Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NRHP Google Earth KML layers

I just noticed the NRHP has added KML files for viewing on Google Earth.[1] They place points on the map for each location, and clicking on the point displays a summary. While you're in Google Earth, turn on the Wikipedia layer and observe differences. For example, near Wikipedia's location for Jackson, Mississippi you find the Smith Park Architectural District markers NE and SW of the WP city marker (one is NPS marker the other WP marker). -- SEWilco (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New cat: Category:Houses on the Underground Railroad

I broke out this semi-NRHP-related category a bit back and thought I would let everyone know in case you come across a house that fits in it during your NRHP adventures, I populated it as best I could. IvoShandor (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Zotero - web-based citation manager

Just wanted to let project members know about a great resource - zotero, which can be downloaded for free, is a web-based citation and source/material manager developed by the Dept. for History and New Media at George Mason University near Washington, DC. I've been using it for a few months but am just beginning to capitalize on it and shift from using notes and scraps of paper around my computer! You can take "notes", create tags for notes and articles, books, etc.; download snapshots of title pages, capture URL and titles, access dates, etc. There is more that I have not begun to touch, not yet having made it through the instructional video.--Parkwells (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Little White House

I was about to start expanding the Little White House article, when I noticed it wasn't on the National Register. Or is it part/all of Warm Springs Historic District? And where does Roosevelt Warm Springs Institute for Rehabilitation fit in? I'd like to start expansion soon, but I don't want to start prematurely, and have to go back and merge or unmerge.--Bedford Pray 07:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is the building pictured in the Warm Springs Historic District infobox, so it is part of that I believe. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The NRHP nomination form is very detailed and has a wealth of information here and ref 3 in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Maps in infoboxes

I don't know if you are familiar with I just created my first maps from the service this week. One is at Historic Michigan Boulevard District and another is at Trump International Hotel & Tower (Chicago). A better example is Image:Rush Street via, which is at a scale to show street detail. I think it might make sense to reformat some of the infoboxes to accommodate maps as well as images. The TIGER maps above just need latitude and longitude and then scaling parameter. I think all buildings should have maps. I think WP:SKY, WP:NRHP and WP:WPARCH should probably get involved because we would need to goose some infobox templates to make room for maps. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox nrhp2 allows an infobox to include an image as well as a map; the maps are only at state levels, though. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There is also a maps WikiProject, which has some standard guidelines to follow, and resources for the map-making editor. IvoShandor (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Separate article?

Maybe this has been discussed already and I don't know about it, but what is the project's view of NHLs and NRHPs that are mentioned in a related article. (ex: Society of the Cincinnati & Anderson House) Should a separate article be made for the Anderson House? I did it for the Old Stone House (Washington, D.C.) because it was mentioned in the Rock Creek Park article, but had little information. APK yada yada 18:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In general, NRHPs and NHLs have enough verifiable information available about them that they can stand alone easily. I would use {{main article}} to refer to your new article once you have enough information to warrant a new article, see WP:SUMMARY for more info on that. IvoShandor (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlisted NRHP Site?

Questionable Plaque.

I saw this plaque near another NRHP site that i'm planning to write up. According to the NRHP database, this site doesn't exist in the records. Helpies?? (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be listed under a different name, it is also possible it was listed and later removed. I will see what I can dig up, but surely someone will find out before I. I shall return later.IvoShandor (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears to be part of the Lahaina Historic District: [2] --NE2 14:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
So, contributing property then? (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, which, as far as I know, has all the same attributes as a separately listed property. --NE2 20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Great, gonna have to rethink about a couple of things...not to mention the way i'm gonna have to list it. Such is the life of a Wikipedia User. (lol) (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's any difference - you can still write an article; there's just an extra category to add. --NE2 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It's more difficult that adding an extra category. It was gonna be part of my DYK nomination!! (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Questionable Plaque II.

Oh, along the same lines: This is the plaque at the other NRHP site that I visited. Is Moku'ula listed under the King Kamehameha III's Royal Residential Complex or did I find another contributing property by accident? (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

10,000 Articles

If the numbers are accurate, it looks like we'll soon reach 10,000 articles in WP:NRHP! That's quite an accomplishment for a couple years worth of work. Atta boys (and girls) all around! Time to par-TAY! Einbierbitte (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you looking at to come up with 10,000?--Appraiser (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, quantity is an accomplishment but quality is still an issue, a large portion of the articles are a few sentences that don't provide any real information beyond location. But yeah, lots of good work going on here. IvoShandor (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I say we ID the 10,000 article, and prop that up as a candidate for a DYK/GA/FA nomination. Good idea? (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How many?

I'm just off work and bored, and I know we're not here to socialize but we do enough work. I have these nifty userboxes on my page that allow me to keep track of the number of NRHP and NHL sites I have visited. I figured maybe someone else keeps track with them, or without them. I'm at 179 NRHP sites and only 9 NHLs. If we counted contributing properties, I wouldn't be able to give an accurate number.

The question of the day: How many properties (individual listings) on the NRHP have you visited? NHLs?IvoShandor (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

514 NRHPs, 18 NHLs, and 92 historic districts (I created a box to keep track of those, just cuz *g*) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I knew you would have a ton, but whoa! IvoShandor (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I count 420 including 72 NHLs, although I'm sure the number is low. As a kid, my family's typical vacation included visiting president's homes, state capitols, and civil war battlefields, most of which I'm unable to distinguish well enough to honestly put on this list. Although my list includes sites from 29 different places, my future visits are likely to be closer to home, with gas at $3.85 per gallon!--Appraiser (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh! You should worry, gas (petrol) in the UK is around $10 a gallon! Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I was only counting ones that I've visited in Florida over the last couple of years, roughly since this project began. During a summer vacation many moons ago, we drove from Miami to California, up to Canada, down to Montana, over to Michigan and back to Miami. I can't remember them distinctly either, like Appraiser, so didn't include them. Florida ones are enough for me now. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This got me inspired to start making a list of places I've been that are on Wikipedia, Haven't gotten around to non-NPS owned areas, but I'm getting there. My list is at User:Bedford/Tourist.--Bedford Pray 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


I've been wondering for a long time why is it that NRHP insist on disambiguation buildings with parentheses. Disambiguation for geographic entities in WP has, in the vast majority of cases, used commas.In the case of buildings, however, it was never formally standardized, so that a slight majority (AFAICT) of non-NRHP buildings use commas (this is particularly notable for churches), and others use parentheses or other tricks (such as alternate names). However nothing anywhere seems to cover disambiguation of buildings, so that different projects and area use varying conventions (British article appear to use the comma pretty systematically, schools use mostly parentheses, churches are split, other buildings seem to lean toward commas). Personally, I feel that buildings are closer to other geographical articles, and would be better treated with commas, but that's me.

I was considering jump-starting again Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture) so there could be some regularity across the board instead of depending on whether or not the article is in WP:NRHP's categories. Any thoughts? Circeus (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I started using parentheses for churches because I thought that's how the "church groups" wanted it. e.g. First Baptist Church. I don't really care, but someone interested in naming conventions should make a decision.--Appraiser (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I've always seen pretty much everything disambiguated with parentheses. I mean Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture) itself is even disambiguated with parentheses. I'm semi-new to Wikipedia (a little over 2 or so months), and I just kind of assumed that's how it was supposed to be done. If everything else is disambiguated with parentheses, why should buildings be any different? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can church articles created by WP:NRHP will have parentheses, and those homonymous with them will probably be moved to titles with parentheses too (because WP:NRHP creates the disambig page). Article about non-NRHP churches (to pick one example) get a fairly random treatment: Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church, Hollywood, Holy Family Catholic Church (Glendale, California), Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California), Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Church, San Pedro, California, Our Lady of Grace (Encino), St. Andrew's Catholic Church, Pasadena, St. Brendan Catholic Church, Los Angeles, St. Charles Borromeo Church (North Hollywood), St. Finbar Catholic Church and School (Burbank, California).These were all created by the same user, and demonstrate that there is a problem even outside this project. Though in some cases the existence of a disambiguation page might have influenced the result, several did not require disambiguation to begin with. For three different disambiguations on the same name, look at Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church.
I'm asking for preliminary input primarily because WP:NRHP probably creates the most disambiguated building in all of en:wp, and fixing stuff like U.S. Post Office would be rather inconvenient. Circeus (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have always liked parenthetical disambiguation better simply because it avoids any confusion, because, at least in the U.S. city/state names are always written: Anytown, Any State. That, and it was the way I have seen nearly everything else disambiguated on Wikipedia. If we have no guideline in place now, we should either set one in place, or not worry about, but what we shouldn't do is go around enforcing an arbitrary decision we make here on the entire project just for the sake of consistency. Seems to me that how to disambiguate is probably more of an editorial decision than it is a policy issue. IvoShandor (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well IMO, uniformity and standardization should be established throughout Wikipedia (I'm a Socialist haha :D).. All articles should be created with the regular title (such as First Baptist Church) unless disambiguation is required, in which case, the city and state should be in parentheses (such as First Baptist Church (Lake Wales, Florida)). All the First Baptist Church of __________ articles should be moved to First Baptist Church (______,______) UNLESS that's the official name of the church. I recently created an article about First Presbyterian Church of Meridian. That is the listed NRHP name, so I left it alone. If there were another First Presbyterian Church of Meridian, I would convert First Presbyterian Church of Meridian into a disambiguation page and move the article to First Presbyterian Church of Meridian (Mississippi). Then I would create a new article about the new FPC Meridian.
Also, all articles that are unnecessarily disambiguated should be moved to a non-disambiguated (ambiguated?) location (e.g. St. Finbar Catholic Church and School (Burbank, California) should be moved to St. Finbar Catholic Church and School). I think this is actually discussed on WP:NRHPMOS. I know this is only for NRHP articles, but I think it should be expanded to the entirety of Wikipedia. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for uniformity, don't get me wrong, but there will always be exceptions, for instance, it isn't necessary to dab everything using city and state, if a page needs to be further disambiguated later because of another notable property of the same name then it should be. One example I can think of is when I started Hubbard House (Illinois) it was originally at Hubbard House (Hudson, Illinois), someone moved it. Anyway, don't we already have a Wikipedia guideline or policy in place about all of this stuff? The answer to that, of course, is yes we do. It's been awhile since I have read it but I am pretty sure most of the brunt of this conversation is already covered in that guideline. IvoShandor (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
And then there is our naming conventions. Which is policy we cannot trump here. Perhaps what isn't covered in the Dab page (which is motly about hatnotes and dab pages) is covered in the naming conventions. Also haven't read in a bit. IvoShandor (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I was mostly fishing for opinions. I've always been a bit uneasy with wildly different systems applied to what are for all practical purpose the same types of articles. I don't mind if, say, the vast majority of buildings use parentheses, but churches use commas (as is, schools consistently use parentheses, but they are the only case as far as I can see). I'm posting here to raise some awareness since three things currently generate most building name conflicts AFAICT: churches, schools, and names frequent on the NRHP (aforementioned post office, First Baptist Church, Main Street Historic District...).
(CURSE YOU EDIT CONFLICT) Personally, I see buildings as locations rather than things, so "Main Street Historic District, Tampico Illinois" looks more appealing and intuitive to me than the parenthesized version (double more so that it is an area, but when it comes to neighborhoods, things are just as muddled, unfortunately). As is, buildings are not covered by any existing Naming Convention,hence the variety of ad hoc systems. Circeus (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(DOUBLE CURSE) ::::Oh and sorry if I am repeating or contradicting myself here tonight. I am going to sleep soon, haven't slept in some time but I saw Eddie Izzard tonight at the Chicago Theater. Shutting up now. Adieu.IvoShandor (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I guess I am more apt to see them as things because there are many I consider more works of art than places. And, I guess they are less permanent than what I see as "place", this is, of course, irrelevant in the scheme of things. Basically because I can't move DeKalb, Illinois to Chicago but I could move the Andrew O. Anderson House to Chicago, hopefully you get what I am trying to say. Blah blah, I just can't close it tonight. IvoShandor (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, I renamed a Standard Oil Gasoline Station located somewhere in Livingston County, Illinois(Odell), because it was showing up on a the List of Registered Historic Places in Will County, Illinois. Last year I renamed a Louisville and Nashville Depot in Milton, Florida that was ending up on the Illinois NRHP list, and I almost got in trouble for it. ----DanTD (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that some discussion of this issue is taking place. I've read through a number of guidelines and found my eyes glazing over after a while. Basically, I came away with the impression that either the parentheses or the comma approach were defensible. I've taken to using the parentheses method because you can use the pipe trick with it and it saves typing and/or cutting & pasting. If an article has already been created using the comma method, I haven't bothered moving them to a corresponding parentheses-named article. But I have been using Elkman's NRHP infobox generator to look for all NRHP sites with the same name and then add (City, State) or just (State) to the name in the state list articles. If a consensus is reached that we should use the comma-method for disambiguating article names, I'll happily comply, but I personally prefer using parentheses. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a few queries within the infobox generator that might help out:
I guess my preference has been for using parentheses as well, since it seems to be sort of a standard. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I like using the parentheses as well because it shows that the city and state are not part of the official name. Einbierbitte (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
More great tools from Elkman! You rock! --Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)We kind of left this discussion hanging and I'm not sure that we've found consensus. The last few people who chimed in stated a preference for the parentheses method, but I don't think a few people a consensus makes. Any thoughts as to how we should proceed? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really mind in the end (as I said, I did not expect to gather a new consensus from this project, rather was fishing for opinions). I suspect that a broader discussion on the topic would probably lead to a similar lack of consensus anyway. Circeus (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I just found another one that should be "disambiguated," if that's a word; Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Depot, which should be renamed Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Depot (Marseilles, Illinois). ----DanTD (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To disambiguate seems to be a verb now, but it is only relevant when there are two or more items having the same name. To me this one seems to be the one such place named "Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Depot" that is an NRHP. If you know of any other depots having that exact name which need an article, then yes it should be renamed. Otherwise, like for all uniquely named places listed on the NRHP, we don't need to have the place name in parentheses as part of the article name. doncram (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Dan ... In case you aren't aware of it, you can use Elkman's nifty name look-up tool to see if there is more than one NRHPs with exactly the same name. There is only one one "Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Depot" in the database. It's highly unlikely that there's another site out there with an identical name that's not in the NRHP database and is of sufficient notability for WP. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but what about all the other stations that have similar names, not to mention the older stations along Metra's Rock Island District line? Aren't they Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Depots as well? And what about the articles that haven't been written yet? I also had to look up the "What links here" function in order to find out if there were any redlinks from elsewhere that might lead to this one, as I did with the old Louisville & Nashville Depot that was actually located in Milton, Florida. ----DanTD (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It is certainly okay for you to rename the one to include parenthetical name of the town, to make the article name more clear. Be bold, and just move the article if you like. I happen to note that doing so for this one would not put it into conformance with any general naming pattern in the category of other stations that you point to. The most common use of parentheses there is to give the same indication (Metra) for many stations. Anyhow, it just seems this is not a clear example of disambiguation. Renaming articles for clarity is fine to do, it's related but slightly different than allowing for disambiguation. doncram (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DanTD. There are/were several depots associated with that railroad and in my opinion the title, Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Depot should go to a DAB page.--Appraiser (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Alabama list table-ized

I've converted all of the Alabama county lists to the table format and have consolidated as many of them into a single state list as the 100k space limit permits in my user space. Before I replace the existing state list article, I'm checking in here for feedback. First, do folks agree that it's a good idea to consolidate the county lists? I'm guessing the consensus will be 'yes' since only a few states currently every county broken out in this way, but I thought I should ask. (A little history ... Back in January 2006, User:Sfoskett apparently wrote a perl script to break out all of the state lists into county-by-county lists. This is how Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan and New Hampshire ended up the way they are. Incidentally, this perl script also seems to be the source of the incorrect dates in these lists.) Second, assuming that the consensus is to consolidate the county lists as I have done, should I propose for deletion each of the county-specific lists that will now be in the state article? Or should I just replace the content of the relevant county-specific list articles with redirects? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd meant to mention that List of Registered Historic Places in Florida is table-ized, and it's done basically the same way. So I guess that means a "yes" from me. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The 100k space limit applies to all articles, not just those in your user space. So, if/when images and descriptions get added to the tables, then the article will be too large. I suppose that can be addressed when it happens. doncram (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you can do it like the Minnesota list, with text-based main list, and detailed county lists? Circeus (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Doncram ... The draft version that's in my user space is about 93k, which allows for some growth. Links to photos don't eat up very much space since the photo itself is not actually part of the article. When it exceeds 100k, we can peel off the next largest county to a separate article.
Circeus ... Since I've already table-ized all of the county lists, I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Are you saying that you're in favor of keeping each county in its own separate article ... basically leaving the Alabama lists as they are right now? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I like the idea of keeping details (especially when the amount makes the full list unwieldy) in the sublists (e.g. as with the master List of Florida hurricanes), with a master list giving just the basic stuff (in this case, county/city placement, plus possibly some images). But then that's just my opinion. The Scott county list is duplicated, and I'm not clear why the others are not. Circeus (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the way the List of Florida hurricanes handles it, too. That covers 481 hurricanes, mostly by links to main articles on 50 year subsets of the hurricanes, and it includes a list of the main ones. How can that be translated into a good list-article on Alabama's RHPs, though? I suppose, a paragraph for each big county, with a main article link for each of those. The little counties could be put together in one page, as Sanfranman59 has done, and the "main article" link for each of those could go directly to that section. Also badly needed on the state-wide list is a map with the counties! doncram (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The Minnesota lists have discussion on the historical background of the county and how it influences the NRHP that have been selected. You might want to ask Appraiser (talk · contribs) or Elkman (talk · contribs) for tips. Circeus (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The List of Arkansas counties has a clickable map, which i just pasted into Sanfranman59's draft list of Arkansas rhps, and i partly customized it so that clicking on counties goes to List of RHPs in ___ county rather than to the county page itself. I think this adds. It does push the size over 100k already, so time already to move out some more county tables? doncram (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Hmmm ... My primary motivations for table-izing the Alabama lists were (a) I thought we'd reached a consensus to eventually table-ize all of the lists, (b) I thought they should be organized more like those of most other states and (c) because there were so many errors in the dates. I'll leave to others who have more of a specific interest in the history of Alabama the task of writing up discussions of state and county histories.

The reason I posted a message here is because I was looking for opinions about two things: (1) Should I replace the current state page with the one I created in my user space or just leave the state list as it currently is? and (2) If the answer to the first question is to replace the current list with the one in my user space, what should be done with the county list articles that are moved to the state list ... propose them for deletion or replace the list of sites with a redirect to the new state list article? Ebyabe likes the idea of replacing the current state list and I think Doncram leans in this direction also while Circeus might prefer to leave things as they are right now with separate county-by-county articles. Any thoughts on the second question? Thanks for the feedback. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your new state page is better than the current one. I have used the Florida list, which as Ebyabe said is pretty much the same, while there on vacation, and found it easy to work with. I like that for counties with just a few nrhp's you don't have to move to a list page with few entries. I prefer redirects to deletions. Lvklock (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've made the following mods to the list in my name space:
(1) Wikified all of the county links in the map Doncram added so they go to each county's NRHP list.
(2) Shrunk the map a little so there's not so much white space. If/When text is added, perhaps the map can be made larger again, but without the blank lines, it was covering up part of the first county table.
(3) Moved more county lists off the page so that the size of the article is now less than 80k. The article now only includes lists for the 36 counties with less than 10 sites. There are 31 counties with 10 or more sites.
(4) For completeness, I added Geneva County to the TOC and a note in the body of the article that there are no RHPs in that county.
--Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
About the 2nd part of the question, definitely just do redirects. It could become a separate county table again later, and also having the redirect there is just helpful, as it is a reasonable guess for people to try "List of Registered Historic Places in ____ County, State", given so many county list articles with that kind of title. doncram (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of my work has focused on the Alabama NRHP sites and I'm fully in favor of implementing the table-ized version. It should ease navigation and having all of the date errors fixed is a definite plus. I would prefer leaving the old pages as redirects since it wouldn't really hurt the have them out there. Altairisfartalk 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Local designations enabled for NRHP2 infobox

Taking advantage of the nice modular-style programming by Dudemanfellabra in the NRHP2 infobox, and in response to a request by TonyTheTiger, i added support for Chicago Landmarks, L.A. Historic-Cultural Monuments and California Historical Landmarks into the NRHP2 infobox. Colors used are taken from Template:Chicago, Template:Los Angeles, and Template:California.

See, for example, Manzanar, now with 5 color-bars (for NRHP, NHL, NHS, LAHCM, and CHISL). Manzanar is hundreds of miles away from Los Angeles, but the land was owned by the City of L.A. in 1942, for its water rights, back in 1942. Although the infobox looks like a bit of a color explosion, it accurately reflects that the site has 5 designations and allows for consolidating designations and their dates into one infobox, certainly better than having 5 infoboxes in the article. The Chicago example is Chicago Board of Trade Building. Another LAHCM example is Hollywood Studio Club, a nice new article by Cbl62.

It's my feeling that we can support any local designations that are requested, at least in NRHP2. Perhaps the regular NRHP can be kept streamlined to support just simple NRHPs, HDs, NHLs, and NHLDs, or perhaps all the support can be wrapped into NRHP alone.

Note, the new support is for sites that are NRHPs as well as have local designations. There's a need for a different infobox that supports sites which have just a local designation, and which does not show the NRHP color and title bars that are built into the NRHP infobox. doncram (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at Template talk:Infobox nrhp2. I am completely opposed to this change because there will be too many useless boxes. Some guy from a podunk town in rural Montana could ask for a bar to accommodate all the local landmarks in that town as could every other town and unincorporated community. There is a suggestion for an "other" option that would allow an editor to type in a custom designation and a bar/info would appear. This, IMO, is much more logical. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree hard-coding only a few is pointless when it's fairly easy to have a customizable bar that can adapt to anything (with some guidelines, likely, as to what is appropriate to use.). 23:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct place?

Anybody can check whether U.S. Post Office (Hollywood, California) is actually one of those already listed at U.S. Post Office? Circeus (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not. I added it just now, more or less. doncram (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Registered Historic Places in Florida updates

Thanks to a nudge from doncram, I made a clickable map for the Florida NRHP page like Sanfranman has setup up for Alabama. Also, now that there are about 30 county lists, I created {{Florida NRHP date for lists}} and added to them all. Thus, one can update to the newest listing date for new NRHPs in one place, and not all the separate lists. 'Cuz I'm lazy. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea with the date template, Ebyabe. A suggestion: Use the dts2 template for the NRHP dates instead of the [[yyyy-mm-dd]] format so they sort chronologically. I failed to do this with the Alabama list, but plan to correct that oversight on my part.
Have you by any chance come up with a reasonably quick way to update the contents of the number column in large tables? Having to increment the numbers one at a time is a real pain in the backside. It seems like there ought to be some way to get a wikitable to automatically generate the numbers for us. Anyone out there have any ideas? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice job with the clickable map for Florida, and the entire Template:List of Registered Historic Places in Florida topnav template, Ebyabe!
I browsed the instructions for wikitables again, and see no new "row numbering" feature. Also, our tables are using the row number to pin down colorings, NRHP color / NHL color, etc., so no truly general update to wikitables will serve our specialized need.
I suppose that it should be possible to program a new NRHP_TABLE template that would function in editing like a wikitable, to hold all the information we are collecting, but which then generates a wikitable, with it handling the row numbering. The programming skill to create that is currently beyond me though. It would help to identify any other wikitables created by templates and look at how those were done. doncram (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you. :) I'll have to look at that dts2 template, thanks for pointing it out. The thought about renumbering when adding new entries to tables had vaguely crossed my mind also. Florida's not really a problem as, strangely enough, there aren't that many new properties added. If there's two new listings a month, it's practically a flood. Other states (Georgia comes to mind), conversely, do seem to have multiple new additions every week. Programming for that is beyond me too. I'd probably cobble something together in Excel, which I've used for various things, including some of the tweaking of the tables. My two cents, for what it's worth. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've used Excel to shortcut a lot of these major edits also including updating the numbering and replacing bracketed dates with the dts function. But it would be nice to have something automatic. I'm sure it's do-able ... just not by someone with my set of hit-or-miss computer skills. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Propose page name change to reflect National Register status

Bear with me, this can be confusing . . . to clarify that this is a list of places in Ohio listed on the National Register of Historic Places, I propose that this (and the associated pages) be re-titled, "List of Ohio sites and districts on the National Register" or "Ohio Sites and Districts on the National Register of Historic Places." For individual county pages, the new (and more accurate) title may read "Highland County, Ohio, Sites and Districts on the National Register of Historic Places." Thoughts? (It may be splitting hairs, but it is important!) Thanks!--BFDhD (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I copied this message from Talk:List of Registered Historic Places in Ohio as it would affect all of our state and county NRHP lists. BFD: I'm guessing that your concern is that the titles don't specify "National Register" as opposed to state or local registers? I think it's a valid concern. I've come across some entries on these lists that are recognized by state or local authorities but not by the NPS. Perhaps putting "National Register" in the title will avoid confusion.Sanfranman59 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Not enough of a difference to worry about. In fact Registered Historic Places is closer to National Register of Historic Places than National Register is. No reason to make the title less succinct.IvoShandor (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This is, of course, only my opinion. As long as the lead tell what they are or links to the NRHP article (all the lists should), which I think Registered Historic Place redirects to, it should be fine as is. I always like less wordy as opposed to more wordy. We shall see what others think. IvoShandor (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the suggestion to add the word "National" preceding "Register" and "Registered" in all titles, to distinguish between these and local Registers? If so, I think it might have some merit. I believe a bot could do them all in one sweep.--Appraiser (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Appraiser's suggestion, if any changes are to be made. clariosophic (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
What problem would this mass move be addressing? Is there some confusion over this somewhere, or other lists that might have similar names. I have yet to run across a list of buildings and sites on a local or state register with a similar name. The lists we have, as titled, have presented no confusion or problems that I am aware of, thus this seems to consist of changes to dozens of titles for no other reason besides that we can. I fully oppose any mass title change. IvoShandor (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I mostly agree with IvoShandor here. Note the request is to name things "Sites and Districts on the National Register", while Places is the correct term. There are 5 kinds of Places: Sites, Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts, according to the National Register system, with manual on how to determine eligibility and defining terms available as a reference at National Register of Historic Places. Ships, for example, are "structures" and are not sites or districts. So "Sites and Districts" is not correct. No specific problem of confusion with any state or local register has been explained, so no problem here, certainly no need to change all of our list names which work pretty well as they are. If there is some one local "Register of Historic Places", it surely can be differentiated clearly on that register list that it is different than the National Register, different than the narrowest "List of RHPs in ___". doncram (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about contributing properties

So I got a copy of the 1983 Historic Columbia River Highway Historic District NRHP nomination (NPS couldn't find it, but Oregon could) and it lists a few bridges that were removed from the area of the 2000 NHL nomination. But the 1983 nomination also includes a few state parks that are associated with and along the part of the highway that was also nominated in 2000. For example:

Guy W. Talbot State Park: This park is located on both sides of the Historic Columbia River Highway...The historic district contains a 13.0-acre portion of the state park at the bridge site. including the falls and streambed.

The 2000 nomination describes the park under "cultural landscape features" and includes one contributing structure (walls, trails, and falls overlook) and one non-contributing object (a plaque).

So, by being listed as "cultural landscape features", are these contributing NHLs? If not, do they still qualify, despite not being specifically listed in the NHL nomination, or are they only registered historic places? Thank you for any comments. --NE2 21:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking. From what you explain of the NRHP document, it sounds like the National Register program considers the one structure collection (walls, trails, and falls overlook) to be a contributing element in the historic district / National Landmark Historic District. If u want to create a separate article about that structure collection, it would be most appropriate to use the Contributing Property version of the NRHP infobox. This structure collection is not a separately listed Registered Historic Place, it is a contributing element of a historic district. The plaque is not a registered historic place, and is not even a contributing element, so i believe it does not deserve a separate article. The park, as it includes the contributing structures element, sounds like it is part of the NHL. So you could include the Contributing Property infobox in a separate article about the park. Please follow up as i am afraid this probably does not exactly answer ur question. Hope this helps though. doncram (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking whether the park is officially a contributing NHL or only a contributing registered historic place. Just because something includes an NHL doesn't make it one; we can't say that every town that includes a registered historic district is itself on the NRHP. --NE2 03:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your last statement. I would say that there is no such thing exactly, as a "contributing NHL" or a "contributing RHP". The park, or the 13 acre portion of it that you mention, could be a contributing property in a historic district. The historic district could be a NHL, in which case it is also an RHP, or it could be just an RHP. So the park is either a contributing property in a National Historic Landmark District or it is a contributing property in an RHP or it is not a contributing property. It is not itself an NHL or an RHP. It sounds like the documents are unclear, but i hope this helps somewhat. doncram (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah, but a contributing property enjoys all the benefits that a separately listed place gets. But we can reframe the question: is the park a contributing property to the NHL by being listed as a "cultural landscape feature"? --NE2 06:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The situation could also be that the park itself, as a whole, is not a contributing property but elements within it are, this is actually probably more likely to be the case. Although any state park is notable enough for an article on its own. I have come across parks which are historic districts by themselves, and parks which hold no designations but sites within them do. Two examples of the latter would be White Pines Forest State Park, which is home to the NRHP White Pines State Park Lodge and Cabins or the Millville Town Site which is within Apple River Canyon State Park. The only example I can think of involving the former is Lowell Park a historic district in Dixon, Illinois that I have yet to write up but have photographed. Cultural landscape features are a relatively new designation but if the forms don't explicitly state that the entire park is a contributing property, it probably isn't.IvoShandor (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Elkman county-wide list table generator feedback, (and Chicago help needed)

The Elkman county-wide NRHP list-table generator is truly awesome. It helped me generate a starter table for List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles, that i and others could rapidly develop to be a DYK. I am also endebted to Elkman for its use in helping me create List of Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois/Temp, from which i am nearly ready to spin out a separate Chicago list. (Help on that Chicago list, developing descriptions, promoting photos from existing articles, woudl be greatly appreciated.

Two notes about the generator though:

  1. It is not perfect. I've noticed before that sometimes it misses an NRHP, even one that is obtainable by the regular Elkman NRHP generator. In the Cook County, IL output, for example, it omits Berwyn Suburban Station.
  2. It omits, apparently by design now, any boundary increase NRHPs, that increase the size of already-listed historic districts. I am ambivalent about that, because these are real NRHPs with separate refnums. I am cross-checking against the former List of RHPs in Cook County, so i am becoming away of many if not all of these for Cook County, so I am putting notes about them into the rows about the included historic districts. I suppose I will try to create at least stubs for each of the articles and manually add in the boundary increase dates and refnums. For the list-table generator, i think i would prefer that it insert rows (perhaps with the same row number as the included historic district, or numbered with .1, .2, .3 etc. increments to the included hd's number). Perhaps with an explicit note to the editor that there is information to be put into the included historic district, and then the boundary increase row is to be deleted. That way you have a reminder at least, and i think it would promote more complete articles on the affected HDs.

About the numbered first column, about which i think Elkman asked about whether it was useful or not: I think it helps. It is easy later to delete a column, it is hard to add it. I find it helps me find specific needed rows in the editing process, as i go back and forth from viewing the list-table in regular reader view, vs. going into edit mode.

Thanks Elkman for providing this hugely helpful list-table generator! doncram (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)