Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Stock post message.svg To-do:


Development
Images
Maintenance
Shortcut:

NPS Focus has been updated[edit]

NPS Focus has finally been updated. Links to nomination PDFs have been altered, e.g. the nomination form for Centre Street Congregational Church, NRIS #75000114, is at the wonderfully mnemonic http://focus.nps.gov/nrhp/GetAsset?assetID=4553326c-6369-48fa-b1ff-588ddd7a31fe . Magic♪piano 12:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the links to the old nomination forms are broken too, and they aren't using the reference numbers in the links anymore... oh God, if this is permanent it's going to be a maintenance nightmare (and takes away a very useful part of Elkman's infobox generator). TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 12:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't see any automated way to convert to the new links based on the URLs. Should I start manually updating or is that jumping the gun? RevelationDirect (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Before we embark on a manual update campaign, lets see if we can avoid doing in again in a few years. States that are in Focus are now broken. Some states that aren't in Focus are also recently broken - PA, for example, was https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/ce_imagery/phmc_scans/H001179_01h.pdf now is https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/CRGIS_Attachments/SiteResource/H001179_01H.pdf. New York was http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=14117 is now https://cris.parks.ny.gov/Uploads/ViewDoc.aspx?mode=A&id=26998&q=false. We need to start using archive.org or something similar for every reference where we have a url to a document rather than an app. Or, we need to use some sort of template that provides a redirect database that we can maintain - a pain, but at least we won't have to edit every article each time something changes - just the database. It doesn't look too hard to write a page scraper to get all the new urls from Focus, though maybe someone with a contact there could get an updated nrhp_links.xlsx spread sheet to build a table? A template with a db lookup, fed by such a table, would have made this transition a lot easier. If we're going to have to edit each article, lets try to protect ourselves from doing it all over again in a few years. As it stands today, it many cases we still have valid citations even with a dead link, title, date, etc., but in others the citation is simply "nomination form" and a url. Generic1139 (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
It is probably also worth asking NPS if they plan to maintain the old links as more durable URLs. Magic♪piano 15:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As of right now, the old URLs are working. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you talking about the ones used in "List of NRHP sites in X county", etc? For me, they now link to the form to fill out. (Before that they were dead.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the best solution is to request a bot that will save these URLs in archive.org. Visit an active page that they don't have in the database, and their bot will archive it as part of the process of resolving your request. It would be eminently simple; five minutes' work would be enough for me to write a Macro Express program that would do it. If we could have a bot archive the currently-active nomination URLs, we could stop worrying about what NPS is doing; it would still affect Elkman if they remove the HTTP redirects from the old names, but our references wouldn't be broken. The bot could also create a page (or group of pages) in our projectspace that would list the URLs, so we wouldn't need to visit archive.org to get them. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
That would be really helpful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Surely there's an easier solution than using a bot to copy the whole database to archive.org, where it will never be updated as new sites are added to the database.

Let's see if I have a handle on the problem. You have a series of articles such as National Register of Historic Places listings in Androscoggin County, Maine, with broken links in the Date listed column, which has an eight-digit number below each date, which is the number assigned to each location in the National Register Information System database, which can be viewed by clicking the number. For example, All Souls Chapel (Poland Spring, Maine), the NRHP Reference # is 77000060.

The ideal place these links should land at now looks like this. We can see from the Asset metadata that the Asset ID is 0c9bcfc1-5a59-4e22-a510-0757163595c7 and the National Register Information System ID is 75000114. The URL uses the AssetDetail?assetID=0c9bcfc1-5a59-4e22-a510-0757163595c7 syntax to lookup that page by the "Asset ID". But our National Register of Historic Places listings pages don't use these "asset IDs". They use the "system IDs" (reference numbers). However, we can still search by Reference Number using this form. We need an automated way to plug the Reference Number into this form, i.e. use some URL that will fill in the form.

The rows in these National Register of Historic Places listings pages are filled in using Template:NRHP row. In turn, the Focus link in each row is handled by Template:NRHP Focus, and there is a discussion about this problem at Template talk:NRHP Focus. I think the easiest solution should simply involve an update to this template, so I'm now off to read that discussion. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yea I'm slightly confused here too. Is it as Wbm1058 describes? Wouldn't updates to the template be a simpler task?—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Wbm1058 and Cyberpower, the problem is much bigger than just this specific template. All over the project, and beyond, we've used the old URLs extensively; in particular, their systematic nature is a benefit with the infobox tool run by Elkman. If we find a way to fill in the form, it will help with this specific template, but all other uses will be un-benefited. Systematically archiving all nominations published before a certain date (e.g. the last update to their database, some time in 2010) would allow us to get around this problem; if the bot dumps a list of original-and-archived URLs somewhere in our projectspace, we could request another bot task, much simpler in scope, where the bot looks for all instances of in-article citations to pages such as http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/05000195.pdf and replaces them with citations to archived editions such as https://web.archive.org/web/20150806120143/http://focus.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/05000195.pdf. And moreover, Elkman's page could begin pointing to the list of archived pages to make it easy for anyone to find the archived URL for a specific page. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It is also not necessarily a good idea to depend on the asset ids (rather than the refnum-based urls), as we have no idea how durable they are. (E.g. does the submission of "additional information" for a given listing result in a new asset id.) Building a database of refnum->URL mappings might have other benefits, like being able to include pointers into state databases. Magic♪piano 13:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I've spoken with a NPS Focus staff member, who hopefully will email me soon with a solution to this. Again, unless you fear that funding cuts or something will cause the NPS to take their database offline, I don't see the point of making a redundant copy at archive.org given that as I understand it archive.org runs on limited resources and is funded by donations. As long as we don't hard-code NPS database links into articles, and keep the links centralized in templates, all we should need to do is update the templates. That's one of the key benefits of using template transclusion. Thanks for the link to Elkman's tool. Obviously they would need to update anything located at http://www.elkman.net. Elkman's Infobox Creator (nifty tool!) creates transclusions to {{Infobox NRHP}} and {{NRISref}}, so it may be helpful to update these templates as well. The latter just has a generic link to http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/All_Data.html. Here is where I see a bigger problem: in this diff a hard-coded reference link was added: {{cite web|url=http://focus.nps.gov/nrhp/GetAsset?assetID=4553326c-6369-48fa-b1ff-588ddd7a31fe|title=NRHP nomination for Centre Street Congregational Church|publisher=National Park Service|accessdate=2015-07-15}}, then the next edit added a "more durable ref": {{cite web|url=http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/75000114.pdf|title=NRHP nomination for Centre Street Congregational Church|publisher=National Park Service|accessdate=2015-07-15}}. Hardcoded links like these should be avoided. Do you have any idea how many there are like these? Will need to search to find them. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
So we're not supposed to link to these online documents when we're citing the nominations? Are you suggesting that they should all be cited as offline documents, or do you mean something else? Much much better to provide a link to the document than not. And yes, I do fear that these links will get taken down: how can we trust that they'll retain the old-style links? Nyttend (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying that they should be cited by using a template, and passing the refnum as a parameter to that template. Then, when NPS changes their URL syntax, all we need to do is update the template. As long as NPS keeps their refnums the same, and continues to support them, we should be good. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
But that assumes that the nomination form URLs have a consistent naming scheme, a standard naming convention — they've had such a convention for a long time and just dumped it. The whole reason for this thread being started is that they've just stopped keeping things the same: we can't trust them to keep things the same. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
So, to clarify, so we're all on the same page. Where we want to link to, the page that has text, photos and metadata:
doesn't have a reference number embedded in the URL any more. I'm waiting on the NPS Focus staff to tell me how to get to that page by passing a reference number. I just saw that Elkman's tool points to two URLs, one for the text and one for the photos:
If the preferred link to the page with the metadata isn't forthcoming, I suppose we can punt and update to point to the two links above. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
At the moment, most (all?) of the old URLs still work; at the moment, they're retaining them with some type of HTTP redirect. The problem is that we have no reason to assume that they'll keep those redirects in place over the long term. This is the whole reason that I suggested a bot to save URLs with archive.org, since at least for the moment they're working and the bot would have an easy task. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
What links are you talking about that still work? All the links in the date listed column on National Register of Historic Places listings in Androscoggin County, Maine just dump me to a form where I have to type in the ref number and click "search". Wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
We're talking about several different things in this thread, two of which are the URL used in articles that reference nomination forms, and most recently, the link generated by NRHP row to post a query to focus when the reference number in the Date listed column is clicked. The query format has changed, NRHP row needs to be updated. Generic1139 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Right, {{NRHP row}} uses {{NRHP Focus}} to do the link, so the new URL in the latter will propagate back up through the former.

Looking back at one of the earlier things, Pennsylvania. Just looking at Jean Bonnet Tavern, I see that all that Focus has is the metadata. So the broken link to the PA state-maintained database needs updated:

Again, here it's a shame that the URL was hard-coded. If it were in a template, then all we would need to do is change ce_imagery/phmc_scans/ to CRGIS_Attachments/SiteResource/ in one place and that fix would propagate through the whole encyclopedia. Maybe in the future we'll want to change PA to use the NPS site instead. A template would make it easy to flip the switch. In the meantime, this seems like something I can do with WP:AWB semi-automated editing. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. NPS ID is 79002164 which is different from H000990_01H – what's the latter? A state ID number that just PA uses? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


Symbol question.svg Question: why not just have a bot follow the redirect and simply replace the link with the new one?—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Because there is no indication at the moment that the new urls are any more durable (likely to survive further redesigns by NPS) than the old ones. This is the argument for using a refnum-based template instead of bare links: it is durable for page editors, and provides a centralized place for dealing with later url changes. The link in NRHP row is broken now, and appears to be unfixable given the current configuration of the Focus query interface (it doesn't seem to support command-line queries including the refnum). Magic♪piano 17:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This problem has been going for some time now and is not showing signs of easy resolution. As a service to our non-editor readers, can we take the interim step of removing the non-functional links from the date column in {{NRHP row}}? They can be reinstated when/if the problem is resolved. I would boldly do this myself if I had template editor permissions. — Ipoellet (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I promise to have this fixed one way or the other by the end of the day. Been holding off on this because each time this template is changed, it puts a load on the MediaWiki servers as the change propagates through the encyclopedia. Want to avoid making a temporary fix which will only be replaced by a better fix just a few hours later. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It would seem that Wbm1058 has a better grasp of the situation than me currently, so I will leave it to him. Wbm1058 if you need any help, or a bot, feel free to ping me.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 18:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've updated Template:NRHP Focus with the best solution we have right now. Let me know if there are any issues. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a sample query for the new focus that allows a reference number
http://focus.nps.gov/nrhp/SearchResults/?view=list&search={"SearchType":"NRHP","Action":"Search","Operand":{"Term":"ReferenceNumber","MatchType":"Exact","Attribute":"77000060"}} Generic1139 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! And a few hours later, I have a better solution. What a mouthful. No wonder I couldn't guess that syntax on my own. That gets us to the search screen, where there will always be just the one result, and the user is just a click away from the desired destination. Would be nice if we could skip this screen, but this is better than not having a link that includes the pictures and metadata. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I received an email from the NPS Focus staff with the direct link to use, and have updated {{NRHP Focus}} accocdingly. Much more elegant solution:
Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at Masonic Lodge (Missoula, Montana)[edit]

Stubby-stub article that I would like to improve... but I have run into a problem. While there is a Masonic lodge building at the location... I can not find a NRHP listing for it. I checked the NPS focus website... and the reference number given in the article's infobox does not get a hit - I have also tried an advanced search search for "Masonic" with Montana as the state, and Missoula as the county. Again no hit. Is the building actually listed on the the NRHP? If so, what is the correct reference number? I would like to check the the nomination docs for background history. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It is listed under the refnum given (90000649) in Elkman's database, which is valid up to about 2010 (i.e. it will not include a later delisting). It also shows up on the Montana SHPO list for Missoula County; you may be able to get a copy of the form from them. You might also write the Park Service (nr_reference@nps.gov) about why it's not in Focus. (Although lookup of http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/90000649.pdf gave "file not found" when I tried it, the nomination form is in Google's cache here.) Magic♪piano 18:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thanks, the links helped. Reading the discussions above, I gather that the NRHP has shifted to a new ref number system... so that may explain why I could not find it on Focus (ie I was looking it up under the old ref number). Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Historical markers in Georgia[edit]

Marker in 2008
Marker in 20015

I don't know about the other states, but the historical markers in Georgia are in bad shape and getting worse. A few months ago I contacted the state person in charge of maintaining them about a missing one and he said that the state had not funds for doing that. Look at how the Fort King George marker has deteriorated in 7 years. :-( Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't be hard to clean this one; it's just lichen, I think. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
There is another one in that county that is broken off. That is the one I contacted the state about and they say that they don't have money. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Weekly List: a word of caution[edit]

I exchanged some e-mails with the Oregon SHPO today, inquiring about the procedure to remove listings from the NRHP. In the course of the conversation, my SHPO contact sent me a copy of a year-old request to delist the Baxter House, with the comment that it was a good sample even though the petition to delist was ultimately unsuccessful. This came as a surprise to me, because the NPS Weekly List had reported the Baxter House as delisted on 2014-08-08, and I had removed it from the county list at that time. So I went back to the Weekly List archive to search for the delisting entry and could not find it. When I asked, my SHPO contact said, in effect, that the NPS had recorded the delisting in error, and when they went back and examined the petition again they rejected the delisting request. So it appears that when NPS corrected the error, instead of using a later Weekly List to explicitly reinstate the Baxter House, they simply erased that entry from the already-posted Weekly List. This correction was invisible to editors (we thought we had already finished recording everything from that Weekly List), so the error remained on Wikipedia until today's chance discussion.

The upshot: The NPS can, and evidently does, occasionally change the contents of the Weekly List after it has been posted. We (WP:NRHP editors) typically treat the posted Weekly List as the final word, but that may not always be the case. I doubt these post-publication changes to the Weekly List are frequent enough to make it worth our while to put any sort of monitoring procedure in place, but we probably ought to keep this issue in the back of our minds. — Ipoellet (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Delisted properties[edit]

I invite project members to participate in the discussion at Talk:List of delisted National Register of Historic Places properties regarding whether or not there should be separate lists and categories for U.S. states. Also, if sublists and categories were to be created, is there a systematic way to go about constructing these? I figured it best to start a discussion than to start making changes single-handedly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See also: Category talk:Former National Register of Historic Places. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Former National Register of Historic Places in Oregon[edit]

Update (see linked discussion above for context): I went ahead and created a subcategory for delisted sites in Oregon. Assuming project members are fine with this, I invite you to create similar subcategories for other states. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Offshore shipwrecks[edit]

I just added the newly-listed HMT Bedfordshire wreck to the Carteret County NC list in line with the data stated in the Weekly List. I used the coords already shown in the Bedfordshire article. But I noticed that those coords are approximately 26 nautical miles offshore. NC state waters only extend to 3nm and US territorial waters to 12nm, so in the strictest sense the Bedfordshire wreck lies neither in Carteret County nor in NC, but actually in international waters. I don't see a problem in following NPS's lead and simply including it in the nearest county (with appropriate notes), but I thought I'd air the issue if anyone had other thoughts. — Ipoellet (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I added the infobox and categories to the article Einbierbitte (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Link to wrong article[edit]

At National Register of Historic Places listings in Laurens County, Georgia, Dublin Historic District links to one with the same name in a different state. I've tried taking out the link, but it still links to the wrong article. How can this be fixed? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I never could fix it, until I found out that the real name of the one in Georgia is Dublin Commercial Historic District. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Central of Georgia Railroad: Savannah Shops and Terminal Facilities[edit]

I'm pretty sure this issue has been brought up before, but I'm convinced two other articles that are merged into the Central of Georgia Railroad: Savannah Shops and Terminal Facilities should be split off, and the article on the Georgia State Railroad Museum should be redirected into the article as a separate chapter.

User:Bubba73 already merged the Historic Railroad Shops into the Georgia State Railroad Museum a few months ago, and we should all thank him for it. But there are still other moves that have to be made with that article. I'm certainly willing to do the work myself, but any other help would be greatly appreciated. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There were three articles on that area - the old shops, the railroad museum, and the terminal building across the street. I did a quick merge of the first two since the museum is at the location of the old shops. But I wasn't really sure at all on how it should be done. I will support your reorganization. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, thanks. I just started a sandbox on a rewritten version of the Depot and Trainshed, and I'm still working on it. Maybe I'll look through the earlier versions of that article. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Good - I thought something should be done (others did too) but I couldn't really figure it out (and I didn't know about the SCAD Museum of Art connection). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
And that building is now a SCAD building - I didn't know that until today. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you like my work. I just found out some really interesting info about the old buildings. The "Central of Georgia Railway Company Shop Property" was an administration building, and when I read about the museum itself, I thought the article mistook the CG building for this one. I was wrong; They used to call this one "The Gray Building" back in the day. We all have a lot of work cut out for us in Downtown Savannah. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI, Bubba, take a close look at these two images, and you'll see a SCAD sign along what was once the "Cotton Yard." Honestly, I'd like to find out if SCAD bought both buildings at the same time, or used one and then the other or whatever, because according to the Historic Aerials Online, there were tracks ending between this building and the "Gray Building." ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Is that building to the right of this building as you face them? I looked up a map of SCAD facilities, and Eichberg Hall looks like it should be next to it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The old terminal, which is now the Visitor's Center (I think the museum part was in the back) is the one on the corner of Liberty Street and Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. Facing it, to the right is a big parking lot, from where the trolley/tram tours of the city depart. To the right of that is the Eichburg Building. The Visitor's Center, btw, was very helpful when I was there. Highly recommend as your first stop when you visit. --Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 03:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, clarify. The Railroad Museum is to the left of the Visitor Center as you face it. It's in a round building. See here. --Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 03:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
But that is a different building from the "two images" above, isn't it? This is a close up of the museum to the left. .. Yes, when I was up there a few months ago my daughter and I were using a map I printed on 8.5x11 paper. Then we saw people with a much bigger map. We found out that they got it at the visitor's center - we should have gone there first. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The museum is separate. I don't think I took any pictures of the museum b/c it didn't catch my attention at the time. Plus I'm not much for museums. From south to north along MLK Blvd it's: Museum -- Visitor Center -- parking lot -- Eichburg Hall. There's at least one other SCAD building a few blocks north. The museum info is in the Central of Georgia Railroad: Savannah Shops and Terminal Facilities article. It is all a bit confusing. Maybe contact SCAD? That's kind of what they're all about. :) --Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 03:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC) No, I see I did take pictures of the museum. Just not very good ones. :) --Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 03:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Here's what I've been getting from the Google Street View searches; Railroad Museum -- Visitor Center -- parking lot -- Eichburg Hall -- Main Art Museum Building ("Gray Building"). The two images I posted indicate that Eichburg Hall is now part of SCAD, and I know that the Gray Building was also a Central of Georgia HQ, but nothing I've seen indicates that the Gray Building is NRHP listed. Also all the posted HABS images correspond with what I've seen so far, and the old topographical maps indicate that the tracks terminated at all the buildings mentioned. If SCAD doesn't have all the info we need, maybe the "Coastal Heritage Society " might. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep up the good work! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
While you two are working this out, note that the Central of Georgia Depot and Trainshed article gives a refnum of 76000610 but the article gives a reference to a focus url for 78000970, which has't been scanned. 76000610 does exist, however, maybe just a cut an paste error but I didn't want to get in the middle of a reorg. Generic1139 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC) (760006100 is titled Central of Georgia Railroad: Savannah Shops & Terminal Facilities) Generic1139 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, and yes this looks like a cut and paste error on my part. The Chatham County list gives the refnum for the trainshed (Visitor's Center) as 76000610, the shop and terminal facilities (railroad museum) as 78000970, and the Red Building (Eichburg Hall) as 70000199. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

New NHLs[edit]

The latest Weekly List has quite a few new NHLs (and one removal). Einbierbitte (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories for photos that are in a historic district[edit]

When uploading photos of things that are in a NRHP historical district, but are not specifically on the register, should the NRHP category be used for the photo? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say yes, since they're listed on the register as part of the district. Though if you have more than one picture from the district, you might be better off making a new category for the district itself. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Some forms have a list of the contributing structures (which is nice) but some don't. I'm working on Vernon Square-Columbus Square Historic District and it doesn't list them. It shows their location on a map and has photos of some of them, but that isn't as good as having a list. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Unity Ranger Station assessment[edit]

Request someone from Wiki-NRHP take a second look at Unity Ranger Station. It looks like the article meet criterion for B-Class article rating.--Orygun (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixing Pennsylvania[edit]

Per the discussion about Pennsylvania in § NPS Focus has been updated, I created Template:NRHP-PA and have begun using WP:AWB to update broken links to use this template. In the future, if PA changes any part of the URL that is now in the template, all we should need to do fix all the links is just update the template. It will take me a while to work though them all, even with semi-automated editing. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice. Generic1139 (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed this today when I saw Wbm1058 updating many Pennsylvania covered bridges. It's awesome that we now can have a link to the PA nomination forms without hand coding and double-checking on the PMHC's 13th century website. I don't do any of this automated stuff, but I'd encourage anybody who knows how to help with AWB or bots.
BTW, it was previously the case that you couldn't link to PMHC photos (no idea why). It now appears that you can link using the NRHP-PA template and just changing the last 3-4 characters on the PA number from e.g. A.PDF to B.JPG (but I'd recheck this).
Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
And is there something similar we can use for the url to NRHP focus in a full citation? The NRHP nomination|name=|refnum= template results in National Register of Historic Places Nomination: name (#refnum). Is that sufficient, or have I been working too hard in using a cite web with title, publisher, date, author, access date, etc. Generic1139 (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I've already racked up over 400 edits, this is a fast way to move up the leaderboard! I don't know whether it's the new version of AWB, or MediaWiki, or both, or just a low-traffic day on the site, but the response time on my updates is lightening fast today. Bridges done, next on to cemeteries and clubhouses. - Wbm1058 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe I'm Yes check.svg Done. 2600 transclusions of the new URL template. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Nice job. Remaining to be done are the photos. I've been doing some by hand, such as Harrison House (Centerville, Pennsylvania), but there are more, like Harrison House (Centerville, Pennsylvania) Regester Log House. Some of them, like Harrison, are integrated into the reference, others are in the external links. Not all end in 01b like H001182_01b.jpg, some are -02b, _03b, etc. I suspect you can find these with AWB faster than I can with normal user search tools. Generic1139 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely wonderful. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! AWB re-walked Category:National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania and its sub-cats and fixed about 8 pages with photo links. Wbm1058 (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

ErfgoedBot[edit]

I see that ErfgoedBot has been disabled and hasn't run for almost two months. Among other helpful features, it built lists of commons pics and categories tagged with nrhp refnums so they could easily be found and added to the county lists. Anyone know if this is coming back, or if there is another method of getting the same data? Generic1139 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I saw that User:Multichill didn't have time to maintain the bot and retired it instead (correct me if I'm wrong). I was about to suggest we try to get the code and have NationalRegisterBot do it instead, but User:Dudemanfellabra and his bot have both been inactive for months too. I know he's been inactive before due to real-world commitments, so hopefully he'll be back at some point, but that means we're short the functionality of two bots for the time being. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 21:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Generic1139: @TheCatalyst31: For some background, this is what I put in my report of Wikimania: One of the recurring topics was the monuments database and ErfgoedBot mainly in use for Wiki Loves Monuments. I've developed most of the code (especially the backend code) and I maintained it for the last couple of years. Last year I organized Wiki Loves Monuments (2012) I was able to get some more people on board to help out, but after that it slowly died down. I asked around for someone else becoming the lead maintainer, but I didn't find anyone. The underlying library (pywikibot compat) was going to break and I didn't feel like investing time so I pulled the plug (mailing list). Quite a few people approached me about this before and during Wikimania. I explained them the situation and what needs to be done: Someone else needs to step up as lead maintainer and organize things. Other people (including me) will help out. I am not going to take the lead in this. The positive part is that the bot and the database are appreciated by a lot of people and other people are willing to help out. The negative part is that unfortunately nobody stepped up as lead maintainer. I sure hope someone will do that because otherwise Wiki Loves Monuments will have a problem this year. Multichill (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Multichill: Thanks for the background, and thanks for your efforts in the past. I'm a programmer by trade, and therefore know enough to know that I don't want to take the lead in something this large as a first bot effort. I hope someone with the proper qualifications can step up. Generic1139 (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Multichill. It was great while it lasted and I'm sure somebody will step up to the plate soon. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Generic1139: @TheCatalyst31: In case you haven't noticed, user:Jean-Frédéric took over the role of maintainer of the bot. Not sure if everything is already fully functional, but at least Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Missing commons category links is updated. Would be great if people work on that list. I hope the unused images will also be fixed soon. Multichill (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up; I had minor edits temporarily hidden in my watchlist (occasionally necessary when you watch several thousand articles and someone comes through them on an AWB run), so I missed the updates. It looks like the list really built up while the bot was down, but I'll see if I can put a dent in it. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 19:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, those edits shouldn't be minor. Filed phab:T110830 for that. Also found why the unused images page wasn't updating, see phab:T110829. I just did a manual update of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Unused images so that you can catch up on that one too. Multichill (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the update. I whacked away at the bottom of the missing commons category links for a while. Generic1139 (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Glad to see the tasks fulfilled by the bot are appreciated! If you encounter any issue, could you file them on Phabricator? That would help a lot. Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Local Historic Register places in Martin County, Florida[edit]

Category:Local Historic Register places in Martin County, Florida, which is not quite within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. 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) 00:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Garrett Snuff Mill[edit]

The Garrett Snuff Mill was placed on the National Register in 1978, with a category of "building", consisting of 14 buildings at the core of the mill complex. The Garrett Snuff Mills Historic District was placed on the National Register in 1980, with a category of "district", consisting of the 14 core buildings plus a number of houses associated with the mills. The nomination form for the latter says that it's an "amendment and expansion" of the former nomination. Should the two be consolidated into a single article, or does that only apply to boundary changes (and not amendments)? Choess (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, NPS Focus doesn't treat them as inherently related, so I guess that suggests keeping them separate. Choess (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, the 80004486 nomination form says "increase approved" in the For NPS use Only block on the upper right of the first page - seeming to say that the 2nd nomination was intended to be an amendment/expansion of the first and was approved as such, as if the first was already an HD and not just a building. I think this is just one of the outliers in a big database and we can do it either way. Since the nomination forms are written as an expansion, and not as a separately listed building that is also contained in a new HD, one article would be closer to the intent than two, and combine the two in the county list as well, and add a redirect to Garrett Snuff Mills Historic District from Garrett Snuff Mills. But the way it is now is probably also ok, Generic1139 (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I would lean toward combining the two articles. It appears that the buildings in the Garrett Snuff Mill comprise the majority of the Garrett Snuff Mills Historic District -- not numerically, but in square footage and in historical importance. So the amount of information in a good HD article that would not also be in a good Mill article would be relatively small. Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Wiki Loves Monuments[edit]

The Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) photo contest goes Sept.1-30 and we are not part of it this year. It's fine that we aren't if we aren't going to organize WLM-US for our needs, but this might be a good time to do some review and see if we want to organize something for next year. A short table should do it using some approximate numbers.

Year Total Photos
from contest
%Illustrated
8-31
%Illustrated
10-6
Notes
2012 20,000 44.6% 49.9% 1st year
2013 10,000 57.1% 60.4% run by Wikimedia DC
2014 10,000 65.5% 68.4% "Summer of Monuments" not WLM
2015 72.3% no contest

The % illustrated is the % of NRHP sites with at least one pic, Aug 31 is the day before WLM Oct 6 is the date when most WLM pix should be included in the tables (also 36 days after Aug. 31 = 1/10th year)

The first thing to note is that the % illustrated went up by 27.7% in those 3 years, 11.5% was in the WLM period (Sept), 16.2% during the rest of the year. This indicates that September is a very important period (though not all uploads in Sept are WLM). I think probably more important than the gain in September is that several photographers came to the project during WLM and stayed to contribute throughout the year. In that sense, I think we can say that WLM has contributed about half the gain in % illustrated over the last 3 years

The next thing I notice is that we are likely to be at about 79% illustrated at this time next year if we get a 6.8% gain like we did last year. It would be nice to have a WLM next year to help get over the 80% mark. Of course, the closer we get to 100% illustrated, the harder it is to make progress. The unillustrated sites are going to be the ones way out in the boonies, on closed military bases, etc. I wouldn't see much point in having a WLM-US after we get to 80% - we'd just be attracting people to take pix of sites previously illustrated. So next year might be the last year it makes any sense for us to have a WLM.

I would very much like to have 1 last WLM next year, but carefully tailor it to our needs. That will take some work and planning. More on this later. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the things we might want to do to tailor the contest would be to have special prizes for the 6 states now below 50% illustrated. We might want to contact state historical societies in those states to help publicize the contest and to donate archival photos. (That's pretty much what Summer of Monuments tried)
We could also have special prizes for the most previously unillustrated sites photographed, get some "edit-a-thons" in those states - not to edit, but on finding sites, reading our tables, and uploading pix.
Other ideas would certainly be appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
In the boonies? I literally live near the Boone Docks, see File:Boone Dock Road sign in Darien, GA, US.jpg. :-) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I knew there was something special about you!  :-p All the best. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added your pic to the collection of my favorites at User:Smallbones#Positive signs
The sign is in Darien, Georgia. I live about half way between Darien and Brunswick. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Some things that would be nice to have before the 2016 WLM:
In the area of emphasizing that we're looking for photos of currently non-illustrated items...
  • Pages/categories of non-illustrated listings
  • Something to click on the county list tables to only show non-illustrated listings
  • A mod to GeoGroup so that, on the county list pages, it also offers to map only the non-illustrated listings
  • Get the Map Tool back up, with a way to only show non-illustrated listings
  • Some way to modulate the non-illustrated listings to note address restricted items
  • A WLM guide to finding properties, with tips on trip preparation and dealing with the sometimes inaccurate locations in nris and the nomination forms.
And, of course, ErfgoedBot. Generic1139 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ErfgoedBot is working again! So is Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Unused images with 140+ images. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is also a working map at https://tools.wmflabs.org/wlm-maps/#2/0.2/-0.2

Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the map pointer. It isn't working at the moment (loading, please wait) but previous iterations also had such transient issues with fetching monument data. Generic1139 (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A new resource for Vermont[edit]

The Vermont Division of Historic Preservation has been digitizing all its documents, including its NRHP nominations, in its Online Research Center. Most of them are already in Focus, but it's nice to have a state resource for more recent nominations (through at least 2012, it appears) and Vermont's handful of address-restricted sites. (And for anyone who doesn't like working with Focus, for that matter.) TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 16:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Two questions[edit]

(1) at National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Duval_County,_Florida, at Grand Site, there is an image saying "Address restricted". That seems to count as an image, since the progress page shows Duval County, FL as 100% red. It seems to me that those should be taken out.

(2) Duval county also shows one NHRP that has been delisted. What causes something to be removed from the list? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The "Address Restricted" images boost statistics. Some editors add them, others remove them. I'm in the latter camp, since they leave the mistaken impression that pictures relevant to these places cannot be found or taken, a generally false assertion. I have found pictures, and taken pictures, of such properties.
Properties are delisted, usually by action of the relevant State Historic Preservation Office, when a property has lost historic integrity (typically by demolition or significant alteration) and has been reported to them. Note that removal requires positive action, and there are many demolished (or historically compromised) properties still listed. I have also recently come across properties where the SHPO requested removal, but the Park Service did not act. (The delisting of Gerrish Warehouse and several other Maine properties are now pending due to my inquiries, but were first requested by the Maine SHPO many years ago.) Magic♪piano 02:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
#2, I've seen quite a few that are gone now. As for the "Address Restricted" image, I'm also in favor of removing them, for the reasons you say. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I feel like it's been discussed in the past (can't remember where though), but I'm another person who doesn't like address-restricted images. They pad the statistics for sites that are often publicly accessible, and in some cases even marked by signage. In one case I've even seen an address-restricted placeholder image blocking an actual image of a site from appearing in the "Unused images" page. I usually remove them when I see them in lists, though I've seen people doing the opposite so I suspect there's not a real consensus (yet). TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 03:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I know what you mean. The Glynn County, Georgia listing has Gascoigne_Bluff#Hamilton_Plantation as "address restricted", although it doesn't have the image. However, it is no secret where it is - there are signs directing you to it and tours are given by the garden club every summer. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
#1 I'll put a vote in the other camp, but conditionally. I too have found such sites that are in easily accessible places, and always felt an extra sense of accomplishment when I could get pictures of them. Like this NHL, for example. But there are some sites that are legitimately restricted for archaeological purposes, to prevent vandalism and such. I'll put the AR image on such sites, but only after researching to verify that. I've thought about contacting regional archaeological societies or universities to see about access, but not got round to it. But like private homes, we don't want to encourage trespassing just to get pictures. It's a balancing act, but one that most here have probably learned.
#2 Agree with all above. I have gotten some Florida ones delisted after finding them gone once I visited, then researching to find out more. Palm Beach County springs to mind. I sent the info about it to the appropriate state agency, they notified the NPS and they got delisted. That's the best way to go. --Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 04:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The "eligible but not listed" ones seem the most odd to me. Go through all the effort and expense of getting something on the NRHP, then it's like, "Nope, never mind." Weird. --Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 04:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not against it saying "address restricted" in the location column, if there is a reason for it. I object to the "address restricted" image in the image column, but I see your point. (When I see an "upload image", it is like a challenge. But then if I see "address restricted", I usually don't go after it.) The one above is an exception, but its location is common knowledge. Two others are in Glynn County, Georgia (old town), because any archaeological work there was done decades ago, and one in Bryan County, Georgia because there is nothing to see (just a bend in the river) and the photo won't really reveal where it is. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't care for or use the "address restricted" image, but... I think the logic some folks have behind using it is that leaving empty space with an "Upload image" link in the image column encourages people, some of whom may not be very conscientious about preservation, to go out and hunt up sites that legitimately should be left alone. It's not all about padding completeness numbers.
My personal thinking is mostly in line with what Ebyabe said. In some cases the location has become so public that maintaining the confidentiality fiction is silly: the Fort Yamhill Site has been developed into a state park, but the address restriction never formally lifted because (I'm guessing) no one wants to go through the bureaucratic steps of updating documentation. In other cases where the site remains sensitive and confidential, I've been able to deduce the location and got pictures, but I was very careful to restrict the frame to eliminate any identifiable landmarks and certainly to leave out coords (example). But in cases that don't fit either of these situations, I'll still at least try to find photos of stratigraphy or recovered artifacts (such as here) rather than use the "Address restricted" file. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Another example is the ones in Collier County. All the unlisted ones are archaeological sites way into the Big Cypress National Preserve and/or the Everglades. Platt Island is the only one with approximate coordinates, and you can see how far into the swamps those are. The shipwreck sites are problematic too. I resorted to taking pictures of the Atlantic or the Gulf (or a river, in one case), since I don't dive or know anyone who does. I understand the desire not to use the AR graphic, but in cases where reasonable efforts have been made to get photos of a site and just can't be done, I think they're valid. Maybe there could be some alternate graphic that indicates caution if one wants to get photos of such sites. Back to uploading images of non-restricted sites I've been putting off uploading for way too long. --Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 23:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week[edit]

I brought up the idea of this project having a Collaboration of the Week once before, and thought I might say something about it again, now that we are inching our way toward the end of the calendar year. Designating a single NRHP site each week could be a great way for project members to collaborate and promote content to Good or even Featured status. But unless there is enough interest, organizing a Collaboration of the Week would be just another thing to manage.

Feel free to express your interest, or lack thereof, below. Or, if you have ideas about how to go about selecting NRHP sites for each state, or other thoughts re: COTW, please do share. Best case scenario, there is much enthusiasm and WP:NRHP manages to expand 50+ articles, possibly even resulting in 50+ Good articles. Worst case scenario, we give it a shot, there is a lack of participation, and we move on to other projects and tasks. Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Collaboration of the Week? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright on SHPO images[edit]

Take, for example, File:Old Safford High School.jpg, a grab from a nomination, in this case, an Arizona state historic property inventory form. The license used by the uploader is PD-USGov, clearly incorrect as, at best, it was an employee of Arizona, but in this case, a consulting firm, terms of the contract unknown. Seems to be a candidate for speedy deletion due to copyvio, and there are many like this one, but is there some other reason these are allowed on commons (where fair use isn't permitted)? Generic1139 (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it's just mistagged. Ntsimp (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The PD-USGov tag is clearly incorrect, but PD-US-1978-89 could apply. — Ipoellet (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)