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:


Fall 2015 NHL meeting[edit]

The NPS now has the agenda up for its next NHL meeting, scheduled for Nov. 16–17 at the Charles Sumner School in Washington. The following applications will be considered (Wyoming, our least populous state, seems to be a big winner in this round, with two new proposed NHLs, along with Connecticut).

Along with them are my comments about how well-prepared the associated articles are, if they exist. For most of them we are in good shape, but there are a couple where we'll have to start from scratch.

  1. Ames Monument, National Register of Historic Places listings in Albany County, Wyoming. Henry Hobson Richardson-designed memorial to completion of transcontinental railroad near the spot (tracks themselves since relocated). We have an article with a picture. Executive summary and nomination form
  2. Athenæum (Das Deutsche Haus), Indianapolis. Well-preserved 1907 Romanesque-Renaissance Revival building that, in addition to being a long-term social focal point for the city's German American community, was home to the first institution for training phys-ed teachers. Article and photo all set. Executive summary and nomination.
  3. Gaukler Point, currently listed as the Edsel and Eleanor Ford House, Grosse Pointe Shores and St. Clair Shores, Macomb County, Michigan. Designation reflects the importance/excellence of the estate's landscaping by Jens Jensen. Article and photo already. If it's designated under the name used we might want to consider renaming the article as well Executive summary and nomination.
  4. Hell Gap Paleoindian Site, near Guernsey, Goshen County, Wyoming. Only known Paleoindian site at which every Plains Indian cultural complex (save Clovis) has been found. Article exists, though without photo, despite site not presently being listed. Executive summary but no nomination yet; I suspect they are redacting specific location information out of it.
  5. Man Mound, Greenfield, Sauk County, Wisconsin. Only anthropomorphic prehistoric monumental earthwork in North America (I wonder if the NPS has its eye on WHS status for this ultimately). Listed, and we have a photo but no article. Probably should fix that before it gets NHL status. Executive summary and nomination.
  6. James Merrill House, Stonington, New London County, Connecticut. House of prominent writer who was among the first American writers to explore his homosexuality in print. Would be the third NHL to be designated for its importance in U.S. LGBT history after the Stonewall Inn and Henry Gerber House. Not listed yet but there is an article and photo, although it's grayscale so we should try to take a color one. Executive summary and nomination.
  7. Mississippi State Capitol, Jackson, Hinds County, Mississippi. National significant example of Academic Classical Revival architecture by Theodore Link. Article and picture already (if there wasn't, something went seriously wrong a long time ago). Executive summary and nomination.
  8. Norman Film Manufacturing Company, Jacksonville, Florida. Rare surviving example of a silent film studio. Not listed, no article or picture. Executive summary and nomination.
  9. St. Bartholomew's Church and Community House, New York, New York. St. Bart's, with its Byzantine architecture not commonly associated with Episcopal Church buildings, is one of the few breaks in the high-rise landscape in that part of Midtown. As expected for a church so well-known (take a look at the movies and TV shows it's been used in) in our largest city, we have an article and plenty of photos. Executive summary and nomination.
  10. The Steward's House, Foreign Mission School, Cornwall, Litchfield County, Connecticut. We have an article on the school, which was meant to train prospective missionaries of non-European background to proselytize amongst their own but closed down after a few years in the early 1820s. We don't have an article on the building, probably the best-preserved remaining structure (it's still a private residence) specifically. Nor do we have a photo, although this is not so far away from where I live as to give me the idea that it might make a nice excuse to drive to and photograph next month. Executive summary and nomination.
  11. Zoar Historic District, Zoar, Tuscarawas County, Ohio. Well-preserved remaining community of German Separatists that is a popular visitor attraction in the area. Listed but we don't have an article; I suppose that although the HD does not cover the entire incorporated village this may be another instance where we have to consider whether the settlement and HD are identical enough to not need one. We do have pictures, though. Executive summary and nomination.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

We have color photographs of the James Merrill House, they're just not being used. Magic♪piano 19:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Couple comments: (1) I would recommend against renaming the Edsel and Eleanor Ford House article as "Gaukler Point" - although the latter may be technically more correct, no one actually uses that name, and the "Edsel and Eleanor Ford House" is generally understood to include the surrounding estate grounds. I've attended several functions at the Edsel and Eleanor Ford House, but none have been in the house itself, just on the grounds or in another building. (2) The Man Mound is cool as hell - I've visited it, and didn't realize until now that it was on the Register, so it's fun to see it being considered as a NHL. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Very surprised that Zoar (rhymes with "lore", if I remember rightly) wasn't already an NHL; somehow I though they'd given it NHL status a few years ago. I've done a lot of Ohio writing (it has the third-largest number of start+ articles), but Tuscarawas County isn't a part of the state where I've done much of that writing; I tend to work mostly with individual buildings/structures/sites, and I've written very few district articles. We might want to look into sources discussing recent flood-protection issues; the nearby river dyke has been thought to be in danger of flooding, if I remember rightly. Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Norman Film Manufacturing Company has an article and some pictures under Norman Studios. If got added to the NRHP on December 29, 2014 as Norman Film Studios. --Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 05:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I found some time today to write it, so Man Mound has an article now. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 22:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

San Bernardino Pictures[edit]

This weekend I went out and got a bunch of pictures in San Bernardino County. Among the surprises was the Ontario State Bank Block. It was demolished, probably when Euclid Avenue was lowered under the railroad tracks. Main Street (the corner where the bank stood) no longer goes through

Now an empty lot

Einbierbitte (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

EDIT - so what do we use for pictures? An empty lot? Einbierbitte (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That has been done in some cases. It helps the reader and other editors understand why they can't locate the building when they visit. Jonathunder (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Actualy, this page says it was demolished. I will add it to the article. The illustration of the lot will be in order there.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
While I'm all in favor of adding photos of empty lots to the Commons where an NRHP building has been demolished, Wikipedia is not a travel guide: we should focus on illustrating the significance of the listing, not helping people find the place or understand why they can't. Meanwhile, the nomination photos for this building are in the public domain, and I have uploaded them. — Ipoellet (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
After reading the paragraph on travel guides you linked to, I don't think this would be a "travel guide" problem. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
"Not a travel guide" is meant to prevent us from adding things like directions to a site, hours, admission fees, etc. It's not at all meant to illustrate the current location of a site. Given the absence of proof for the claimed PD status for these nomination images, I've nominated all of them for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Coordinate errors[edit]

Over the past couple of weeks, I've corrected probably a few dozen coordinates of NRHP sites by finding the building using ACME Mapper and reading off the actual coordinates. (I'm assuming that ACME Mapper is accurate - it agrees precisely with Google Maps.) Anyhow, when the coordinates are given in decimal degrees, almost always everything after the third digit after the decimal point is wrong, and when they are given in D/M/S, they are no better.

Here is an example, from National Register of Historic Places listings in Effingham County, Georgia, the jail. The NRHP form is from 2006, so it should have recent (accurate) data. It gives the UTM of zone 17, easting 470266 Northing 3581760. It looks like it might be accurate to within a meter.

Using this to convert to degrees, it gives 32°22′21″N 81°18′58″W / 32.372413°N 81.316078°W / 32.372413; -81.316078. The page lists 32.374167N, 81.316111W. Notice that everything past the third digit after the decimal point is wrong, which is typical in the ones I've examined. In this case, the north coordinate is off by 0.00175+, which seems to be larger than typical.

So the first point is that the coordinates given in most places do not agree with the conversion from the NRHP forms after the third digit after the decimal point, which is enough to throw them off a block or two. I suspect that when these were converted from the UTM on the NRHP form, the conversion wasn't done correctly. (I don't know who did these or when.) Does anyone know details about how these conversions were done?

The second point is that the NRHP UTMs are quite a bit off, assuming that the conversion website above and ACME Mapper are accurate. The coordinates given on the NRHP form, converted to degrees, puts the jail out in the woods, whereas I think the center of the building is actually at 32°22′27″N 81°18′57″W / 32.37413°N 81.31570°W / 32.37413; -81.31570. Using the conversion website, that gives UTM zone 17, easting 470302 northing 3581950 - a difference of 36 meters E/W and 190 meters N/S. (The courthouse is off even more, but its NRHP form seems to be rounded to 100 meters.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Elkman's infobox generator uses a good algorithm, so I wish I had access to it, because the online UTM-to-DMS converters that I've found are routinely badly wrong. I've not yet found a converter that I trust at all solidly. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that there was a significant error in the program used to convert these in the first place. I'm trying to think of a way to check the website I'm using (I think it is from some university so they should know what they are doing.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I checked the website I use for conversions with this one from NGS/NOAA, and it agreed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
One degree of latitude is 111.2km, so .001 of a degree is ~111 meters. .0001 is 11 meters. That is close enough to get to within a house or two, north and south, in an urban area. Close enough to pick out a farmhouse. .00001 is 1 meter, and .000001 is just silly. One degree of longitude is harder to quantify as is depends on your latitude as well. It is ~111km at the equator, but only ~85km at 40 degrees latitude. So, in Pennsylvania, .0001 longitude is 8.5 meters. In DMS, a minute of latitude is ~1.85km, a second is ~31 meters, a tenth of a second is ~3 meters.
Sources of error:
  • original determination from topo maps. These were done by drawing two lines from the up/down, left/right sides of the map and interpolating what the northing and easting values are - accuracy depends on how hard the map reader worked at it. Meter resolution is not to be expected, this is why surveyors go out into the field to measure important things.
  • Datum - the corrections for the shape of the earth - for the original map, and the digital map you are using. Differences of 10s to 100s of meters are possible.
  • Calculation - depending on the original source of the location, by the time it gets to the county list, it might have been moved across different datums, and from DEC to DMS, more than once, with loss of data on each conversion.
  • What is being reported on the original nomination. Sometimes, the center of the plot of land is being reported, not the house. The bigger the plot, the more likely this is true. Sometimes, for a large house, the location doesn't point at the middle. Some editors (and sometimes me) tend to try to reduce false precision by shortening the number of digits in the lat/lon of point and click map-determined locations, accepting a shorter number that falls within the boundary of the building.
  • What the editor that created the county list used. Sometimes, there is no location in the registration form, or the regestration form is not avaialble, but a street address is. If the editor enters that street address into Google, Bing, or some other online mapper, the result can be wrong - wrong side of the street, wrong side of town. Address schemes change over time.
  • And, sometimes, the data is just wrong. Transcription errors, misreading of the original easting/northing registration marks on the map, whatever.
Finally, as has been discussed here, the upload wizard (what you get when you click on "upload image", takes the location from the county list, and copies it into the location information when the image is created in commons. That propagates errors into commons.
So, what am I getting on about? Don't talk about decimal places out to the 4th digit and beyond as "wrong" - the system for generating them, for the reasons above, aren't ever going to match ground truth. What we may need is a "verified" tag - meaning that someone has gone to the trouble of checking to see if the location in the county list is correct - that photos, maps, streetview, whatever is available, have been checked against the location. And, for non-HD listings, the tag says that the location points at (one of the) primary building(s) in the listing, and not the center of a 4000 acre plantation. And, at some point, run a bot that extracts the location in the county list and the location in the article, checks to see if there are within some fuzz value, and makes a list of those that aren't. Generic1139 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm still learning about the technical aspects of the mapping system. But the coordinates are off by a lot more than 0.0001 degrees (~11 meters). They are off several times that amount. I just corrected several in Nassau county, Florida, and they were all off at least a block, and as much as four blocks off (that one was probably a clerical error somewhere). That makes it hard to find a house. Add to that the fact that many houses do not display their street number, so you often can't find them by their address. And many of the NRHP forms are not available, to give you a picture of what to look for. Anyhow, I believe that all of the coordinates listed in the county NRHP were done incorrectly somewhere - the coordinates in the NRHP forms don't correspond to what the county listings have (and usually that is the same one used in the article, if the site has one). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
In Genesee County, Michigan, the coordinates for Atlas Grange Hall were actually the Barn at 4277 Irish Road (which also had the same, correct coordinates). I've always just corrected these on my own; I can't find any actual sources for the coordinates. I understand errors occurring from calculations, conversions, pre-GPS technology, etc, but what I don't understand is where all the coordinates in these tables are coming from in the first place. The pages linked in the tables are useless for Michigan, and the NPS website isn't very user friendly, anyway. kennethaw88talk 02:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Ipoellet got Swayze Apartments spot on, I suspect that one came from the street address with a tweak from street view to get the right building, maybe they'll let us know in this case. Michigan had, at one time, a web site with information, the older ones could have come from that. The addresses are usually given in the weekly action listings, like this one. And I should have added "cut and past errors" to the list above. Generic1139 (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
That is precisely how I did the coordinates for Swayze Apartments: The Weekly List gave me an address, which gave me the location of the building. Google Earth gave me the lat/long coordinates necessary to express the same location in a different way. And yes, I probably used Street View to double-check that the Google address search correctly took me to the right place - their database isn't perfect.— Ipoellet (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware also of a handful of errors in North Carolina listings which I've been meaning to correct, but haven't gotten around to. Sometime soon, perhaps... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The errors are significantly more than 0.0001 degree - I estimate 0.0003 on the average. And the errors are in both coordinates, making the typical error on the order of 150 feet. They are just about always at least 100 feet off and often 300 feet.

The errors make it hard to find the correct house. In one city I had the coordinates and the street address of a house. I got there and couldn't tell which house was the right one. I thought "it must be one of these three" and photographed all of them. When I got back I looked up the NRHP data, and it wasn't any of them.

This is a particularly extreme example (I haven't fixed it yet): the courthouse in Effingham County. The actual coordinates are 32°22′27″N 81°18′54″W / 32.37416°N 81.31487°W / 32.37416; -81.31487. The county listing gives 32°22′32″N 81°19′04″W / 32.37548°N 81.31785°W / 32.37548; -81.31785 - 0.0013 degrees off N/S and 0.003 degrees off E/W - roughly 1,100 feet off. Its article gives 32°22′38″N 81°19′04″W / 32.37722°N 81.31778°W / 32.37722; -81.31778, 0.003 off N/S and 0.0029 off E/W - roughly 1,500 feet off. (The jail is way off too.)

The coordinates given in Taylor Hall (Hawkinsville, Georgia) from the coordinates given (which are 4" north of the NRHP form, which aren't right either). When I was there, I couldn't find it by address (just "Kibbe St" at that time) or the coordinates. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Facts in Wikipedia are supposed to have references, but we hardly ever know who calculated our coordinates. When I correct by Google Earth (which in my experience holds steady for New York City, and often jitters year by year by tens of meters for Pittsburgh) I do not systematically say so. Sometimes the coords of pictures are from EXIF, which minimizes transcription errors but can create large GPS errors. Sometimes the coords for a picture are merely the center of town, even for a suburban object. Occasionally it's the location of the museum that holds the picture of a place far across the sea. Yes, we need some sort of standard or system for reporting the sources of coords. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Since we're sharing...I was in Williamston, North Carolina a few months back, and ended up photographing all of the NRHP sites in town to add to Wikipedia. To do so I looked up images online and then matched them to the Google streetscape. What I discovered was that a handful of the coordinates are off. Three examples: Asa Biggs House and Site (it's listed as being about a block away from its actual site); Martin County Courthouse (waaaaaaay off); and Sunny Side Inn (nearly accurate, and I'd let it slide were it not for the fact that the business is actually on Google Maps as an identified landmark.) Lord only knows how many other errors there are in Martin County alone, let alone the rest of the state. I'm an outsider there; I wouldn't know where to begin beyond fixing the ones I've listed. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It has been the loose recommendation of the NRHP project that locations should be fixed, or adjusted, as needed to point at the object that the article is about, in both the county lists and the articles. But, as Jim.henderson (most recently) reminds us, facts in Wikipedia are supposed to have references. Sadly, one of important aspect of a historic place is "where is that place", and due to all the reasons discussed above, that piece of data is often imprecise, and sometimes flat wrong. Since the project strives to include images for the articles, we're often in the business of finding a place with enough accuracy to correctly identify the object, and with sufficient precision so that it can be picked out of a crowd of nearby similar items. We usually know, therefore, when the original data is wrong. In the normal case, a reliable source is needed for facts, but in our case, we know that the "fact" is incorrect. The whole point of reliable sources is that no one cares about the editor's "facts", just citable source facts. I think the main underpinning of our "go ahead and fix it" philosophy is that the truth of the "where" is ground truth - there it is on a satellite map, or in the case of a demolished property, there it isn't.
We make other types of location changes as well. A 1970 nomination form might give the location as Main Street, but the address in 2015 is Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. We sometimes change the address in the infobox to the new address, we sometimes note the original address, but I don't think we ever cite the local city ordinance that made the name change.
The point is, do we accept google/bing/others maps as a sufficient reliable source (implicit or explicit) and not worry about citing the source for the location? Or do we come up with some sort of tag or parameter in NRHP Row and the NRHP infobox that marks a correction or original placement done by the editor, and cites the method used, such as:
  • Street Address
  • Satellite Imagery
  • Street View Imagery
  • Original nomination drawings
Going back over 90,000 or so locations is not likely, but moving forward it would be possible. Generic1139 (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Facts may require citation, but trivially* verifiable ones don't (or shouldn't; if they do, then WP:V is IMHO broken). The location of a building or structure, especially if it is visible from a publically accessible location, is trivially verifiable (by going there). That said, I agree that it would be useful to have a means (in both articles and lists) to inform how a particular set of coordinates were provided, including how, when, from what source, and by whom. This information does not necessarily need to be visible in a normal rendering of the table or infobox.
(*By "trivially", I mean not requiring any unusual tools, knowledge, or access to specialized or restricted documentation. This listing's location is somewhat expensive and logistically complicated to verify in person, but the average person with time and means can in principle do so, and is IMHO trivially verifiable.) Magic♪piano 17:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick note - a few of the NRHP forms that I've examined and compared give the coordinates in D/M/S instead of UTM easting and northing. Except for one that was precisely 1' off (probably a clerical error) the other forms that give D/M/S seem accurate enough. That, plus what I've discussed above, makes me believe that there was a serious error in converting the UTM into lat&long. I don't know how the NRHP forms were converted from UTM to lat&long, but if they are in a database, a better conversion can be done. As far as verifiability, a proper conversion from the NRHP UTM data would be verifiable and a lot more accurate than what we have now. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bubba73: please provide some examples where you suspect a flawed UTM conversion, let me see if there is any common factor or other reason to believe there is a systemic UTM to DMS conversion problem. @Magicpiano: I agree that the source of the coordinates need not be visible (without clicking something). Generic1139 (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Generic1139: I feel like you're getting lost in the details. The coordinates and address of a listing are not a "fact" subject to WP:V (at least not the single-point coordinates in lists and infoboxes). The key "fact" is the location of the listing - the address and coordinates are just two of several ways of expressing that location to our readers. Once the location is established with a verifiable source (nearly always the listing's nomination form, AR aside), then it is entirely within the editor's remit to find different ways to express the location that best suit the context and best convey the location fact to readers, just the same way that an editor might reword a fact in a prose paragraph. Starting to offer up citations for every step of adjusting coordinates, updating postal addresses, or re-expressing an address as coordinates I feel is a form of TMI that makes the encyclopedia less useful to readers. If an editor cites a source that gives the location, then takes care to make sure any coordinates or addresses are a valid way of expressing/conveying that location, then that ought to be sufficient.— Ipoellet (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Generic1139: OK, I will by going through my recent changes, but it will take some time. It would be better if I'd kept a record of these. I wrote the UTMs and the actual coordinated down on scratch paper but I didn't write down what object they went to. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


I don't know what the cause of the errors is. If they used the old datum, the N/S error should be about 100 feet, but these are several hundred feet off in N/S, and the UTM on the forms is south of what it should be (by several hundred feet). But by 2006 (the second example), they should be using good maps. In these cases, the old lat/long coordinates in these articles are more accurate than the UTM from the forms, so the problem may not be in the conversion from UTM to lat/long, as I thought. But I don't understand where the error is. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of the first two[edit]

Here is what I found on the first example, Elam-camp. First, your conversion of E/N 281380, 3640560 to DEC appears to be incorrect, based on the numbers, I think your conversion may have assumed that the input and output were were NAD83. I get 32.881397,-83.336898 when I assume that, a difference of 0.000001, -0.000001 from your numbers. The correct conversion is from NAD27 to WGS84, resulting in 32.883259,-83.336778, a difference of .001863, 0.000121, or 207 meters.
The distance between the NPS E/N (converted NAD27 to WGS84) and your satellite location is 8 meters, which is not bad. I was using this to do the conversions.
But, why does the county list say 32.883056, -83.336944?
The original version of the page gave the location as 32 52 59 N, 83 20 13 W. That is rounded but from what? If you assume that the E/N was NAD27 and the output was NAD27, then you get 32 52 59.21945 N 083 20 12.81303, which, rounded is 32 52 59 n, 80 20 13 w. A NAD27 to WGS84 conversion gives a different answer. I don't know what the orignal assumption was, and am trying to find out, but, 32 52 59 n, 80 20 13 was what was in the original county list. A bot later converted that to DEC, resulting in what is now in the county list, 32.883056, 83.336944.
The maximum rounding error, N/S would be .5 seconds, or about 15 meters.
Summary for Elam Camp: original NPS data, when using the correct datum conversions, is 8 meters off of what you determined. The county list suffers from rounding to the nearest second, and also possibly from using an incorrect datum, resulting in an error of 184 meters, most of it from the possible datum issue 27 meters, some rounding, and some datum.
I'll look at the other two tomorrow. Generic1139 (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Wheeler County Courthouse, similar story as Elam-camp
You have a typo in your example, you gave N: 3558080, the form says 3558030, when I use your data and NAD83 to NAD83, I get your number and a 158 meter error. With E/N converted NAD27 to WGS84 I get 32.148050,-82.782242, 10 meters from your satellite location.
DMS for the converted E/N is is 32 08 52.98N 82 46 56.0712W, rounded is 32 08 53N 82 46 56W. The county list had 32 8 52 N 82 46 57 W, again showing (I think) a NAD27 to NAD27 conversion, and rounding, resulting in a 38 meter error.
I think the larger errors you saw with these two examples are your incorrect conversion of the E/N data. Try again with NAD27 to WGS84 and see if you replicate my results. I see there are a total of 4 example, I'll also look at the other two. Generic1139 (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of the second two[edit]

Effingham County, Georgia - the jail
Difference between E/N and orignal county list is 24.6 meters.
Difference between E/N and the Bubba73 update to the county list (32.372413,-81.316078) is 211 meters, but google doesn't show anything at that location - I think you updated the county list with an E/N converted with the wrong datum.
Difference between E/N and where I think the building is (32.374416, -81.316035) is 16.8 meters.
Effingham County, Georgia - Courthouse
Here is one that is further away than it should be.
Difference between E/N and the original county list is 18.7 meters
Difference between E/N and where it really is: 434 meters. Looking at the 1971 topo, the E/N is just wrong. The listing is from 1980, but the E/N could have come from a much older map. Anyway, there is nothing in the ingestion/conversion that would have helped here, the nomination form was wrong. The new GIS data from NPS, however, show a location for this building that is only off from satellite by 17 meters.

Final word from generic1139 on these examples[edit]

  • Looking at these four, not a large sample for sure, and ignoring the method Bubba73 used to convert E/N to DEC in the examples, the Focus data might have an issue sometimes with datums used for the conversion. That issue will cause larger errors in some parts of the country. Rounding from E/N to DMS to DEC also causes a small error. These errors (15-30m) are large enough to mis-locate buildings in an urban setting, but won't be that far off.
  • The source of larger errors is simple bad data in the first place.
  • Our policy of adjusting the locations as we find problems is fine.
  • Photographers should check the available data before setting out on a trip, locations from the data base, at best, are usually off by at least 20 meters or so, and there are outright errors of varying significant distances.
  • NPS is now putting out better GIS data. We might be able to decrease frustration in the photographer ranks by finding a way to use it.

Fini Generic1139 (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've looked through this quickly - I need to go back and digest it (I was out photographing Effingham County yesterday - I corrected the coordinates of the courthouse and jail). I am using the 1984 datam for conversion, instead of the 1927 datam. But why would forms done in the last 10 years use the 1927 maps instead of the 1984 maps (e.g. the Effingham County Jail)? I don't know exactly how much the difference is in this error, but a graph I saw indicated that the difference should be a lot less than what I am seeing. And thank you for that link to the conversion. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Using that conversion website, I took a place near me and converted to 1984 coordinates and 1927 coordinates. The difference was 18 meters in easting and 209.6 meters in northing - a lot more than I had thought. The page that someone referred me to said that locations in Florida differ by about 100 feet, and a graph I saw showed Georgia deviations as less than Florida's. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Historic Districts on the National Register of Historic Places by state[edit]

I propose to continue populating Category:Historic Districts on the national Register of Historic Places by state which I started as part of the new Category:Historic Districts on the National Register of Historic Places that I created. I created these categories to ensure that NRHP historic districts are in a category named as such and are properly placed within the Category:National Register of Historic Places category tree. This matches the high level category structure within Category:National Register of Historic Places where the category names include some form of National Register of Historic Places. Previous to my work, these articles were in Category:Historic districts in the United States by state subcats which included both NRHP historic districts and non-NRHP historic districts. My category scheme will clarity what is what at the category and name level: NHRP districts go into the Category:Historic Districts on the National Register of Historic Places in foostate. Category:Historic Districts on the National Register of Historic Places in foostate is a subcat of Category:Historic Districts in foostate since that is what they logically are: a part of the whole. Districts that are only non-NRHP districts go directly into Category:Historic Districts in foostate. Districts that are both NHRP and non-NHRP go both directly into Category:Historic Districts in foostate and its subcat Category:Historic Districts on the National Register of Historic Places in foostate--as allowed for in the WP categorization rules. Category:Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in Illinois illustrate part of this structure. Of course, categories are based on article text. This plan can do nothing about the general lack of content in article regarding non-NHRP districts. One editor objected to my work; so far, no one else has agreed with his objections. Your comments on my continuing to finish this category tree setup I just described. Thanks Hmains (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Unlike Commons, I don't have much to do with categorization at WP, so I can't really comment on the proposal generally. However, it seems to me that the capitalization should be consistent: "Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places by state" rather than "Historic Districts on the national Register of Historic Places by State." Lowercase the "d" in "districts", and uppercase the "N" in "National". — Ammodramus (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Very true. I saw these last night as I was writing up my statement here, but did not want to confuse things at this point. I will change the capitalization before I add any more state level categories. Thanks Hmains (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
As I noted previously, virtually all of our HD articles are NR-listed. Moving the NR-listed ones into their own categories would leave each "HDs in PLACE" category with essentially no contents except the NR-listed HDs category for the same place. This proposal would add an additional layer of category complexity without providing any significant benefits. Finally, note that Hmains cannot be trusted to obey policy: he began this project despite opposition and without consensus in its favor, using the AWB software, despite policy's clear requirement not to use this software to make major/bold changes of this sort without solid consensus. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Note that Nyttend's assertion that I did anything wrong in using AWB were questioned if not rejected by the editors/admins at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hmains and AWB. Hmains (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not have a strong opinion on the matter, but I think at this point the question can only be resolved via CfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I have been sorting NRHP articles into type categories (mostly west of the Mississippi so far) and I vigorously, vigorously support Hmains' proposal. This resolves an awkwardness that NRHP HD articles are floating at the top level of state categorization (Category:National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin is a good illustration) whereas buildings/structures/objects can be finely sorted into categories by function (Category:Hospital buildings on the NRHP in Foostate, Parks on the NRHP in Foostate, etc). That there will be few non-NRHP historic districts to populate the higher-level Category:Historic districts in Foostate is consistent with the minimal content in categories like Category:Farms in Foostate or Category:Archaeological sites in Foostate vs the daughter categories Category:Farms on the National Register of Historic Places in Foostate and Category:Archaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Foostate. etc. Plus the few non-NRHP HDs that do have articles will not be falsely categorized under the NRHP umbrella. That seems to me a far greater logical issue than some handwringing about underpopulated parent categories. -McGhiever (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I saw the open discussion on WP:AN/I regarding Hmains' use of AWB. There didn't seem to be any appetite to sanction him on the basis of the discussion Nyttend cited, and I suggested he open a new thread here, because I thought that the situation might get more tense if it drifted off unresolved, and building consensus here could defuse that. I think this is a better place than CfD to hold the discussion, as it's more likely to attract the attention of knowledgeable editors with relevant experience.
@Nyttend and Hmains: Can you clarify to make sure I understand your respective positions correctly? As I understand it, for a historic district in county, state, Nyttend's scheme would have it classified under "National Register of Historic Places in county, state" and "Historic districts in state". Hmains' scheme would have it classified under "National Register of Historic Places in county, state" and "Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in state", which would be a subcategory of "Historic districts in state".
I admit I'm having a hard time rationalizing any strong preference for either. I think we can all agree with Nyttend that the size of the parent and child categories under Hmains' system would be lopsided, but I'm not sure that's so bad a thing we have to avoid it. But then, why subdivide "Historic districts in state" at all? Well, maybe the answer is that it's a good idea to subdivide "National Register of Historic Places in state", as McGhiever observed, and historic districts seem like natural children when dividing that category. So I guess I'm weakly in favor of the separate districts-on-NRHP categories, but I'm pretty open to persuasion. Choess (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there any appetite for sanctioning him for the lack of consensus? AWB policy demands consensus in favor of any non-trivial action, not the lack of consensus against it. We'll still have plenty of articles on covered bridges, banks, armories, etc. left over after we move the NR-listed ones to assorted useless topical subcategories, but not the HDs. The current setup doesn't cause non-NR HDs and their CPs to be put into the NR tree; it's careless editing that does. What's more, having NR HD categories runs the risk of confusing the non-careless editors when NR-listed places are included in non-NR-listed HDs. Consider the John D. Haynes House of Fort Wayne, Indiana, listed on the NR as a building and comprising its own local HD. Given the existence of an NR HDs category for Indiana, it looks like a categorisation mistake, a situation that needs to be fixed by moving it from (HDs in IN) to (NR HDs in IN), which it isn't. This would be an error, and while it's not a problem we have with the traditional setup, it's a problem we have if we're having NR HD categories, a problem that's unique to HDs and not a factor with farms, archaeological sites, covered bridges, etc. Nyttend (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
PS, why must the NR HDs be floating at the top level? In some states, people have subdivided sites by county (e.g. Category:National Register of Historic Places in Allen County, Indiana), so NR listings of all sorts are moved into those categories when they exist; couldn't you just create some such categories? Nyttend (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I strongly support Hmains' proposal.
  • Issue #1: Everything under NRHP categories should be on the NRHP, so the "HDs in Foostate" categories should be removed from NRHP categories.
  • Issue #2: Everything listed on the NRHP should be in an NRHP category for its location. This requires either separate "HDs on the NRHP in Foostate" categories, or having the NRHP HDs directly under "NRHP in Foostate" categories. I prefer the former. (Of course, where we say "Foostate", it could be one of the US territories, not just the actual states.)
It would be OK with me if HDs that are both NRHP-listed and listed elsewhere were in both "HDs in Foostate" and "HDs on the NRHP in Foostate" categories, as long as there is a notice in each category such as you get by using the template {{Non-diffusing subcategory}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Focus KMZ files[edit]

NPS has a page that provides google earth .kmz files for NRHP listings up to April 2014. The page says "most of the building locations have been geocoded through a project undertaken with TeleAtlas which generally provided the most accurate locations (these have a "1" in the geocode match field). Locations that could not be geocoded, were plotted from the existing points in the database." I converted these to spreadsheets and looked at the samples from Bubba73 in the discussion on Coordinate errors; in both of the samples I looked at, the spreadsheet gave data that was better that the converted, rounded data in our county list. I'm not sure at this point how we'd easily use this new data to improve our lists. We could walk each NRHP Row, see if the location matches the database elkman used, and if it does, then use the new data if it is different (or build a review page). That would avoid overwriting our tweaked data. While we were bot-ing around, we could compare county list locations with the locations in the matching article and report differences > x feet somewhere. And, at least some of our "coordinates missing" lists have coordinates in the new data. Generic1139 (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Emporia, VA NRHP list is complete[edit]

I'd just like the rest of you to know that I've added images to all NRHP sites in Emporia, Virginia. A few sites could use some additional images, some of which I intend to add, but at least none of the sites are empty now. If nobody has been there, there's a long row of historical markers on Main Street in that city, and one interesting house across the street from the masonic lodge. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Best available satellite photos[edit]

Are the satellite photos on Google Maps and ACME Mapper the best ones available? (I assume so.) Sometimes I try to identify a house by its footprint, chimneys, etc, but sometimes the images aren't good enough. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I always shop around if there is a detail I need to see. Google and Bing sometimes have different overhead shots. Google street view and Bing bird's eye will also be useful. Be sure to rotate the birds eye view all four times, sometimes a view from one direction will be much high res, or newer, than the view from another. And sometimes, you just get a processed view of the same overhead shot. In any case, try them all. Generic1139 (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know about the bird's eye view - seeing it from an angle can really help. But I was trying to get the location of Taylor Hall (Hawkinsville, Georgia) and that was not sharp enough to tell. However, the western 3/4 of that block goes with the house, and I only see one thing that could be the house, so I think that must be it. (I did not get to see it when I was there - the address and the lat/long together were not enough - but it is way back with no good view from public property.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Princeton (NJT station)[edit]

Help is needed for Princeton (NJT station). Details are at Talk:Princeton (NJT station). The station is mentioned in state documents are part of an HD, but the HD boundaries don't include it. Because it was marked as part of an HD, it may not have been acted on my the NPS in a thematic nomination. The article keeps bouncing back and forth between on the NRHP but with no refnum, or contributing property. Comments are welcome. Generic1139 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Refnum in infoboxes[edit]

Due to a prompt on Template talk:Infobox NRHP about an issue with the recent addition of links to the new Focus, I've now added code to the infobox that automatically places an article in Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup if the refnum parameter does not start with a number. The infobox previously only added this category if the refnum parameter was completely blank. I thought this would only affect the ~50 articles mentioned on the talk page that came up on a search, so it would be easy to clean up, but as the job queue catches up, the category is becoming more and more populated. From a first check it seems many sites in Texas were bypassing the refnum check by just putting a generic NRISref in the refnum parameter, and there are several other random misuses of the parameter. Would anyone like to help cleaning up these articles? Currently there are 4 pages in the category. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that Elkman's infobox generator may have at some time produced infoboxes without refnums (but with {{NRISref}} citation in the refnum field). Magic♪piano 12:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been going through the original set with errors, and the cleanup category. It would be less tedious if NRISref had a way to handle dates past the old cutoff of July 9, 2010, otherwise, it is painful to come up with a weekly list reference. Now that focus returns meta data for entries will into 2014, NRISref or something similar should be able to help out by giving a reference to the NPS focus database. Generic1139 (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Ouch. To do my bit for the cause, I started on the bottom of the alphabetical list, with the William J. Bryce House in Ft. Worth, Texas. This was created in April 2012 as an NRIS-only substub; 2 1/2 years later, an IP editor pasted the text of a historical marker verbatim into the middle of it. Between fixing the copyvio and trying to turn it into an article that a reader might actually find useful, I wound up spending about an hour on it. Be forewarned that if my limited sample is any guide, these articles will have lots more problems than just a missing refnum. — Ammodramus (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. This is how I stumbled into the Princeton (NJT station) can of worms. Generic1139 (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
How to handle Dinosaur National Monument? Change NRHP infobox to protected area (similar to Buck Island Reef National Monument ? Or add the MRA reference number 64000073 as the NRHP refnum? Generic1139 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Dinosaur NM doesn't appear to actually be listed as a separate entity. It's not in Focus as a separate listing or in the old NRIS database. I'd change the infobox to protected area. Magic♪piano 16:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Kjellberg or Chellburg Farm - Question[edit]

  • I've taken the liberty to split this topic off from the question on Refnum as it has it's own stream of information. My comments are at the end. Chris Light (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's another weird one: what should we do about Swedish Farmsteads of Porter County, Indiana? The main article has an infobox for the "Swedish Farmsteads Historic District (Pending)" and it links to several other articles that have either no refnum or a very unusual-looking one, none of which appear to be actually listed on the Register. Charles Johnson Farm is supposedly a contributing property (it doesn't say to what historic district) with no refnum, and Anders Kjellberg Farm, Gust Lindstrom Farm, and Pete Larsen Farm have refnums that are longer than 8 digits (and in one case is hyphenated). They all cite some sort of National Register nomination without linking to it; the nominations are usually dated 1994 or 2008, but there's no evidence that any of these places were ever listed. (The properties themselves seem to be real, just not any of the NRHP info about them.) Aside from probably gutting any NRHP-related info from these articles, I'm at a loss as to what we should do with them. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 04:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It gets worse. I tried Googling for one of the distinctive names in the purported Swedish Farmsteads HD, "Anders Kjellberg", and discovered that we've got two articles on the property: Anders Kjellberg Farm, which makes an apparently spurious NRHP claim, and Chellberg Farm, which doesn't, though it cites a nom form for a "Swedish Farmsteads" MPS (with no link in the citation). Worse still, both articles were created by the same editor, "Chellberg" in 2008 and "Kjellberg" in 2015. (This editor, Chris Light, also created the other articles in TheCatalyst's comment.)
Digging deeper, I find an online copy of the NPS's 2000 Cultural Landscape Report: Chellberg Farm. On p. 3 (which is p. 10 of the PDF), it states that the farm "is included in a Swedish Farming District that is potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places". A footnote on p. 6 (p. 13 of the PDF) states that "[a] multiple property nomination is being prepared for the district by the Lakeshore historians".
Like TheCatalyst, I'm at something of a loss. My inclination is to leave the creator of the articles a note, asking that the Kjellberg/Chellberg articles be merged, that any claims of NRHP listing be sourced or deleted, and that a serious effort be made to find online sources so that other editors can check any dubious assertions. Thoughts? — Ammodramus (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The note you left on the authors page sums it up nicely. Certainly, removing the claims that the properties are listed and removing the infobox seems non controversial. Claims of pending need to be backed up, but even pending doesn't mean it's on the list as had been discussed here many times. Generic1139 (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks to everyone for helping out. Sorry I haven't been able to participate as much as I usually do lately. Now that it appears we have taken care of all of the infoboxes that have no digits whatsoever, I have edited the infobox to include pages that have a refnum that has fewer than 8 digits, another error. I expect the cleanup category to populate shortly. If anyone would like to work on these, feel free to do so! Thanks again!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

On the Swedish Farms topic, I've added added some notes on the subject to Talk:Swedish Farmsteads of Porter County, Indiana with some additional references, but not the MPS submission. Generic1139 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
And, @Dudemanfellabra:, you might consider adding an error trap for reference number greater than 8 digits, for example, Gust Lindstrom Farm. Generic1139 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, This is one of many edit errors that have cropped up trying to make sense out of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore historic properties. This was submitted to the Indiana SHPO sometime before 2010 and normally, they run pretty quick through the system. This didn't, so I removed the infobox for the multiple site historic district and left each farm as it's own. No - NHRP reference numbers of info boxes. In the process, the spelling change from the original Kjellburg to the current family use of Chellburg caused two articles to be created. While the Swedish farm district appropriately uses the older historic spelling, it needs to direct itself to the Chellburg Farm article, which is the name in common use at this time (since before 1990).
  1. delete Anders Kjellberg Farm.
  2. combine the smaller articles into the primary summary article.

Does that meet the needs for clarification and adequacy of information to warrant an independent article. Note: I tend to work across topics, thus with different sets of editor, creating some confusion on my part. I'm more that happy to meet each topical areas standards. Chris Light (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places in Bergen County, New Jersey[edit]

Part 1[edit]

Does anybody know the guy described in this article? There's a pretty good chance that he's done something here as well, and I think he could help avoid all the mess that follows below. I've got an (old?) address from the white pages but an e-mail or personal contact would help. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Part 2[edit]

Bergen County, NJ has the strangest set of NRHP sites of anywhere I've seen. Consider that one Multiple listing nomination covers 190+ sites. That's more than Minneapolis and all of Hennepin County, MN. There about 280 sites total in a pretty rural area just NW of New York City. It gets stranger. There are at least 18 sites named the Ackerman-Something House, 2 of which are just "Ackerman House." There are about a dozen other family names with multiple houses named just like this. There are also different streets with the same names (and same family names) spread around the county, not to mention streets that change their names in the middle. And many of these colonial Dutch stone houses seem to be partially buried beneath modern additions. And we have confused some info in our articles and tables. Without criticizing anybody, that confusion seems inevitable. Did I mention winding hilly roads with no parking and lots of no trespassing signs?

Roy at Commons is plowing away at this, doing his usual very thorough job, but says he could use some help. Is there anybody who has experience with something like this? anybody know the area? @Jim.henderson, Daniel Case, and Nyttend: Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"a pretty rural area just NW of New York City." Really? Have you actually been there? Speaking as someone who was a) born there and b) lives pretty close to it even today, I consider it pretty suburban (only in the very northwestern part does it remotely get rural). It was well-settled at the time of the Revolution ... doesn't surprise me there's so many listed properties. Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey! I found a nearby expert! Any chance you could wade thru the nom and help Roy a bit. BTW, I should have written "a fairly non-urban area just NW of NYC" instead of "a pretty rural area." These things are all relative of course. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Might be a good thing to work on over Thanksgiving ... what specifically does he need help with? I have photographed a few of these Bergen County old Dutch stone houses in the past (Bergen County was particularly hard hit by New Jersey's early 20th century "boroughitis", so it has lots of fairly small communities (small even by the standards of elsewhere in northeastern NJ's Southern California-rivaling suburban sprawl, and each one of these seems to have ended up with at least one of those old houses) but nowhere near even a good chunk. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Roy very carefully researches most of the sites he photographs, e.g. using our articles+, and checking cords. Some of our articles are corrupt, likely due to "corrections" so they are throwing him off. No wonder since there are many names like Haring-Blauvelt-Demarest House, Haring-Blauvelt House, Blauvelt House 1, Blauvelt House 2, Blauvelt House 3, Blauvelt-Demarest House, and Cairns-Whitten-Blauvelt House (7 total), or see the 1st eight entries at National Register of Historic Places listings in Saddle River, New Jersey for just some of the Ackerman houses. So checking our articles against local knowledge would make a lot of sense. Maybe connecting him to somebody else, e.g. a historical society, would help as well.
As far as actual photography or traveling - going through some of the neighborhoods and seeing "do our photographs actually make sense?" might help and taking some pix yourself - it might help to wait until all the leaves fall. Contacting the guy in Part 1 might help. I know I can do it, but he might believe it more if the request comes from a local. I'll send you an e-mail. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Part 3[edit]

We *had* very many photos of these sites but they were deleted. They are from the guy in part 1, on the "Historical Marker Database" (just search for Bergen County there). HMdb has freely licensed photos, except there's an additional requirement for commercial use that you can't download more than 25% of the photos in 1 area (e.g. in any municipality or county). That exception might seem impossible for us to deal with, except that, for all the sites I've seen in Bergen County, the guy in Part 1, has posted more than 4 photos. So if we limited ourselves to 1 photo from each site, mathematically we'd have to be below 25% in any area. Yes, there would be some additional issues to consider, like how do we make sure that only 1 photo per site isn't uploaded by multiple editors. The photos were deleted at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_October_17 by folks who didn't seem to understand the issues or consider the math (on both sides).

I'm throwing up my hands here and just asking "what can we do?" Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Multiple Property forms[edit]

I believe the following statements are true about TR, MPS, MRA, and the like.

  • Simply appearing in one of the multiple property forms does not confer "listed" status on a property. It must be in an HD as a contributing property, or be listed individually. An "Entered in the National Register" notation means the property will have its own reference number (sometimes given in the MPS) and its own nomination (sometimes a simple list with a copy of the MPS), but it will appear in the focus database.
  • Articles about such lists do not get an NRHP infobox. They might get a project banner on the talk page, with a related importance, or if it contains a list of properties, some of which are otherwise listed, a list class.
  • Articles about a property were the only NRHP justification is a mention in an MPS, MRA, TR, etc., and where the property does not have a Entered in the National Register stamp should be corrected. If the property is otherwise listed on the NRHP, provide the correct reference. If the property is not lsited, correct the article and remove the NRHP decoration.
  • A multiple property form does not create a historic district.
  • A pending property never gets an infobox.

I plan to correct the obvious cases in Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup based on the above. Generic1139 (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think most of the above is correct, although I would disagree with your second point. I'm not sure why articles about listed NRHP properties would not get a NRHP infobox. See, for example Iron County MRA, where I believe most of the properties included are not notable enough to deserve their own article (individual NRHP listing notwithstanding). The infobox seems to me to add some context. Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Some context, but not much - the reference numbers aren't complete and therefore not machine readable, the dates aren't specific as to what which listing they apply to. There are other ways to host the map and collage. If a reader wanted to click to get the NRIS data, they would need to go to the county list to find the reference number for a property. As a separate issue, it seems that almost all of the references are now dead links. Generic1139 (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed all but Charles Johnson Farm and Swedish Farmsteads of Porter County, Indiana to give Chris Light a chance to respond to Ammodramus. I also plan to remove the infobox from Iron County MRA unless there is a consensus that it should be kept. Generic1139 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the other points, but I also disagree with the second point. I don't see a good reason why articles about multiple property submissions shouldn't have their own infoboxes, since an infobox can be a useful visual aid and a quick reference for information on a MPS. I'm especially concerned that we're doing this so soon after the infobox code change that put a bunch of MPS articles in Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup; it seems like we're changing our article content to fit our new infobox code rather than the other way around. We should either change the code to find some way to work around MPS infoboxes or agree to some way to add reference numbers to MPS infoboxes (either in the style of the Iron County article, or by using the MPS reference numbers). TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 04:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the use for a set of partial reference numbers as in the Iron County article. They aren't correlated to a property, you can't search for them, what's the point? Also, this isn't an issue with the new infobox code - infoboxes without reference numbers have shown up in the cleanup category for quite a while. The new code simply catches those that were missed before because they had a reference in the otherwise empty refnum parameter. I'm fine with having an multiple listing flag or special nrhp_type, and using the MPS number (which always starts with 64, not the year), as long as we don't try to cram 70 reference numbers into it. If we list properties in an MPS article, I'd also argue that they should use the NRHP Row format as well - easier to maintain, and would look more like other list articles - just with a longer intro and the descriptions in the table with the image, location, and usable refnum. Generic1139 (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no particular objection to changing or reformatting the refnums, if that's what's causing heartburn. However, I think that a table format wouldn't work well for this particular article (although it probably would work well for most MPS articles). Most of the properties which are part of the Iron County MRA are likely not notable enough to deserve their own article, so the group article is the de facto repository of information for those particular properties. That makes the descriptions longer than will easily fit in "description" block of the table. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
As currently structured, the NRHP infobox is a container for a historic place, using one of the defined types.
We can:
  • Make a new nrhp_type for MPS (optionally, each type of MPS) for the existing infobox. This one might be the best choice, but it would be the only type that isn't a specific listed property.
  • Make a new info box altogether
We need a convention for listing multiple reference numbers for MPS. I suggest we avoid that problem and simply use the MPS reference number, and if the article has table of listed properties, or a series of summary paragraphs, then the table or paragraphs should give the refnum, and use something similar to [{{NRHP Focus|refnum|url=y}} refnum] to make them clickable.
We also need to agree that properties that are listed on the MPS, but were not added individually or are part of an HD, don't get an infobox with a CP and a partof_refnum = the MPS.
I suggest we keep (and continue to refine) the validity checks on refnum, as that process finds far more problems than it does false positives. Generic1139 (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
And, FWIW, with a quick look at the 68 articles in Category:National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submissions and its sub categories that are actually MPS articles, 43 use a single refnum (usually the MPS), 8 used multiple refnums, 7 have no infobox. I'm modifying my changes to use the MPS refnum for in the cases where the refnum field was empty or non-numeric (for now).
FWIW, I'd support standardizing on using the MPS refnum for all MPS articles. Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New listing today that may be is a first of its kind[edit]

In today's newly-announced listings there's one from Washington County, Arkansas, that I can't wait to see a picture of:

Prairie Grove Airlight Outdoor Telephone Booth, SW. corner of E. Douglas and Parker Sts., Prairie Grove 15000291

Would this be the first time a telephone booth has been listed on the NRHP? I know Britain lists just about every one of those old red phone booths they can find, but I don't think we've ever granted one this honor (Not that we shouldn't ... they sort of are disappearing, and should one day arouse the same curious interest that mounting blocks do today). Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Yes, apparently it is the first. OK, someone needs to get a picture so we can start an article about it and get it nominated to DYK. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Photograph here, for people who aren't old enough to remember them. Nomination here (with lots more pictures). This one should be fun to write up. Magic♪piano 18:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I have pinged Valis55, who has done yeoman's work photographing many of northwestern Arkansas's listings. Definitely a DYK. Magic♪piano 18:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I called the phone number given for it in the nom, sorry it was busy. Don't ask me why I called the phone number - it was there and why not? Which raises the question of whether we should put the number in the article. We might ask the folks at the motel for a quikpic. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This also raises the question of whether there are other famous phone booths (not numbers or simple phones, but booths). Maybe in Metropolis, may something to do with the Phonebooth stuffing craze? Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The only other phone booth that I know has a Wikipedia article is the Mojave phone booth, which is one of the classic unusual articles. Sadly, it's been removed, so it won't be showing up on the NRHP anytime soon. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 00:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
It's amazing that something that was once as ubiquitous as a phone booth is now in need of conservation and qualifies for the NRHP. Maybe 50 years from now cell towers will be on the NRHP. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I will likely photograph it this weekend, weather permitting. Valis55 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

commons NRHP template[edit]

A user on commons, in a good faith following of the OVERCAT guildlines applied to the NRHP template, has been removing the NRHP template from individual files if thet are in a category that has the NRHP template. Good, bad, or doesn't matter? Will files without the tag still show up in all right places, like the unused images category if they are in a tagged category? How about the database that feeds the monument finder mapping tool? Should a file continue to be tagged with the NRHP template even if it is in a category that is tagged? Generic1139 (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that the NRHP tag should stay in the file - a person could easily get the file some way other than going through the commons category. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The template should definitely remain on the file itself. Without that template adding the file to the category, none of our bot stuff works correctly. All of the removed templates should be added back immediately.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, there is more than just a single user transferring the template to the categories. One question I have is, should the template be used in categories at all, if it only works correctly on files? (The template documentation is very minimal) I wasn't the first to use it on categories; I just followed what I thought was already common practice. I'll undo all the templates I removed, but I'm not going to go and add the template to all the files inside c:Category:Cranbrook Educational Community or c:Category:Michigan Theater (Ann Arbor, Michigan), most of which never had any connection to the template at all. kennethaw88talk 15:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Having the template in the category is what makes Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Missing commons category links and the corresponding script work, so removing it would also break things. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 15:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
To summarize, then, the commons NRHP template should be on each individual file and each category to which it applies.
And in practice, that normally means the NRHP template for an individual listing is applied to lowest level category to which it applies, we don't want to add several templates to a county level category covering all of the reference numbers in the county. For HDs, if a property is individually listed, it gets its iindividual refnum, contributing-only files get the HD ref num. The HD category gets the HD refnum. And one more guideline that I think has been inferred is that the HD ref number only goes on the highest level category where all the contained files or sub categories are within the HD. Generic1139 (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying this. kennethaw88talk 22:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I, too, have been removing the tag from individual files - literally for years now. Could someone explain what "bot stuff" needs all those multi-categorized files? And if we have all these bots that are invisible even to experienced users, are we over-automated? Or maybe we should have a section on the project page outlining the various scripts, bots, infobox tools, etc. that are in use? — Ipoellet (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll second Ipoellet's request for more information. I almost always take multiple photos of an NRHP site, so create a Commons category for each one; and when I do, I put the NRHP template on the category but not on the individual photos within it. If this is causing problems, I'll fix it; but it'll be a power of work, and I'm somewhat loath to undertake it unless I know that the benefits will justify the effort.
Several questions about where to apply it at various category levels. First, what should be done if a separately listed site is also part of an HD? For instance, the Auburn, Nebraska post office was individually listed in the NRHP; later, the Auburn Historic District was listed, including the post office. Should the PO category include two NRHP templates, one with the PO refnum and one with the HD refnum? If we need to put the NRHP template on individual photo files within a category, should individual PO photos also have two NRHP templates?
Second, what should be done when a category for an NRHP site includes subcategories? For instance, the St. Leonard's complex in Madison, Nebraska includes the church, the rectory, and the rectory garage. I've got an overcall category, c:Category:St. Leonard's complex (Madison, Nebraska), within which I've got separate subcategories for the church, the rectory, and the Holy Garage. Within the church subcategory, I've got subsubcategories for the windows and the frescoes. Should these subcategories and subsubcategories also carry the NRHP template, with the complex's refnum? — Ammodramus (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, if the category is properly tagged, do all the images within it need to be tagged too for bot stuff to work? The image adding script will catch images in a tagged category, and while they won't show up on ErfgoedBot's unused images page, the categories will still show up on the missing Commons category page and can be added from there. I also suspect that users who go through the trouble to make categories for their new photos are far more likely to add their images to the list themselves (or at least tell someone else who will). (I'm probably forgetting about some aspect of bot functionality, so please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.) TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 14:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that there are reasons for tagging photos other than for the bots. For instance, cities have photos of NRHPs and a person may click on the photo, which takes them to commons. It would be good if that tells them that it is a NRHP. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
But in that event wouldn't it make more sense to state the NR status in the description in prose, rather than use the template that applies an excess category? — Ipoellet (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I put the NRHP tag in the photo's description. It is a lot shorter than writing it out, plus it shows up nicely in galleries and perhaps other places. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Photo copyright before 1978[edit]

The 1974 NRHP Eudora Plantation was destroyed by fire but since the NRHP photo was before 1978, we can use it, right? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Before I respond, I'd like to acknowledge that some folks may disagree with me on some points. However, as I see it the answer is: Likely, but not necessarily. There are two things you want to check for:
  • Whether or not the nomination file has a copyright notice in it — you need to check both the text and the photos if you're using the Focus files. If there's a notice, then the photos are not public domain and we can't use them.
  • You need to have a reasonable (not absolute) belief that the photos were not published prior to the nomination being filed. If they were, then you need to go back to the first time they were published to see if there was a copyright notice there — at which point you are better off using the first publication as the source rather than the NRHP nomination. (In the unlikely event that the photos were first published prior to 1923, then they're in the public domain whether or not there's a copyright notice.)
If the nomination is the first publication and doesn't bear a copyright notice, then the Commons copyright tag you will want to use is PD-US-no notice.
Okay, after writing all of the above, I've now taken a look at the files on Focus, and it appears to me that the photos are in fact public domain. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Those particular ones are PD, or in general? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Those particular ones. — Ipoellet (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a way to get digital copies of photos in a NRHP form other than a screen capture from the PDF? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I usually use the PDF-to-JPG utility at — Ipoellet (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know about that - I just did a screen capture of the PDF, saved to JPG, and uploaded it. I'll check out that conversion. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)