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:


Kentucky courthouses[edit]

Coming here is a bit of a stretch, since most people here aren't that familiar with Kentucky (otherwise the state wouldn't have the second-lowest quality rating east of the Mississippi, and an illustrated rate lower than Alaska), but I figured there was a chance.

Before retiring in 2008, User:W.marsh created a project to find free-licensed photos of all 120 courthouses in Kentucky, but because he retired, I moved that page to my userspace some time ago. After a couple of recent trips to western Kentucky and southern Illinois, the project is complete, with an image for every courthouse. I'd like to create a page comparable to my recently created List of county courthouses in Illinois, but I've never seen a good source that addresses courthouses statewide; the only courthouses book I've encountered is self-published, and as it's from 1988, it predates the wave of courthouse construction that's been happening in the last ten years. This being said, has anyone encountered a good resource of any sort with information on courthouses statewide? It could be a book, or a reliable website comparable to what the Ohio Supreme Court maintains, or anything else both reliable and comprehensive. I've already asked a couple of active Kentucky editors, but because it's been just earlier this afternoon, neither one's really had a chance to reply yet. Nyttend (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Doncram has been working on Draft:List of courthouses in the United States for a while. He has a section for Kentucky there; maybe he knows something?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but that list is basically just the NR-listed courthouses, regardless of whether they're current courthouses, and not including non-NR courthouses; I'm compiling a different kind of list, one with all current courthouses regardless of whether they're historic in any way. Aside from little footnotes (in the Illinois list, daggers and double daggers), NR status wouldn't even be mentioned in my imagined list, just as with Illinois. Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
There would be considerable overlap ... as Nyttend notes in the Illinois list, 39 of the 102 current courthouses are NRHP-listed. So at the List of courthouses in the United States (no longer in draftspace), I stripped the Illinois section down to just the 10 or so notable former county courthouses that are NRHP-listed. These were all already mentioned in the comments column for the corresponding current Illinois courthouses. But they are still properly described as county courthouses, so I think they belong in the "List of county courthouses" list-article. So in these edits I moved that table of former courthouses into the Illinois list. I think that's better; is that okay?
By the way there's [List of county courthouses in Alabama]], created by Spyder Monkey in 2010, which is like the Illinois list, i.e. includes modern courthouses and appears not to include former courthouses. There are already mainspace lists for AR, DC, IA, NC, SC, TX, WA, and Boston, too. The U.S.-wide list-article I have been working on links to those, and tries to directly cover the other states, starting with NRHP-listed ones (current and former courthouses). It happens to include just a couple non-NR courthouses so far (e.g. Adams County Courthouse (West Union, Ohio), Providence County Courthouse). --doncram 20:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The boats...they move![edit]

I happened to notice a recent uncited addition to List of National Historic Landmarks in Michigan about the Ste. Claire (passenger steamboat). Turns out the addition is correct and citable, but opened a can o' worms that I'm not sure what-all to do with. To explain, here's the timeline:

  • Meanwhile, the Ste Claire's sister ship, the SS Columbia (also placed on the Register in 1979 and designated a NHL in 1992) also started out in Detroit, and indeed is currently listed in the List of National Historic Landmarks in Michigan. However, she was moved to Toledo, Ohio in 2014, and then in 2015 to Buffalo, New York (according to the article above), and will at some point be moved to New York City.

Whew. So it looks like, at the moment, the Ste Claire should be listed as a current NHL in Michigan, and the Columbia as a "former NHL" in Michigan, and a current one in New York. Which is not the way either are listed at all, and so needs some cleanup.

But then: do either of these ships get listed as former NHLs in Ohio, since they were both docked in Toledo for some time? On the one hand, that seems consistent with past practice, but on the other it also seems like it could lead to some odd circumstances where individual vessels are listed in four or five or six states. Or does docking for repairs not "count," only being in service? Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Our lists generally include "former" places only if they no longer have the status for the list: "former NHLs in MI" includes Michigan NHLs that have had their NHL status removed, not NHLs that have been moved from Michigan to another state. That's why National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Ohio has no mention of the Mississippi III — she got moved to the Pittsburgh area (thus appearing on the Allegheny County list) several years ago, and despite being sunk in 2010, she's still on the list, so she's not a former listing. If Ste. Claire is in MI, put her on that list and take her off the OH list. Columbia is an exceptional situation, since she's officially in transit to New York City (see the first thread at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 December 23), so we ought just to wait for now. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure we really treat this consistently; sometimes relocated listings are included in a separate section of the list, sometimes they're lumped under former listings, and sometimes they're not included at all. I'd probably prefer a separate section for relocated listings, though it's not a strong preference. (List of National Historic Landmarks in California is an example of a listing that's under the former listings, but the former listings section of that article is such a mess that I'd rather not use it as an example of anything.) TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 03:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've got a somewhat similar issue with the Sternwheeler Jean. She was originally listed in Lewiston, Idaho, but was subsequently moved to Portland, Oregon. Since then, I think (but haven't pinned down for sure yet) she has been dismantled, and so cannot be meaningfully said to be located anywhere anymore. So, if and when I establish for sure that the boat no longer exists, should she be left on the Portland list or added back to the Lewiston list? (I doubt she'll ever actually be delisted - she's invisible to the Oregon SHPO having been listed in Idaho, and the Idaho Historical Society rarely if ever acts to delist destroyed properties.) — Ipoellet (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've encountered this with a couple of vessels in Maryland and Virginia, though to a lesser degree - the state historical societies have them listed under one county, but they've since been moved to another. This is a bit troublesome given that their documentation is currently listed under the original county. I'm not sure what the answer should be, but I think we should think of some way of handling it; it's becoming a too-common issue, I'm afraid. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Delisting of these things sometimes does happen. See PRESIDENT (Steamboat), listed originally in St. Louis but currently located in a few different spots in south-central Illinois; she was delisted in 2011, after being moved to her current locations. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not just boats. I've just discovered that a railroad depot has been moved from Utica, Yankton County, South Dakota, where it was listed, to a pioneer museum in Hutchinson County. For now, I've added a note to the Yankton Co. list article. However, I'm not sure what I should do once I get to the museum, photograph the depot, and come up with a good set of coordinates. If I put the coords in the Yankton Co list, the map will have a point well outside the county. On the other hand, if I move it to the Hutchinson Co. list, it could cause headaches for editors who search the NPS database for Hutchinson Co. sites and don't find it.
I agree with Ser Amantio di Nicolao: the WikiProject ought to establish a standard approach to this kind of situation. My inclination would be to move the entry to the list for the county in which the object currently resides, with a well-sourced footnote regarding the move from the former county; and to add the site to the list of NRIS issues. I'd be disinclined to put it on a list of former sites in Original County; as Nyttend points out, that list is for sites that've lost their NRHP status. What about leaving it on the Original County list, with a well-sourced note about the move to the new location, until the NPS changes it? That wouldn't be trouble-free: for instance, the site would show up on the progress page as being in two counties. However, as long as the NHP lists the site in Original County, I think we need an entry for it there. — Ammodramus (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Instead of "former listings", what about another section for "other issues"? That would get the affected site out of the main list...and there might be a way to code it to keep it from appearing on the map with other listings. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources[edit]

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.


--John Cummings (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Mission Church (Arctic Village, Alaska)[edit]

More OR problems. The infobox photo claims to be of the NR-listed church taken in 2009. Looking at the description page on the FWS website, it offers indication that the photo was actually taken in 1976. Furthermore, it likely depicts the current church. I have many ties to Arctic Village and therefore see social media photos from there quite often. Photos on those sites of the NR-listed church taken within the past decade show not only a building with a much different spire than what is shown in the infobox photo, but also a building which is seriously tilting, appearing to be near collapsing. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I double-checked with the photos from the nomination form, and you're absolutely right, so I removed the photo. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 02:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Lately, I've been scanning images which are now PD due to lack of a copyright notice in original publication (Commons' Upload Wizard is a burden, so I've only uploaded a small portion thus far). One of those publications is The Alaskan Churchman published by the Episcopal Diocese of Alaska. The masthead indicates that it began publication in 1906, so that's a whole lot of issues to pour through. Anyway, I would be extremely surprised if I can't find a free image of the church there, considering that I have other photos from that publication taken in Arctic Village. It may take a while, but I'll keep looking. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

WLM photo contest and related ideas[edit]

I've been contacted to see if anybody want to be part of Wiki Loves Monuments this year. From a discussion in the Spring and my personal preferences, I'd say no. WLM has worked well for us in the past as far as generating pix for many sites and helping to recruit new photographers, but there is something of a mismatch between what most members of this project want to do and the emphasis that WLM has. We'd need greater participation in things like screening the photos before sending them to the jury, placing photos, and personal interaction with new photogs.

I do have a couple of suggestions on how we might do things differently, however, to fit our needs.

  • Have a pure "count how many photos of previously unillustrated sites you've uploaded in September" contest. No need for screening or a jury.
  • There is money from the WMF for individual projects that we can tailor to our own needs. Say $2,000 would be easy enough to get IMHO.
    • A crazy idea - Road trips
Have our own "fun contests" as we've done previously. Individual challengers/judges set up their own contests for the most previously unillustrated site photos in counties along certain roads or rivers. e.g. along US1/I95. That would cover many important parts of the East Coast, a lot of which we've already got photos for, e.g. all of Florida, but also many places where we don't have photos, e.g. most of North Carolina. Prize might be $500 for the photog with the most pix over the course of a month, or better a whole summer or a whole year.
Other road trips might be US 101 on the West Coast, or along the Mississippi River, or along the Ohio and Missouri Rivers.
So these wouldn't be part of WLM, but they'd be fun and getting $500 to help-out with the costs would be nice (no guarantee that you'd win of course).

Any ideas appreciated. If we really want to be a part of this year's WLM, we'd have to start up very quickly however. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

As is generally the case with project contests, I think the biggest issue is that our most heavily illustrated areas are within a weekend trip's radius from where an active project member lives, and anywhere else doesn't get nearly the same coverage; if we want to fix that, we either need to recruit active photographers in other areas or find the resources to get our more active photographers to other parts of the country. WLM has been helpful for the first part of that goal, but our remaining gaps are concentrated in fairly specific areas, some of which are sparsely populated enough that trying to recruit a local could be difficult (e.g. the Dakotas). If the WMF was willing to put up money to cover expenses and/or contest prizes for those road trips you suggested, though, it would probably make it easier for some of our more established photographers to get out to less-illustrated parts of the country and fill in those gaps. (And hey, I sure wouldn't mind getting to drive around a new state for a week with the WMF partially covering expenses.) I'm sure there would still be issues around how the WMF would provide the money and if and when our active photographers would have time for this sort of thing, but I'm a fan of the idea. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 01:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@TheCatalyst31: Thanks for the feedback. I don't see your reaction as supporting doing WLM this year, but maybe doing something tailored to our needs would work. I don't want to limit this discussion to contests, though we are all familiar with how these would work. Perhaps we could just ask for support for road trips, where the photographer suggests his/her own trip. That would take some bureaucracy, but we could do it among ourselves and keep it minimal. I'd also be against major sums, e.g. $5,000 - a $500 "help with the gas and the motels" is more what I'm thinking. Also small amounts, say under $200, may not be worth the trouble when all participants are considered (i.e. the bureaucrats). How to get the money from the WMF? I'll suggest just going to the Idea Lab and bouncing it off them but there are a range of options. I think individual Engagement Grants go up to $2,000. Other forms of grants might require an informally organized group, or even official by-laws and officers in some cases. I'd personally want to keep it as simple as possible. Say 4-8 road-trip grants, $200-500 each, for the summer months, with 3 person committee reviewing or checking the basics. It could be done, the only question I have is do people want to do it? Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I may apply. A few hundred dollars for gas and motels could take me to a lot of unphotographed listed places in Iowa or the Dakotas, now that most of Minnesota is done. But if we are not going to participate in WLM, I wonder what we can do to promote more people taking photos near them. Jonathunder (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate some money for a road trip - even if it is less than half of the cost. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I would likely apply as well. I've been informing myself about Puerto Rico and the sites there quite a bit and was thinking about a photo trip - some help with that would be lovely. (I was also going to suggest Iowa and the Dakotas before Jonathunder stole my thunder.) — Ipoellet (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Iowa is much closer to me than either of the Dakotas, and they are vast. If you want them, they're all yours. Jonathunder (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Count me as someone interested too. My home territory of New England is pretty well covered, but there's a lot of Maine and Vermont I could potentially go after. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't think I'd be applying for a grant, but if there's someone who'd like to take up the banner of western Virginia that would be grand. Coverage is getting better but is still spotty in some locations. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Toward a concrete proposal[edit]

It sounds like we've come up with something that several people can support. I'd like to

  • hear from folks who have objections to this (I have a few minor ones myself)
  • come up with a concrete proposal that we can take to Rapid Grants, which could be approved as fast as 2 week for up to $2,000. There are definitely other avenues available, but this seems like a place to start.

I'll start with some of my potential objections. I wouldn't want to see this become a big money, big bureaucracy type of program. That could very much hurt the WP:NRHP community and the volunteer nature of what we do. It could also cause dissension within the group and criticism from outsiders. ("Why do you guys get paid when nobody else is?") I'd very much like it to be "a little bit of help with gas and motels" covering about half of the minimum cost of a very productive trip. And with only $2,000 total that would only be 4+ trips per year(?)

I'd like the "application" to be 2-3 paragraphs, more like a check-list than anything else. Approval could be by community members, say a 3 person committee, where 1 person just checks off the checklist for the application before the trip, a 2nd person looks at the checklist after the trip (but we wouldn't necessarily want to wait until all photos are uploaded and placed) and approves a payment, and the 3rd person fills in, helps relative newbies in the process, and serves as the final appeal if there are any appeals. People could switch roles and new members of the committee could serve ad hoc or be appointed by the other 2 as needed.

We'd need at least 3 people to commit to making this work, but I don't see it as a huge time commitment. We'd need folks to go over to Rapid Grants to express their support. I don't think we'd need an official RfC in the project, but I'd really like to encourage anybody with objections, suggestions or questions to speak up.

Then we need to get a concrete proposal and fill out the application. I'll open a page say at WP:NRHP/Road trips sometime today to specifically work on that.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

All comments welcome at that page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Stripped Oshkosh House Mover
Road trips are always worthwhile. I just wish I had more money and more time to drive all the places I want to go. BTW, has anybody noticed the new pics I've uploaded since my June 2016 roadtrip? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Nice. It took me awhile to get thru it - was that about 400 (non-NRHP) pix? My favorite though was from just before the trip (shown at right). So that's where all those missing buildings went?! Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, funny. That was about six years ago, and none of the houses being moved would've even come close to being added to any historic list. Most of what I had along the way were subway, train station, and highway related. I still have to work on one historic district in Emporia, Virginia, believe it or not. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be funny. I really liked the photo and only noted the upload date. Road trips are good for all sorts of content, no criticism there either. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
My mistake, then. Hey, do you know what I'd like to see more images of? The Appomattox Iron Works in Petersburg, Virginia. I've been considered a whole new gallery for that site, and the Petersburg commons gallery could use a little diffusion in general. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Support central archiving of local history materials[edit]

Summary: An OTRS-like service with a central repository of local history docs could promote and go with WLM photo contest, inviting involvement of new editors

  • Goal: An overall goal of WikiProject NRHP could be to build a deep, robust community of local historians supporting the development and updating of NRHP articles.
  • Motivation: A number of local historians have had their fingers burnt in the experience of trying to edit NRHP articles in wikipedia (which is not different than the experience of other professionals in their areas), when their writing is doubted and negatively tagged and/or deleted in Wikipedia and when their photo contributions are questioned and deleted at Commons. Local historians may feel generally unwelcome, and experienced editors may reasonably choose to advise them to stay away because the environment is too unfriendly. This could change, and the knowledge of local historians could be valued and added to Wikipedia, if there was a good process to validate and permanently make accessible local history materials that are unpublished and/or not available on the internet to be checked. Any local history society is chock full of primary source materials, local histories which are secondary but unpublished, and historic photographs which provide concrete evidence of events in history. The copyright status of all of these may be unknown and it may not be financially possible for local societies to publish materials to the internet.
  • Proposal: If funding for computer space and programming and scanning and postal mailing costs and other operating expenses, and for one or a few paid administrators could be obtained, an OTRS-like team of qualified volunteers might perform as a central library/archiving service to hold scanned copies of local history materials that support assertions in Wikipedia, and to provide the ability to check sourcing when it is questioned. Copyright issues are avoided by all scanned materials being kept as a unpublished collection behind secure protection, accessible to only the qualified volunteers. One or two central librarians or technical administrators probably should be paid to develop the technical side of this, if it is not immediately possible to get Wikipedia Foundation hardware/software/technical support.
  • Issues: This would not be an attempt to vacuum up vast amounts of local rubbish. It would be limited to indexed materials that are used directly as sources in drafts and mainspace Wikipedia writing, indicated by use of a special template within footnotes. Material that is found to be worthless can be removed from the collection, akin to how Commons deletes copyrighted photos that might be used under Fair Use, but which are not used in any articles. With this mechanism in place, local historians can be invited to participate in Wikipedia by writing with sourcing to their local history materials (with usual caveats about primary materials being used only with care).
  • How does this relate to WLM photo contests? Well, if we can be reasonably confident that the locals will not be burned when they edit according to guidelines in this program, then we can feel free to mass contact local historical societies and town historians to invite their involvement, starting with their contribution of new photos of NRHP places in a WLM photo contest. Contributing photos is a good first experience, with direct reward of contributors seeing their photos used in articles. We've fallen short in the next step, after locals contribute in a photo contest, by our not having a gentle way forward to their becoming involved in writing.
  • Home not WikiProject NRHP? I am guessing this kind of program is NOT what most WikiProject NRHP members are interested in, and this might best be handled in a new/different arena, perhaps a WikiProject Local history? Local historians' interest would not be limited to NRHP-listed sites, but rather they would be motivated to develop History sections of town and hamlet articles, and from there to split out articles on local historic sites and list-articles of local historic registries and so on, which goes outside scope of WP:NRHP (and also outside scope of wp:HSITES). Comments indicating interest AND non-interest would be appreciated. --doncram 19:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

NPS focus problems again?[edit]

For about 6 days I've been having problems with the NPS site. Usually either only the banner will come up or it will show the PDFs but not download them. Does anyone know about this problem? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I have sometimes found that accessing through Focus or whatever it is called now fails, while hard-coding a document URL like into Wikipedia, and then following its link, does work. Another issue about NPS documents I have seen (including that one for J.C. Penney House article) is that some PDFs there (maybe especially MPS ones?) come through garbled when accessed via Chrome browser, while they are okay when accessed through MS Internet Explorer. Is there a template to use to indicate that problem to readers (labelled "best viewed using MSIE" or similar) and to put those PDF links into a category? I believe that all of the New York State-hosted NRHP documents have similar access problem requiring use of MSIE and to have javascript enabled. I wonder if it is possible to have templates that display messages about these issues, conditional upon the reader's browser? --doncram 18:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Historic district contributing properties has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Historic district contributing properties, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming by another editor.. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

NRHP infobox distinctions for contributing properties?[edit]

@Dudemanfellabra:. This touches on a feature/bug of the {{Infobox NRHP}}: how places that are just contributing properties are indicated vs. how places that are both individually listed and contributing properties are indicated. It's not easy to tell. I think they have both always been indicated with a green color bar that reads the same: "US Historic district
Contributing property". When I go and study at Template:Infobox NRHP#Contributing property only, I eventually figure out there is in fact a subtle difference between what is shown at top of the infoboxes, but the difference is not one that I am likely to remember and it is opaque to non-insiders. And I don't see how the display difference is triggered. Both cases use "nrhp_type = cp".

How about fix this by using explicit labels within the colorbar that are different:

  • "Contributing property in a historic district" for the cp-only case
  • "Separately listed, and a contributing property in a historic district" for the sl-and-cp case

and use selectors that are explicitly different, "nrhp_type = cp-only" vs. "nrhp_type = sl-and-cp". That way at least NRHP editors could tell there's a difference without a cribsheet. It is a further issue what categories, if any, should be inserted by the infobox code (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 22#Category:Historic district contributing properties).

For example, consider Canal Warehouse (Chillicothe, Ohio). It has the ambiguous label color bar, and a 1973 date added is given in the infobox. From the infobox alone I would figure it is just a contributing property. The text is inconsistent with the infobox, and mentions both a 1974 date of separate listing and a 1979 date for a historic district.

It's fine if anyone wants to leave a pointer here and move this over to Template talk:Infobox NRHP, but I thought the issue should at least be raised here. --doncram 14:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

WLM 2016 map[edit]

I just noticed the map for WLM 2016 which has the US on it. It might be useful for some folks. [1]. You do need to zoom in to see all the details. Playing around with it a bit, it looked accurate in PA.

I believe it's based on their overall database at Commons [2] which is pretty close to (but not exactly the same as) our tables. I suppose the same caveats should be repeated as we do for our own tables. Any maps based on NRHP data can be off a hundred yards or more, depending on your location in the US.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

: Are the red ones where photos are needed? yes. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

One error I noticed. The map placed the West 114th Street Historic District in the middle of the East River south of Soundview, Bronx, when it's actually in Upper Manhattan. Oh, by the way, there are still tons of images from New Rochelle Historic Sites that need to be added. I took some already that I haven't uploaded or named yet, but there are many others that I missed. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Another thing; I see that two historic houses on Awixa Avenue in Bay Shore, New York have three images each (thanks to me), but apparently the lack of coordinates for these houses is making them not show up on the map. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)