

Would other project participants please offer their perspectives? — Ipoellet (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

First, note the "Washington County, Utah" discussion left the split between listings in Zion NP vs. other Washington County ones; there was NOT a consensus to force merger of the Zion list or of other well-defined National Park lists into corresponding county articles. The salient principle governing then was "Definitional quality/recognizability/notability" discussed below.) The other discussion did mention a 200-maximum cap on NRHP list-article size, one salient reason being that the corresponding Bing maps accessible through {{GeoGroup}} template had a cutoff for display of coordinates at 200. That Bing constraint is no longer relevant, as Bing no longer appears on the GeoGroup template (OSM and Google maps have no limits). --doncram 15:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the Syracuse NRHP list has a descriptive intro (including "There are 98 listed properties and districts in the city of Syracuse, including 18 business or public buildings, 13 historic districts, 6 churches, three school or university buildings, three parks, five apartment buildings, and 41 houses. Twenty-nine of the listed houses were designed by architect Ward Wellington Ward; 25 of these were listed as a group in 1996", which was lost in the merger) and was organized with a "Neighborhood" column using Syracuse's official neighborhoods which allowed readers to see the many "Strathmore" ones, the many "Downtown" ones, and those in about 20 neighborhoods in neighborhood order. In the merger, all 98 are lumped as "Syracuse", not allowing locals or anyone to see what is near what. It was also a pretty decent list-article showing care and attention of local editors: all rows at one time had descriptions; it had a footnote for each of the Ward Wellington Ward-designed ones up through this 2016 version (which was inappropriately IMO dropped but could/should be restored). Its table was one of the 5 or 6 original models of list-tables for NRHP list-articles developed and discussed within WikiProject NRHP back in 2009 or so. It got a peer review and was on its way to nomination for a featured list. An Onondaga County-level list would not be attractive for editor investment in bringing to Featured List status.
Some general principles to consider:
  • Counties are not universally useful at all. For Hawaii, the initial WikiProject NRHP-imposed county organization was fiercely resisted because legal counties are unknown there, and because they bizarrely split and combined Hawaii's islands. Reorganizing by island made peace. For Rhode Island, counties have long had no meaning/relevance, and all economic development and tourist region planning and all other discussion in the state uses municipalities. An editor or two has sought to reorganize Rhode Island that way but has been confounded by discussion/bureaucracy here at wt:NRHP in the past. For Puerto Rico, there are no counties, only municipalities which are treated as county-equivalents by NRIS but are too small. "Northern" vs. "southern" vs. "eastern" vs. "western" vs. "central" vs. "San Juan" are well enough defined for tourism purposes to be used instead. In original 13 states, counties are often defined as areas that are no longer useful administratively (e.g. too small geographically now) or might have very slight usage (such as I think Connecticut's counties have semi-correspondence to judicial areas). In great swaths of the Midwest, counties are relatively uniform in size and usually have one well-defined central city as county seat; county judicial areas correspond well to economic/population areas and be meaningful administrative groupings. But in California and elsewhere, counties are huge and include multiple major cities and need to be broken up. We should not be unduly influenced by the bureaucratic convenience of NRIS' grouping into county equivalents.
  • Geographical coherence: The corresponding {{GeoGroup}} link to Google maps should bring up a sensible geographic area, not a patchy / disjointed / gerrymandered and split up collection. In the past, for expedience' sake, there were some list-articles like "Georgia counties A-Ce", "Georgia counties Ch-F", etc. which were not geographically coherent. State level lists which include just small counties and have all the bigger counties split out are accepted so far but are not ideal. Donut shapes e.g. National Register of Historic Places listings in Marion County, Indiana excluding its Center Township NRHP-list may not be ideal but seem to be acceptable.
  • Definitional quality/recognizability/notability. Any very distinct area (e.g. City of Syracuse, or Spokane, or Downtown of many cities, or Zion National Park) can usefully have a dedicated NRHP list, corresponding to what readers might expect, and look for, and like. Grouping like things together, e.g. all the National Park ones which are generally similar rustic CCC-built things, say, vs. Victorian houses elsewhere in a county, may achieve good definitional coherence. Lumping disparate things together, like disparate rural places out in a county with listings in a very distinct urban area (it may be hard to tell from afar when this is going on, vs. when the city boundaries seem arbitrary and are not important to locals), can undermine the quality of a list-article for "local" editors and for readers. Less preferred, though acceptable, are groupings like "southeast North Dakota" (which might be a Wikipedia-only formulation, or which might be proposed in one or more statewide economic development or tourism regions mapping but not be widely known). Divisions of too-big city lists into separate neighborhood list-articles has sometimes been necessary, for Boston, Philadephia, Washington DC, others. We have gone with official partitions into legal neighborhoods where possible, but have often had to define groupings based on highways or other means. We have always done much better deferring to local editors' views about which groupings/definitions of neighborhoods make sense to them. (In Syracuse, the neighborhood groupings both are official and make sense to locals, by the way.)
  • Multiple tables within one list-article are often okay or good. E.g. "Syracuse" table vs. "other Onondaga county listings" tables could both be included in one "Onondaga County" list-article. Like National Register of Historic Places listings in Spokane County, Washington includes a table for the formerly separate Spokane city NRHP listings. Editorially, it may be good to have multiple sections and tables, by neighborhood or city or other area or perhaps even by non-geographical themes (National Park ones vs. other ones), in one list-article. It is NOT important to make all the information sortable within one table. Usually, the only plausible reader preferences are to see the listings in geographic groupings (e.g. neighborhoods within a city) or alphabetical order. If a list-article is sectioned into neighborhood or other tables which are alphabetically ordered, it may still be very easy for a reader to find any given place by checking by alphabetical lookup within the several tables, or by using their browser's "Find" search feature. It is NOT necessary to provide single-table sortability on NRHP listing date or other non-important characteristics.
  • Not too big. More than some number is unwieldy, makes the page load too slowly and/or is bigger than readers like to browse. There is no consensus within WikiProject NRHP on how big this is. Maybe the Featured List editors would have some perspective on what is "sweet spot" size, or there should be academic-type studies of when "Reader Fatigue" sets in. More than 100 is a rule of thumb I would suggest as too big, reader fatigue-wise. I certainly like many list-articles which cover 15 to 30 places and make a satisfying read. Separating out very well-defined, coherent groups, such as "Syracuse" or National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven, Connecticut is good, and allows their corresponding GeoGroup Google maps to be useful. Pushing "Syracuse" or "New Haven" into corresponding county list-articles loses something, makes them less nice / useful for readers.
  • Not too small. There are currently many (hundreds?) of 1-place or 2-place or 3-place lists which have been split out from state lists and should be combined back into the state lists or into new regional groupings like "National Register of Historic Places listings in southeast North Dakota" to get a decent area covered and make the corresponding GeoGroup maps make sense.
  • Geographic subdivisions within the list-article are often good, e.g. providing a "Neighborhood" column to allow sortability that way, or simply grouping into smaller sections/tables by neighborhood is good, because readers like to navigate this way and/or see the nearby ones together.
  • Groupings across county or state lines are not much observed in the current NRHP list-article system (I think), but could be justified, e.g. if there were Zion National Park NRHP sites outside of Washington County (which there are not, although the NP area goes out further).
About Syracuse, I think it was very good as it was, and I don't like the too-big, reader-unfriendly current county list. I would accept as a compromise having the Syracuse table as a separate section within the Onondaga County list-article, if there were a compelling reason that it must be merged into that, but I don't see one. Besides avoiding reader and editor fatigue, definitional clarity supports the split. The non-Syracuse listings in Onondaga County are more like those of surrounding counties than they are like the Syracuse city ones, and would better be merged into a Central New York region (but that wouldn't work well with any state-wide partition, as the state-defined tourism region is "Finger Lakes" spanning part of CNY, so just keeping the 50 or so non-Syracuse Onondaga County ones as a separate list seems best). --doncram 15:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I would like to note that mergers and splits should be reflected in the table structure at WP:NRHPPROGRESS. It is also possible that these actions may have impact on the script that updates that page (there are some odd cases hard-coded into the script, and it is a bit picky about how it recognizes sublists and multiple lists in a single page). People who run that script need to do sanity checks to recognize that these sorts of changes have been made.
They also have impact in the code that NationalRegisterBot runs -- it has hard-coded data structures that map to how things are broken down. It would be a kindness if project members who make splits or merges notify the bot operator (currently me), since these things are not always readily detectable in running the bot.
None of this should be read as a reason to not make these sorts of changes -- I'm just pointing out additional actions may be required that are not immediately obvious to the editor doing the split/merge. Magic♪piano 15:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Another principle in practice has been Counties get split out in descending size order to size of 10 NRHPs or whatever is necessary so the state list is not too big. This is not a good principle for permanent sorting. It has created many smallish lists which IMO would better be grouped together in regional areas covering maybe 50 or so, like "southeast North Dakota", along with even small counties. There are many such cases where the size is obviously suboptimal for readers and editors IMO, and proceeding with sensible mergers there is far more important than tackling marginal-at-best cases like this proposed merger of well-defined coherent Syracuse list of 98 with well-defined other Onondaga County list of 50 or so (which I personally think are pretty much optimal groupings now, though at least one editor disagreed). --doncram 21:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The merger of Syracuse table into Onondaga County table does in fact cause error in the wp:NRHPPROGRESS tallying system. In recent weeks i have been the one running a weekly update, and this diff from running it just now shows double-counting at the Onondaga County level now, displaying 299 (= 150 times 2 less one duplication) and I think then overstating the nation-wide total by 149 now. I would now prefer to revert the merger for now at least and re-update that. Merger could be reimplemented of course if there is a consensus that it should be merged, but so far here there has been just one for merger and just me against merger. Honestly I would summarize this as no consensus for merger, but obviously I am involved as one of main developers of the two list-articles. Would anyone else comment please? --doncram 06:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I generally agree with doncram. I would revert the merger of Syracuse. I prefer lists of under 100, and logical grouping by geographic area - that is a county with just 100 listing, and 50 of those in one city, should still be two separate lists. MB 19:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

North Dakota proposal[edit]

Counts of NRHPs by county in North Dakota as of 2009

There are maybe four big geographic areas of North Dakota (Missouri Slope, Missouri Coteau, Drift something, Red River region) but those don't correspond nicely to counties. Searching "North Dakota regions" yields this NDTourism.com map which divides the state nicely into six regions by county lines. That gives groupings (per nice map by User:25or6to4 from 2009) of:

  • Southwest: 2+2+2+10+5+5+3+8+10+4+0+4+1 = 51 56 NRHP places
  • Northwest: 5+7+4+3+3+2 = 24 places
  • South Central: 6+24+3+11+13+18+2+2+7+8 = 94 81 places
  • North Central: 4+3+1+2+15+12+7+7+14+7+2+5+4 = 83 81 places
  • Southeast: 4+3+22+13+35+2+9+8+1+12 = 109 99 places
  • Northeast: 2+11+15+3+66 = 97 places

out of 2009 2016 total of about 457 438 places (except I probably made an error or two jotting those down and/or adding them in my head).

I suggest reorganizing the list-articles in North Dakota into those six regions. The current 14 list-articles are

  • Barnes 13
  • Burleigh 34
  • Cass County 36
  • Emmons County 17
  • Grand Forks County 67
  • McHenry 12
  • Pembina 11
  • Ramsey 15
  • Richland 12
  • Stutsman 11
  • Traill 22
  • Walsh 15
  • Ward 15
  • Subtotal is 280
  • All others apparently 159, in List of RHPs in ND
  • grand total of 439 currently (again maybe there is some error in my tallies because current total is significantly lower than 2009 total. But, hmm, there were major Red River floods which wiped out a lot of properties causing delistings.)

I suggest this recombination to get meaningful/good geographic coherence and make all list-articles within a reasonable range of 24 to 109 places each. This eliminates 10 existing list-articles having suboptimal sizes from just 11 to 22 places, and it eliminates disparate/non-geographically coherent leftovers in the statewide list-article. I personally am happy to hang my hat on the ND Tourism's partition of the state to use its regions' definitions for Wikipedia. Does this seem okay? --doncram 05:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks on your numbers. Found a few double-counts and 2 missed counties. Also, all maps are updated as of January 2016. Working on new ones now...25or6to4 (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for all that! So that's even a bit better: the recombination would yield 6 list-article pages ranging in size from 24 to 99 listings then. To be clear, I personally would keep each separate county table intact; I am just proposing grouping the ones within each of the 6 tourist regions together on one page, enabling the linked GeoGroup maps to work well, and I believe better serving any would-be photographer or tourist or other reader. All the individual links like National Register of Historic Places listings in Ward County, North Dakota will still bring one right to the separate counties' individual tables.
An extreme opposite alternative, I guess, would be to split out the smaller counties from the state-wide page so there would be 52 separate list-articles with one county on each page. --doncram 06:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Very bad idea. Aside from Hawaii, where the geography is obviously quite different (and despite what's said above, counties are relevant; they're the only local government in the state), there's no good reason to have anything other than a statewide list with counties split out of it when appropriate. How will the reader know where to draw the line? Lacking an infallible boundary, which outside of Hawaii exists only in legal definitions, this will be unambiguously unhelpful. Just put everything onto the ND state list unless it's in a county that we're splitting out for size reasons. Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Huh? That's way overstated ("very bad", "unambiguously unhelpful"?!). We agree that a single state-wide list is too big. We agree that parts need to be split out. I fail to see how readers could be confused if the parts split out are coherent, geographical regions, especially ones that are the state's own official tourism regions. On the other hand, if the biggest list-article is (as currently) the smallest 39 counties, I do see how readers looking at the corresponding GeoGroup map will be missdirected into believing that there are no NRHPs in various empty areas of the statewide map. And I see how readers who are prospective visitors to any region in the state, say, now are frustrated that they cannot see the NRHPs in the region. NRHP editors who plan to visit and take photos in a state often set up worklists in their own userspaces in order to group the nearby counties together (which is perfectly fine to do, but demonstrates something).
And what line do readers need to draw? I sincerely hope that we do not need to explain to readers or to other editors in Wikipedia what our secret system is, that in ND we split out counties larger than 10 because Doncram or Nyttend or someone else split them out that way because they thought the remainder was then not too large, in MN we split out counties larger than 7 because its remainder when 10 was the cutoff was unwieldy, in MT someone split out counties larger than a certain size except for Granite County because it was smaller before recent addition(s). That in SC we split them all out because the smallest ones are big enough (smallest four have 6, 8, 9 and 9) so none of us are very much bothered. And in GA and TX and some others we split out all counties including many with just 1 item without consideration of having any remainder statewide list, even though it does very much bother some of us. I doubt that non-NRHP editors in Wikipedia, much less readers, can understand our having list-articles of 1 item, linking to a separate article about the item, and linking to OSM/Google "map of all coordinates"! The remedy, as with splits of Puerto Rico and of various cities, is to use recognizable regions. --doncram 17:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Are tourist regions really recognizable though? A lot of the time those are created as much for PR purposes as anything else, and people who've never looked up tourist info for the state may have never heard of them. And while North Dakota has neat regions that don't overlap or leave places out, other states may not; for instance, Illinois has four tourism regions but doesn't give borders for them. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 02:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
This seems perfectly reasonable to me, someone who doesn't think lists that are either too big or too small work well, for a variety of reason already stated. As far as the regions needing to be "recognizable", I really don't see the point. If they serve to organize in a logical, geographical way, they are helpful. New York County (New York City) is already broken into sub-lists of areas that I don't recognize being used elsewhere. But it prevents a single county list of over 500 and seems to be a useful way to handle this situation. Dividing a state similarly could be useful too. MB 04:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
My wording, "use recognizable regions", was not quite right. How about "use understandable regions", allowing for the fact that we do create regions where necessary for purpose of dividing areas. Like for the division of Denver (covered in recent requested move, now closed), I myself commented in requested move that the goal was to "Avoid coining neologisms for "Northeast Denver", "Southeast Denver", "West Denver", which I believe are not phrases in use, and are not defined, recognized areas," but I don't object to the use of "northeast Denver", "southeast Denver", "west Denver" where we define those terms. "Recognizable" is too high a standard; of course if region terms are Wikipedia-notable and widely recognized that is all for the better.
For Illinois, the four regions that have no boundaries defined cannot be used, I agree. That doesn't prevent us from using the best possible partition in that state and everywhere else, which in some cases may be nicely defined economic development or tourism regions. For Louisiana, there was discussion how to divide it back in 2009 and I am pursuing discussion there again (see Talk:List of RHPs in LA. In discussion, I considered use of Emergency Preparedness regions which have numbered names, which might be an example of "non-recognizable" and effectively "non-understandable" regions; it is better to go with terms like "southeast Louisiana" which turns out to be a region name defined as an economic development region and in other usages. --doncram 11:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Emergency preparedness regions, vaguely defined tourist regions, random other state partitions... if only there were some universally recognized sub-state division that has functioned well for us for an entire decade, has innumerable ready-made maps all over Wikipedia, and already has an entire system built up around it on our Progress page. Yea... If only that kind of thing existed. 🙄--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

requested moves for 4 Denver NRHP lists[edit]

National Register of Historic Places listings in Denver was too large and was, properly, split, into sections. It was split into four sections that now have 143, 70, 43, 45 items, using, among other reasoning, major boulevards/highways as dividing lines (see Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Denver#Splitting into several pieces, which included input from editor(s) who are locally knowledgeable). However sections were termed with phrases ("Northeast Denver", "Southeast Denver", "West Denver", "Downtown Denver") that I think did not exist previously, i.e. the phrases were coined at the time, and these should not be presented as being named, existing regions. The requested move is to clarify that by downcasing to "northeast Denver", "southeast Denver", "west Denver". Please consider commenting at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Northeast Denver#Requested move 4 July 2017. --doncram 18:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Categories for delisted places[edit]

There are a small number of articles on delisted places in Category:Former National Register of Historic Places. Many of these articles are still in other categories such as "NRHPs in xxx" and "Houses on the NRHP". Should they stay in these categories once delisted? MB 02:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think NRHPs should be categorized by geography and type, even if delisted. I'm not opposed to the creation of some categories to note their former status, but I kind of think "once an NRHP, always an NRHP" in terms of how we group NRHPs by geography and type. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
But if you wanted to find all the "Ranches on the NHRP", would you want delisted places included? I can see both sides. Assuming Old Mill District was in the such categories before, we are doing it both ways. There are so few delisted places it's probably not a big deal but we should pick one and be consistent.
Looking at the history of Old Mill District, one editor added it to a "geographic" and "former" NRHP category at the same time (clearly believing it should be in both), and another editor removed it from the "geographic" category. MB 03:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
McElwain House is also only listed in the "former" category. MB 03:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?[edit]

Hi, just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Titles[edit]

Per WP:Listname, "A common practice is to entitle list articles as List of ___ (for example List of Xs)." So, I moved National Register of Historic Places listings in Glacier County, Montana to List of properties on the National Register of Historic Places in Glacier County, Montana. User:Magicpiano reverted, advising that I start a discussion here. I don't see any problem with following WP:Listname in this instance. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

First, WP:Listname is a guideline and explicitly allows for exceptions; there are plenty of lists that don't start with "List of". Second, there are several thousand lists that follow the present naming convention for National Register lists (see WP:NRHPPROGRESS), so renaming one isn't doing much good. Third, this has been discussed here before; the present naming appears to date to 2008, in which debate the logic behind the current naming is given. Lastly, nitpickers will observe that "List of properties on the" elides districts, which are not properties but collections of them. Magic♪piano 18:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree with the Piano guy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
NPS uses the word "properties" to cover districts since the districts are owned by some individual or group. See, for example, "The National Register of Historic Places documents the appearance and importance of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in our prehistory and history. These properties represent the major patterns of our shared local, State, and national experience." Regarding the talk page discussion in 2008, I don't see a consensus for the current wording; one commenter even said, "a small number of people seem to be hell-bent on getting their way". WP:Listname does allow for exceptions, but I don't see why one would be needed here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The "common practice" of this project is to use the current naming format. I think that the usage of this format by a large and active project for a considerable time denotes consensus. I see no reason to change anything - what benefit would there be to readers or anyone. MB 03:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not a big deal. I was reverted with a suggestion that I comment here. I prefer following the project-wide common practice described at WP:Listname absent a reason to do otherwise, but do not intend to edit-war about it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

80% illustrated soon[edit]

I just noticed at WP:NRHPPROGRESS that as of July 14, 79.6% of the sites are illustrated, up from 79.5% on July 3, and 79.0% on May 30. Quick calculations and/or guessing says that we'll hit 80% around Sept. 1. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida)[edit]

This AFD includes a number of NRHP-listed sites. Making the group aware. --Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 06:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)