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:


What's going on with Arkansas Preservation's nomination forms?[edit]

It looks like Arkansas Preservation changed all the links to their nomination forms, which means we're going to have to update yet another state. I was going to run the Arkansas NRHP articles through AWB like I did with Maryland a while back, except it seems like some forms haven't moved to the new URLs yet (see the nom for AR 289 Bridge Over English Creek, for example, which doesn't seem to exist at either URL). I checked their website, and the links that come up in their search point to where the new forms should be - there just aren't any forms there yet. Anyone have any idea what's happening here? TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 00:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

They've redesigned their website, and while there are links to PDFs, they're all broken, and different than the old ones. I've not yet made inquiries as to when it might be fixed, but I'm guessing all the old links will not be maintained. Magic♪piano 01:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It appears as though the nomination forms will, once the PDF links actually work, at least use the same resource ids in the filename, so it may be possible for a bot or semi-automatic process to update links. Magic♪piano 14:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
PDFs are available for some counties (e.g. Ashley and Lafayette) but not others (e.g. Garland). Magic♪piano 16:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
In a brief exchange with the Arkansas SHPO, they are working on restoring access to the missing PDFs, but have no timetable for completion. Magic♪piano 15:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wawona listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wawona to be moved to Wawona (ship). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

architect OR builder =[edit]

As I'm sure most of you know, Elkman's fine query tool puts this in its constructed infobox: architect OR builder = whatever. I'm guilty of sometimes, but not always, just pasting that in without picking one or the other,or adding the other if both are known. I've gone back and fixed all I've botched in the past, in most cases the architect and/or builder is laid out more completely in the nomination form text. I'm thinking that I'm not the only one to have done it wrong. Can we add an error report that flags infoboxes that have architect OR builder = where it is set to something? Or, is there an easy way to do a text search through source to find them as a one time scan? Generic1139 (talk)

I suspect that a lot of the NRIS-only articles have this problem, since a few of the more prolific article-creators just copied in the infobox without changing anything. The error report would probably be nice to have, but I'm not sure that we could do much with it yet because of how many NRIS-only articles there are. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 03:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
See this change that I made to the template's sandbox. What if we adopted it? We can just make architect OR builder= produce a "designer" line, and it would display whatever's in that parameter. What's more, this change would implement a proposal made here several months ago, of getting rid of the rather useless governing_body= parameter. Note that (1) virtually all of the architect OR builder names are architects to an extent, so it would also be safe to have this one duplicate architect= instead of making it display "designer"; and (2) this parameter in the generator was originally architect=, but Elkman changed it as a result of one of the complaints that ultimately got Doncram topicbanned from the NRHP. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall the discussion about |governing body=, but I'm not in favor of getting rid of it. Can you provide a link back to the earlier discussion? In particular, I'm wondering how the "rather useless" judgment came about - I don't consider it that. — Ipoellet (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
See the "Infobox fields" section of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 60. Nyttend (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I remember that discussion now - I just didn't participate because I didn't feel I had anything to add to what was said, especially by MagicPiano. Upon rereading, I would not take that discussion as any sort of consensus to remove the governing body field from the infobox - there were simply some differing opinions offered without any sort of resolution on a single change outcome. Someone could, however, be bold and change the label for the infobox field to something like "Ownership", which is useful information for a reader who is approaching the NRHP as a historic preservationist rather than as a historian. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
That's why I only referred to it as a "proposal", not a "decision" or anything of the sort; since it just got floated out there, I felt like I should raise the issue without making it seem like I was finally doing what we decided long ago. The problem with the field in general is that it doesn't particularly reflect the true state of things in many cases (I've seen downtown HDs get listed with US POSTAL SERVICE as the governing body, just because there's a post office in the HD), and unlike unchanging elements such as the date of construction or the architect, the owner/governing body/whatever can change easily. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

With regard to this thread's original issue, architect and builder are distinct points of information that the NR forms and NRIS unfortunately conflate. Given that Elkman's tool can only dump that NRIS field into a single template parameter, I would support displaying |architect OR builder= with a "Designer" field name — but the template documentation should make clear that |architect OR builder= is deprecated and editors are encouraged to manually disaggregate its contents into the appropriate |architect= and |builder= parameters as much as possible. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with deprecating |architect OR builder= but displaying something if it is used. Currently, |architect OR builder= displays nothing. I'm not sure "Designer" is the right choice though - I've looked at several of these in the past two days, when there are two names, it is sometimes true that both are architects, but a only a little less often it is an architect and a builder. In some cases a single name is the builder. I'm not sure we have a single word for architect or builder, but designer isn't it. Developer might be a choice, but it has another common meaning in the case of a multi-building tract. How about "Designer or builder", it takes up the same amount of space as "Architectural style" and we live with that. Generic1139 (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The NRIS field sometimes contains names of people who are neither builders nor architects. I've seen NRIS-based articles that (wrongly, of course) credited a building's construction to Rufus Porter, whose only actual role was painting on its walls. He's not the only artist whose name I've seen in that field. Magic♪piano 00:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

More missing forms[edit]

It's odd...I just went over to the Virginia DHR looking for one of the forms for Alexandria, and it seems that all of the forms and photographs relating to Alexandria City are currently missing. It's not a DHR-wide problem; a cursory examination reveals that at least one county's forms (can't remember which) are where they should be. So I presume that there are others working. Any idea what gives? I know they migrated some things on their website, but that was a while ago and I should have thought that something like this would have been caught between then and now. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

When settlement = historic district, do we need a separate article, revisited[edit]

Some of you may recall that a few years back, we had this thorny problem caused by many historic districts in Connecticut being pretty much coterminous with their eponymous settlements, which we already had articles on. There was a difference of opinion as to whether, in that circumstance, we should have separate articles on the settlement and the historic district (I don't remember at the moment when this was or I would have posted links; I suppose if anyone does and finds those discussions relevant they should feel free to post them here). The best known example I can think of is Litchfield Historic District, an NHLD which we sort of resolved by ... well, read the hatnote.

A few months ago the potential for this issue to revive raised itself when New York's State Historic Preservation Office approved the nomination of Canajoharie Historic District to the Register. Unlike most other HDs of the "X Historic District" variety in the state, where X is the name of the village, city or hamlet of which the district is usually at the core of, the Canajoharie district, as shown in the map on page 138 of the above-linked nomination, includes almost all of the developed village and a portion south of the village boundary (in the town of the same name) along NY 10.

When I added this to the Montgomery County NRHP list a little while ago, I chose to link the listing to the village article. This is because I do not feel the listing, as bounded, really justifies a separate article (pretty much the first time this has ever happened with an NY listing, in my experience). Instead, much of the nomination could be used to improve the village article, and the district boundaries could be discussed in the article's geography section.

However, in light of the heat some of those earlier discussions generated I am holding off on categorizing the village article into the NRHP categories and the other things we do with NRHP articles, like adding the navbox and project banner. I'd like some input here. Anyone? Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember the previous discussion, but will note that I used to be very firmly in the "one article" camp. If you've got a town of 5,000 and it is all an HD, what is possibly gained by having two articles? I still very much believe in that, see e.g. Rose Valley, Pennsylvania. Nevertheless it always seems like something extra usually creeps in: a boundary extension, a current big news item, etc. that makes 2 articles more attractive. For Cape May Historic District, for me it was just that there is so much material on the historic resort and architecture, and the article on the current resort Cape May, New Jersey has a lot of material that is so far removed from the historic stuff, e.g. presidential voting records and elected officials. Ultimately, I suggest just dealing with it like any other article. Start with the presumption that it's all one article until there is just too much material to fit in it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the above. Though personally I'm in favor of considering a separate historic district article wherever possible. (Viz the Capitol Hill Historic District (Washington, D.C.) - personally I think it does the neighborhood no favors to conflate the district article with it, and if I ever a.) have the time and b.) can find the forms I intend to do something about it.) That said, when an entire town is coequal with a district I don't see that the two need to be disengaged. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming my judgement. I have gone ahead with the rest of the changes that bring the village article into the orbit of this project. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I remember the village/district issue clearly, as I was trying to mediate it. Consensus boiled down to what you described in your original post, that a village that substantially coincides with the historic district doesn't need separate articles about the district and the village. The argument mostly involved the degree of hair-splitting associated with substantially. In general, the project-wide one-subject, one-article guideline is applicable. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Pennsylvania missing forms[edit]

CRGIS seems to be undergoing some change. At least some of the forms have moved from an address like to The CRGIS ask ReGIS function gives a usable address for some forms, but others have links that don't work. CRGIS and I had been getting along together so well lately. Anyone have any info on this? Generic1139 (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've not heard of this at all. I always try to download forms before going on a photo-taking trip, and I don't remember any issues over the past few weeks when getting sites in Washington and Fayette Counties. Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I first noticed it just a few days ago - when trying to sort out architect vs builder. Generic1139 (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

category: wars on the NRHP[edit]

This discussion about Category:World War II on the National Register of Historic Places began on my talk page, but once it involved more than two editors I figured WP:NRHP talk would be a better place for it. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I liked the idea of the category World War II on the NRHP. Are planning to do the same with the Revolutionary War, Mexican War, Indian Wars, Civil War, Spanish-American War, Korean War and Cold War? Einbierbitte (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no plans to develop more war categories myself, but I would consider those to be entirely worthy additions to Wikipedia. Also, I don't think of it as a "war" category so much as a "theme" category: other such categories could include African American history, Women's movement, Industrial Revolution, Presidential sites, Arts, so forth... — Ipoellet (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Previously (see talk page for Category:World War II on the National Register of Historic Places), I asked about the name of the category itself. I still question the name, but I do like the concept and see value in having similar categories for other themes/wars, too. Maybe post a note at WP:NRHP for feedback? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I've long thought having theme categories would be a great idea, as in the ideas Ipoellet suggests. Although looking at the WWII cat it is getting large. Perhaps a subcategory for WWII monuments and memorials on the Register could be split off? Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Never thought of the idea. I agree that (1) it's an awkward name and (2) getting a better name would be hard. I'm surprised to see that it doesn't exist; I thought that the Battle of Sacramento (Kentucky) article, for example, would be in such a category. At the moment, there's no category that would embrace both the Sacramento battlefield and the David Yeiser House, except for the general "NRHP in Kentucky" category of course; it would help if we had "Civil War on the NRHP in KY" or something of the sort. But we should set some sort of boundaries: for example, would GAR halls count toward the Civil War categories? The oldest World War II monuments are surely old enough now; would they count? I'd say that we should leave memorials out of these categories: they should include locations that actually were involved in the conflicts in question, which isn't the case for most memorials; yes, the USS Arizona Memorial should be included, but that's because it's closely tied to the location, in contrast to the Colonel Robert A. Smith Monument, located "ninety poles distant" from the spot it commemorates, or the Union Monument in Perryville, placed at a rather average spot on the Perryville Battlefield. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Oops I forgot Vietnam War. Ah, well. I like the theme idea. I think that memorial/monuments should be spun off if there is not a direct connection as I think Nyttend suggests. It seems a consensus is building for the wars (kinda sorta), but how do we then consider what the other themes should be? Einbierbitte (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, it should be a criterion for inclusion in the cat that the property's historical significance be significantly related to the war in question. For example, just because Dwight Eisenhower, George S. Patton and Omar Bradley were cadets there would not qualify the United States Military Academy for inclusion in the WWII cat. However, it would easily make the cut for a "Revolutionary War on the National Register of Historic Places" category, because as West Point it was first fortified and developed as a military post. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea of the categories. Name-wise: what about Category:World War II-related sites on the National Register of Historic Places and the like? It's unwieldy, but we use other unwieldy category titles. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
How loosely do we define the word 'site'? Ships aren't considered sites per se (just sayin). Einbierbitte (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
"Listings", then, perhaps? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's just petition our congressmen to sponsor legislation: Resolved, by the House of Representatives and Senate in Congress assembled, that all locations entered in the National Register of Historic Places be, and hereby are, known as "Registered Historic Places." It would obviate the reasons that led us (properly) to get rid of the much simpler "RHPs" several years ago. Probably the "listings" idea is our best bet; if we think of a better one, we'll need to consider beginning to use it in the lists. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Map - number per county or per 100 square miles?[edit]

The legend of the map at National Register of Historic Places listings in Georgia says that it is the number of NHRP sites per 100 square miles, but it actually seems to be the number per county. Which is right? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Now I see - # is the # in the county, color code is the density. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


National Register of Historic Places listings in Brantley County, Georgia shows a house on the NHRP that burned. There is no photo there, but I found a low-resolution on Google Images, as well as two after it partially burned, which are also on this website. These two images are copyrighted, but the one before it burned that I found doesn't say anything about copyright. Is it OK to use that photo without violating the copyright? Can it be justified as fair use since it no longer exists? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The nomination photos were published in 1982, so this condition should apply, making those photos public domain. So it wouldn't be fair use, since we have a free alternative... but the free alternative's much better anyway, since there's no ugly copyright notice across the middle of the photos. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 00:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't get the NPS thing to load right now - it gets to a certain point and stops (it gets to 320KB and then locks up IE). The photos after the fire have the copyright on the photo but the one before the fire does not. But I see your point about using the nominating photo. I'll do that when I can get the NPS site to work. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was able to get it in Firefox - slow at first, but I got it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done That's all it took to turn that county red (on the progress map, that is). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

One small problem: Photos submitted in nomination forms are NOT public domain. Photos submitted are still protected by intellectual property laws. Here's the copyright page from the NRHP [1]. There may be a fair use loophole, but I'm unsure how that works. 25or6to4 (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, it was in that 1978-89 period. Also, I think it is "fair use" since the place was destroyed by fire 10 years ago, so we can't go out and take a photo. And if I have to, there is a contact person on that page. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the 1978-1989 period means. But I do agree on the fair use criteria, as it passes all 10 of the WP:NFCCP non-free content criteria. 25or6to4 (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
US copyright law states that if a photo was published between 1978 and 1989 without a copyright notice and its copyright was not registered within 5 years (which it wasn't, I checked the Copyright Office's online records), then it's in the public domain. Only nominations from 1989 onward are automtically copyrighted. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 12:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
But were the nominations really published? A copy was submitted to NPS, but did it involve "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending", or offering to do the same? As far as I know, nominations weren't published until NPS started sending copies to people upon request: but when did they start doing that? Unless they started before 1989, this image (unfortunately) can't be used. Because this is just a list of topics without illustrative images being absolutely necessary, we can't use the image under fair use; it's not as if we had something like a list of company logos, a page where the nonfree images themselves were the subjects and without which the page would hugely suffer. To answer the original problem, many of us routinely fill these holes with images of the site; for a random example, see the Port Jefferson School at National Register of Historic Places listings in Shelby County, Ohio. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
But this house was destroyed by fire 10 years ago. I'm close enough that I would go get a picture if it was still there. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I frequently upload images (such as) from pre-1989 nominations under public domain logic. I take submission of an NRHP nomination as publication (as of the form preparation date). I would suppose no court case has actually tested this, but it seems to me that placing a work into a public process subject to copying, review, and redistribution by various parties not controlled by the author constitutes "distribution" by "lending". If nothing else, FOIA was passed in 1967, meaning that after that date any nomination received by the NPS (received, not listed) was subject to release to any interested party (subject to certain exceptions that address restricted listings fall under). That's gotta amount to publication. No, FOIA status doesn't involve active marketing of the material, but the quoted definition doesn't require that. I agree that after 1989, publication is not especially relevant, since it doesn't trigger any short-term public domain status after that date. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The one you gave is a very similar example - done in the 78-89 time frame and has since been destroyed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider including a 1978-79 image in a NHRP form to be a publication. In a deletion debate, I would vote to delete it since there's significant doubt per the precautionary principle. And I'm a Commons admin. Royalbroil 01:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The terms we're talking about here are at Publication#Legal_definition_and_copyright and can be summarized as "distribution of copies to the general public with the consent of the author". I'm sure that distribution was done by the NRHP since at least the 1970s via photocopies as well as displaying the nomination forms and photos at their several libraries (and at state historic libraries). There shouldn't be any doubt that that is publication. My only question is can we be certain that the copyright was not registered within 5 years via the Copyright Office's online records? Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the fact that FOIA, by itself, constitutes an offer to make records available in a way that satisfies the definition. Best to wait to hear back from TheCatalyst31 on the records checking; many of these online editions of US Copyright Office records are fragmentary and not hugely helpful for anything except confirming that something's been registered. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
A few days ago @Catalyst31 said that he checked on the 5-year thing. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I mean: how did he check, with what website/web service did he check, that kind of thing. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
TheCatalyst31 said "I checked the Copyright Office's online records". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I repeat: many online editions of US Copyright Office records are not hugely helpful. For example, the renewals database from Stanford University only gives books, so one can't use it for checking for the renewal of photographs: doing that would be reckless. Before we start depending on his check, we need to know that he used a database in which this post-publication registration would necessarily appear if it existed. If that's not necessarily the case, due diligence has not been exercised, putting us at significantly greater risk of copyright infringement, and on a much less significant side, significantly greater risk of the image getting deleted here and/or at Commons. See the Recklessness (law) article for what I mean. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I checked the official online records catalog of the U.S. Copyright Office, which includes "Copyright registrations for all works dating from January 1, 1978, to the present, as well as renewals and recorded documents", so it should include the copyright notice if it exists. I searched under the photographer's name and various iterations of "Sylvester Mumford House", and I didn't get a result for anything to do with the nomination. So I think we're clear on that front. And for the record, I'm a woman :) TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 02:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Nyttend, I think we have to use the best information we have. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know that the Copyright Office itself published any of these records; thanks for correcting me. No objections remain on my part. And Bubba, the thing is that these records are also published in print (things like the Stanford database are digitized versions of the originals), and due diligence requires that we check the print source when we know that the online source is inadequate, because the print sources are the best we have. Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, I don't have access to any printed source. The database shows six pieces of software that I've copyrighted, so as far as I can tell, it is OK. The database after 1978 seems to be good:

The Copyright Office is an office of public record for copyright registrations and related documentation. Copyright registrations for all works dating from January 1, 1978, to the present, as well as renewals and recorded documents, are accessible through the Copyright Office online records catalog.

Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said, I didn't know that they had all stuff from recent decades online. Meanwhile, regardless of the quality of digital editions, you do have access to the original printed copies; perhaps you can get them in Georgia, but even if not, you can drive to southern Indiana and look at whenever the library's open: it's not impossible to do that or to hire someone in Bloomington to look at them, so as far as due diligence is concerned, you definitely have access to them. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that is ridiculous. I see no reason to doubt the copyright office. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason to doubt them. The point is that they don't have all stuff online for all years, and this is what you have to do (minus the long driving) for years when they don't have stuff online. Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
But they say that they do have everything since Jan 1, 1978 online, and the photo in question was from 1981. And the printed book may be published from the database. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Let me quote myself for the second time: I didn't know that they had all stuff from recent decades online. Meanwhile, except for recent years, all online sources are digitisations of printed books, unless they were working with digital databases in 1919. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
So then, I don't have to drive to Indiana to look at the physical book? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Good discussion. When I've uploaded nomination photos as PD, I've always done due diligence at but I hadn't considered the pre-post-1978 issue for what records are online. So I'll have to go back and review what I've uploaded now. Ah, well... — Ipoellet (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The rule before 1978 was just "published without a copyright notice", so there was no option to register it within five years. I'm not sure if that means the notice would have to be on the nomination itself or if it could be registered separately at the time of publication, though. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 01:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As an illustration of some of the issues this discussion has touched on, here's an example of a pre-1989 nomination photo that I would not upload due to the precautionary principle and inability to complete due diligence: Nez Perce Snake River Archeological District (nomination with photo), nomination prepared 1977-04-04, listed 1978-12-22, no copyright notice, haven't bothered to check for registration. The issue I see is that the photo is from 1969, author David G. Rice, both of which match to a paper listed in the bibliography section. I don't have access to that paper to assess publication status/date, copyright notice, or whether the photo is in it, so I don't believe we can assume PD and I won't upload the picture. (Even though I like the picture and think it would be very useful.) — Ipoellet (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 Charleston, South Carolina shooting[edit]

Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church where the shooting took place is part of the Charleston Historic District at 110 Calhoun Street. On the map its at the north end of the district just east of Marion Square and across the street from the Buist School. The NPS has a page on it at [2] which includes a 1989 HABS Jack Boucher photo after Hurricane Hugo, but I can't locate the photo at the LOC or on Commons. Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

New photos[edit]

I added new photos to Commons for The Oaks (Monrovia, California) They're in the Monrovia, California category Einbierbitte (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I added one of them to the article. As long as you tag the images with the NRHP template, which you did, they will (usually) be noticed and integrated. If you upload several images to commons, you can build a category, and also tag it with the NRHP template, and the category will be added to the county list as well. Generic1139 (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Download nomination form[edit]

How can I download a copy of the nomination form (74000683 in particular)? If I click on the link (under date listed) that is supposed to take me there, it doesn't do anything. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The links below "date listed" haven't worked for some time since the NPS started to redesign its website; we should probably just remove them at this point. As for that specific nomination, it apparently hasn't been digitized since it's an address-restricted site; you can request a copy with the address information redacted by emailing the NPS at TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 02:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, my state agency sent me a PDF of another one today, so I'll ask them. (The rough address is mentioned in 79000727, which encompasses the area of 74000683.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The NPS-hosted nominations have a consistent URL; the only difference from one to another is the reference number. Go to Elkman's infobox generator and supply the refnum, and if it's in a state with nominations online, you'll get a link to the nomination. Georgia's are online, so your nomination is available at If the 74000683 nomination weren't restricted, it would be at Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, it says that the 1974 one hasn't been digitized. That is because the address is restricted, right? The 1979 one available there is a little different from the one that my state agency sent me. It is from a "file copy" made before some of the things were filled in, and it also includes a three-page "list of intrusions" 1927-77. These are apparently things that had been built in the last 50 years in the historic area and were not considered historic. The fourth paragraph of the second page of the 1979 document gives some good clues to the location of the restricted address of the 1974 nomination. And I asked the person that sent me the 1979 form to send me a copy of the 1974 form, but I got no response today. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, the list of intrusions is in there, just in a different place. The downloaded one has a list of property owners which the one they sent me doesn't. Also, the maps are different. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
They replied today. They didn't send me a copy of the form, saying that it was an archeological site only. But it is easy to figure out where it is. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Bubba73, not trying to get on your case here, but making a general point. This gives us another snack out of the can of worms about how much information about restricted sites we want to be including here. This is an encyclopedia, not a detective agency. And if you have to piece together clues, even if easy to do, are we running afoul of WP:NOR, and in particular, about original research: "... includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Generic1139 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, the later NHRP says that it is three blocks by seven blocks on Bay Street. It also says that the area was leveled in 1974. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:OR prohibits "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". Clearly they exist, whether the NR nomination, [3], or any published sources within the Arnall T. Connell Papers held by the Atlanta History Center. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for those links. I thought it was probably in the local newspaper too. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, if there is a reliable published source that says the location for Y is X, then yes, put X in the article with a ref. If, however, source #1 says the location of Y was within M general area, in a section that was dug up and paved over, and other source #2 lists several areas X, Y, and Z that were dug up and paved over in the area, one of which was in general area M, then stating that Y is at X is OR, and WP:OR prohibits synthesis. Otherwise, all you can say is Y is within M. Generic1139 (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That is what I did at National Register of Historic Places listings in Glynn County, Georgia, for the description of the 1974 HRHP "Brunswick Old Town". A few months I go I was reading about the "old town" and the "old town historical district" on web pages. I thought that "old town" was referring to the original plan of the city. Actually, according to the history of Brunswick website, it was referred to that way. The "old town" was the original plan and "new town" was built later outside "old town".

I put a description of the 1974 NRHP "old town" as basically being the same area as the 1979 "old town historic district". The NRHP "old town historical district" is slightly larger than the original city plan and (for instance) specifically lists the old courthouse, which is two blocks north of the original city plan.

Then when I got the 1979 nomination form of the "old town historical district" a few days ago, I saw that I had been mistaken - the 1974 NRHP "old town" is a small part of the original city plan, and thus not the same as what was locally known as "old town". It has a few sentences about the 1974 "Brunswick Old Town" NRHP and I put that into the description of the 1974 "old town". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project[edit]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Civic Stadium (Eugene, Oregon)[edit]

Project members may be interested in Civic Stadium (Eugene, Oregon), an NRHP site that was destroyed by fire yesterday. All constructive contributions welcome. We can add the 'Former NRHP sites' category after it is officially delisted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If the Oregon SHPO follows the example of Pennsylvania's, delisting may take decades. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
ORSHPO is variable on that. Sometimes they're quite prompt, other times they take years. — Ipoellet (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Noted. Is it best to go ahead and add the 'former' category, or should we wait until it is official? NRHP participants would know best practices better than me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Entries remain listed until they are formally delisted, regardless of the physical status of the property. There are many listed-but-demolished properties on the register. Magic♪piano 18:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
There's also at least one demolished-then-listed property, Site of Ferdinand Branstetter Post No. 1, American Legion in Van Tassell, Wyoming, which was a vacant lot when listed in 1969, and which remains a vacant lot, albeit one with a historical marker. — Ammodramus (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
And one listed-then-demolished-then-listed-again property, the John Marshall House Site in Old Shawneetown, Illinois. And if that wasn't strange enough, the house was demolished so a less-accurate reconstruction of the house could be built. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 02:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)