Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 45

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

Another possible Amtrak station on NRHP

I just found an image suggesting that Kingman (Amtrak station) might be on NRHP, but I can't find any other evidence of a listing. Does anybody else have anything? ----DanTD (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It could be a contributing property to the Kingman Commercial Historic District, which covers the 300 and 400 blocks of Andy Devine Avenue, where the station is. It's reference number 86001153, and as the following links show, the NRHP nominations have not yet been digitized, so unless you can obtain them from the NPS (see here), you really can't know for sure...
It's possible that some information can be found in the Kingman MRA, but detail as specific as contributing properties aren't usually given in Multiple Property Submissions. It's worth a shot, though..--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Good to know, Dudemanfellabra. Too bad all the weblinks you're showing are broken. ----DanTD (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if this helps, but I was able to read the MPS document awhile before the link died and it did mention an historic district containing the "core" of the town, which happened to have a contributing property that was railroad station. Nothing was explicity stated (like the name of the district or the station), though. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 04:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The MPS is back online (at least, I could download it). It says: "An historic district has been defined in the original business core of Kingman. The district includes some of the oldest commercial structures in the city, as well as the railroad depot." A later page explicitly lists contributing structures to the "Kingman Commercial Historic District" (so we know it's the same one Dudemanfellabra suggested above). One of the contributing buildings is the "AT&SF Railroad Depot," located on "south side Andy Devine Ave. between 4th and 5th" and built in 1907. The depot is later described as "built of concrete" and "designed in the then-popular Mission Revival style." Does that match your Amtrak station? Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yeah.
The former "AT&SF Railroad Depot," in Kingman, Arizona.
Now, I can add that the station is part of the Kingman Commercial Historic District. Somebody should do an article on this one. ----DanTD (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

same name same county

There's an issue about presentation of NRHP listings within NRHP list-articles, when there are two or more places in the same list that have exactly the same NRHP listing name. For example, there are two places named exactly "Octagon House" in National Register of Historic Places listings in Fairfield County, Connecticut. One option (currently implemented) is to display a parenthetical expression providing explicit disambiguation. The article links and also names in the linked Google map now show "Octagon House (Danbury)" and "Octagon House (Stamford)", as here:

[1] Landmark name[2] Image Date listed Location City or Town Summary
125 Octagon House (Danbury) Octagon House, Danbury, CT.jpg May 7, 1973 21 Spring St.
41°23′42″N 73°27′34″W / 41.39500°N 73.45944°W / 41.39500; -73.45944 (Octagon House (Danbury))
Danbury A octagon house that was regarded to be the best of Connecticut's surviving dozen or so
126 Octagon House (Stamford) August 17, 1979 120 Strawberry Hill Ave., in or near the Glenbrook section of Stamford
41°3′50″N 73°32′7″W / 41.06389°N 73.53528°W / 41.06389; -73.53528 (Octagon House (Stamford))
Stamford An octagon house that has been demolished, apparently, but is still listed on the National Register

A different option would be to display "Octagon House" only in both places, in the article link and in the linked Google map. There are many more same-name-same-county pairings nationwide. About 24 pairs within other county list-articles are identified at User:Doncram/NRHP issues notes, which also has links to some previous discussion. There's no active edit-warring about this AFAIK, but previously there were occasional reversions going opposite ways, and some discussion. It seems like a decision is needed, to avoid future contention and so that the wp:NRHPmos can be updated to cover this case. Comments? --doncram (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the parenthetical expressions are needed in the table, one should be able to reasonably come to the conclusion that buildings are separate (separate rows, different addresses, located in different towns). However the parenthetical expression should be used in the coordinates, as there would no way to tell difference between the two on a map unless you were familiar with area. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. I agree about the map display, as one wants to convey a correspondence between map location and which article. A reader could go to the map and think one place was the other, would not be informed that there are two such places.
About the list display, if there were not parenthetical expressions, I would think the reader could well expect that both links go to one article, perhaps a general Octagon house article or perhaps a List of octagon houses type article (both of which exist, and one of which happens to be mentioned in the descriptions of these 2 rows. I think on principle of avoiding reader surprise, that including the short parenthetical is better. And it would match up better to the map display, letting readers know very clearly which map location matches to which article. Don't the parentheticals avoid possible confusion? And is there any real drawback of having them? --doncram (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I like the parenthesis with a SHORT disambiguation. Smallbones (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
As a reader, I'd like to see the disambiguation using a pair of parenthesis so that I know that there are two with the same name in the county. Royalbroil 22:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The county with the most of these same-name issues is seems to be National Register of Historic Places listings in Bergen County, New Jersey, by the way, out of all the case i accumulated over several months, before bringing this up for wider discussion here, and inviting participation here by an editor who happen to weigh in there just now with an edit striking out the short parentheticals. I think the short parentheticals help and so far that seems to be the view prevailing. Is it okay to keep the short parentheticals in that article, please? I see about 6 or more sets of 2-3 identically named article topics, needing parentheticals there. Some of the pairs and triples have the parentheticaals, some do not. --doncram (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Greenwich Municipal Center district

I redirected a while back Greenwich Municipal Center Historic District (civic center of town) to Greenwich Avenue Historic District (civic + commercial center of town). This is because if one reads the nomination form for the latter, you will find that the former was completely incorporated into the newer, larger district. Effectively, this is a boundary increase. I am of the opinion that a single article is better here since one is within the other and the conceptual difference is minor. In current practice, how often is a boundary increase treated as a separate article? --Polaron | Talk 20:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I don't know if Polaron is accurate on that or not. He has not proivided a link to the source here or anywhere else. I do know his original redirect was unsourced, and linked to a target article with no mention of the place, and he interruped my editing with some rude redirects causing edit conflicts, while i was developing material, some of which he has not copied to the other, which also needs developing. Both HDs are included in the Fairfield NRHP list. The Greenwich Municipal Center HD is NRHP-listed, and i am developing an article on it for now. It may or may not prove to be sensible to merge it. I suggest civil discussion should take place about the district at Talk:Greenwich Municipal Center Historic District or Talk of the other article. Discussion about behavior should take place at User talk:Polaron#about being a jerk or wp:ANI or somewhere else. --doncram (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course you want discussion to take place somewhere else... so no one here at the project can have input on an NRHP article? so no one is exposed to the monotonous, repetitive defense of your inability to listen to other people? or perhaps so you can make this discussion disappear into obscurity and simply not worry about it any more, as you do with nearly every discussion that seems to be challenging the way you do things....?
I don't feel like wasting my time on this (having attempted many times in other disputes of this nature), but the project should be alerted any time something like this comes up. Have fun trying to convince Doncram to change, though. Seems to me like he's a member of the party of no.. and it's hard impossible to rationalize with anyone in that party.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
There are several reasons not to speak so harshly of Doncram - suggesting that he is a Republican - my goodness! Seriously, I take the above comment to say that you think doncram is trying to run things in this project as in "my way or the highway." I don't think that is possible - this project has too many active helpful editors. I'd say this is the most helpful project by far in Wikipedia, with 5-10 editors who are actively helpful (I'd put Doncram near the top of that list), and many others who seem to work behind the scenes. I have no problem with you or Polaron bringing things up here, and your comment is reasonably polite by the usual Wikipedia standards, but I hope you'll recognize his large contributions to this project and avoid sarcasm at least. Smallbones (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as the substance of the dispute (vs. the tone), the two nominations (approved just a year apart) seem to barely mention the other district - so it might be reasonable that the NRHP considers them separate and that we have separate articles. NRHP does consider them to be separate - while it might seem reasonable for us to consider it a boundary increase, the NRHP doesn't - so for most purposes, we have to follow the source and consider them to be separate. Nevertheless, under the usually pro forma "Boundary Justification" section of the Greenwich Ave HD nomination it states, "Since the historic commercial area is separated by the existing Municipal Center Historic District already listed on the National Register, the existing district is also included so that the Greenwich Avenue Historic District would not be discontinuous." It's nice that they tell us this in an obvious place (sarcasm).
So I suggest that we consider them to be separate (as the NRHP does), but have one article with 2 infoboxes and 2 separate nomination references. I hope this satisfies everybody. Smallbones (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reading and commenting. The Greenwich Avenue nomination is indeed all about the commercial property of the later listing, and not at all about the government buildings/center. If merged articles are to be considered, there's also Fourth Ward Historic District (another HD article about a residential section of Greenwich), and United States Post Office (Greenwich, Connecticut) and Old Greenwich Town Hall topics/articles. If i were doing the writing, i might prefer to have one article on the Municipal Center, with perhaps those two government building topics merged into that, and write separately about the commercial stuff in the Greenwich Avenue Historic District as a separate article. I think some discretion should be left to the person(s) doing the actual work of writing. At this point, if Polaron or anyone else wants to proceed and develop a combined article with substantial development of both topics, I agree that would be okay by me. However all that shows now in the Avenue article is what Polaron copied from my start on the Municipal Center topic, nowhere near a DYK's worth on either topic. If the substantial development doesn't happen in some timely fashion, and I or someone else prefers to organize the topics differently and actually develop more than a DYK's worth on both topics, I think the writer's choice should be deferred to. --doncram (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

New Nominee for Coolest NRHP Site Evar: Chicago Underpants Factory

OK, so it's really called the Vassar Swiss Underwear Company Building, but it's a factory building in Chicago where they made underpants, so I think "Chicago Underpants Factory" is a fair description. Plus it makes me smirk. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And I thought I had the most bizarre sense of humor around here, e.g. the little bridges contest - oops, you started that one didn't you? Actually there are a lot of factories on the NRHP and there ought to be, even if many of them are ugly. Underpants understates the importance here - it made Union Suits. BTW, as long as you are in Chicago, can you get a pix of the Lava Lamp factory, about a mile east on Irving Park. Smallbones (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Is the the Lava Lamp factory on the NRHP? I'm going back to Chicago this coming weekend, and one of my goals is to try to get pix of industrial sights, which I persoanlly think are more interesting than the residential/commercial/religious sites. Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
NRHP occasionally makes some very gross errors, and there is no accounting for taste - in short Lava lamp is not on the NRHP. I left some industrial Chicago suggestions on your talk page, and don't forget Aurora, Illinois in Kane County!. Smallbones (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Review request

I would greatly appreciate it if someone would give Albany City Hall a cold read. I just expanded it about 10x and would appreciate any comments from NRHP experts. Thanks! upstateNYer 21:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

style guideline for disambiguation of places

There's a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Order of entries allowing geographic order explicitly, again which may be of interest. The proposal is for a change to disambiguation page style guidelines, to allow, explicitly, for dab pages of places to be ordered by country, state, city, rather than by a more complicated ordering. Many dab pages are currently organized by geography; this proposal would make clear that is acceptable. Please consider commenting there. --doncram (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Old color photos

Nothing we can use, per se, but thought folks here might appreciate them. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

70 Federal government taken photos from the Library of Congress - probably more at the LOC from the same series. We could use them, if we could find an NRHP site there. And thanks I do appreciate them - beautiful, historic - some have been used in non-NRHP articles. I didn't see anything that jumps out as an NRHP site, but... Maybe the one in Dillon, Montana? Smallbones (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Awesome pics. The few of places (Chicago rail yards, others) could easily be used in articles about the town or county mentioned, but I'd like to see the pics of people included in town/county articles. I notice this edit by Tillman in 2008 added a lower resolution version of the Vadito Chapel pic to the Vadito, New Mexico article, but I bet most of them have not been used. Thanks for sharing, very nice to view. --doncram (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts to encourage photographing

Heard that the Connecticut WikiProject started a photo contest to encourage the addition of pictures to articles of interest to the project. So I thought, "Why not us?" If folks are interested, we can chat about how to do our own version. Azathoth knows we have a goodly number of photographers in our project. Also, WikiCommons has featured pictures like Wikipedia has featured articles. Perhaps we could have a drive towards that end. Also an excuse to get away from the computer every so often, doncha know. Discuss. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, this sounds fantastic and I'd like to encourage something along this line, but I do have a couple of questions and quibbles. Perhaps User:doncram and User:Daniel Case could chime in, since they've signed up for the Connecticut contest.
Talk about the CT photo contest, just concluded, including about possible rules changes for a Fall contest, is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut#Photo contest suggestion. I am officially the biggest loser in the photo contest, having put in a pretty big effort but getting robbed at the end, by new CT wikiproject member Grondemar. :( Daniel Case shows as a participant only because i signed him up, trying to encourage him and finding no rule that i could not do that. I'm sure if he were in it for real he woulda done a lot better! I liked the rule that you could count up to 5 pics per article. And, HABS pics uploaded during the timeframe should count, esp. as all the easy ones have been done by prolific KudzuVine already! --doncram (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Questions - would this be for a limited time? How then would it be different from Wikipedia takes Manhattan, Philadelphia, etc.? When would be good dates? I've thought of proposing something like this before, but got caught up in the organization (maybe I was thinking too big), and was thinking of dates like July 4th Weekend, Mid-summer's night (June 21 - longest day of the year). Maybe now Labor Day (too soon), the autumnal equinox - sept. 21, Halloween or Thanksgiving?
Quality is important, but for this project isn't quantity more important? Out of 80,000 NRHP sites, I'd guess that there are more than 60,000 left to photograph! Also, I'm afraid that Featured pictures are out of my league and are extremely difficult for architecture - maybe we could shoot for separate awards for both quantity and quality. Well given my biases and POV, here's one possible starting point for a contest:
Points could be awarded for each new photo from an editor (not from flicker, HABS, etc.) that doesn't already have a pix on the county lists.
Extra points could be awarded for completing fully illustrated county lists (address restricted sites shouldn't stop a list from being considered fully illustrated)
Separately editors could nominate to a panel of judges (who?) photos for quality with categories perhaps including a) exterior b) interior c) architectural details and d) a set of photos for one site.
Well, with nominations and a panel of judges it is already starting to get complicated. I'd really like to see what others have to say. Smallbones (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Not quite on-topic, but this seems like a good place to ask—
What is the protocol for describing recent uploads in "New articles and pictures"? For example, I recently uploaded 11 pictures of the Dawes County Courthouse, which is listed in National Register of Historic Places listings in Dawes County, Nebraska. Do I describe this as "11 new images in National Register of Historic Places listings in Dawes County, Nebraska", because there are 11 photos? As "1 new image in...", because only one of the photos is used in the list article? Since I'm not sure just how to handle this, I haven't been listing most of my pictures; and I've been working fairly hard at getting pictures of NRHP sites in Nebraska.
Related topic: Smallbones points out that quantity is important, presumably meaning that it's important to hit lots of NRHP sites. I'd like to make a case for quantity within a site. Obviously, it makes sense to get lots of pictures of something extensive like a historic district; but even for a single building, it would generally be desirable to get lots of photos with different views and details. This is especially true if the photographer doesn't know the site well enough to know exactly what to shoot—for example, I tend to take lots and lots of pictures of bridges, just because I don't know bridge engineering well enough to know what features are of particular interest.
If we're going to set up a contest, we should avoid creating incentives for people to take a single quick shot and move on to the next site. We should also try to encourage more photos for individual sites that're underphotographed: e.g. HD's or multi-structure sites for which we've only got one or two pictures.
-Ammodramus (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to your question, but think that, like most things in this project, do what you think is best and if people have objections they won't be shy in telling you. I'm not exactly sure of the purpose of having a new pictures list, but it could be so that folks who like to write new articles with pix will have a place to start. Or it could be just a way to let everybody know what's going on while giving ourselves a bit of a pat on the back. In either case putting the quantity of sites, quantity of photos, as well as a rough location wouldn't hurt.
As far as quantity of sites vs. quantity within a site vs. photo quality - I'm always amazed here that everybody seems to have a favorite task they like to do, as well as almost everybody doing very general tasks. People do what they want and it all seems to fit together in the end. It takes all kinds! Smallbones (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Good ideas, all! My thoughts were to have this be a continuing thing, maybe in two or three month increments. Perhaps award a barnstar or somesuch.
Regarding quantity vs. quality, I'm for both. Especially with a digital camera, there's no reason not to take multiple shots of a specific site. It also allows you to have options, in case some don't turn out well. Nice to know I'm not the only one that takes numerous pictures of specific sites. :) Also shouldn't forget doing panoramas, they're good for long or tall buildings or bridges or sections of historic districts. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

From the 8-30 Signpost - there's no reason we can't do something similar. I'm surprised by the similarity in size of the lists. Smallbones (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We should go ahead following the CT dates and rules. We'd need a different system for counting points, re: historic districts (maybe up to 10 photos) and NRHP-county-wide lists (say 1 bonus point for each new photo there) and NHL-state-wide lists (say 2 bonus points for each new photo there). But we need to see if project members are interested, and then get started with notifications, etc. Smallbones (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

GAN needs review

I recently added Albany City Hall to GAN, so if anyone around here is interested in reviewing, have at it. upstateNYer 21:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Glenville School (Glenville, Nebraska)

The Glenville School (Glenville, Nebraska) is listed in the NRHP, but the actual name of the town is Glenvil. I'm not sure how you are supposed to find this listing, because the one external link is not working. Thus, I'm not sure if that is the real spelling and if we have to honor the way the town name is spelled even if it's wrong. DandyDan2007 (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The name of both the town and the school are given as "Glenville" at the Nebraska State Historical Society's Clay County NRHP website. They haven't uploaded the nom form there yet. From both OR and online sources (e.g. the Clay County website), I know that the town is "Glenvil". The fact that it's misspelt at the NSHS website suggests that the name of both school and town were misspelt on the nom form.
I will be in the area in about two weeks, and will try to photograph the school; with luck, the name will appear on it. In the meantime, I'll inform the NSHS of the error and see if it can be corrected on their website.
--Ammodramus (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I visited Glenvil, Nebraska yesterday. The name as carved over the school's front door is "Glenville". The name of the town, as it appears on numerous signs and on the water-tower, is "Glenvil". Thus it looks as though the article's main title should be "Glenville School (Glenvil, Nebraska)".
I got some poor pictures of the school (unfavorable lighting conditions), and will upload them shortly.
--Ammodramus (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Photos are now at Commons:Category:Glenville School (Glenvil, Nebraska). Ammodramus (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Identification of building

Any suggestions how I can confirm I have photographed the correct building: Talk:Masonic Temple (Port Hope, Michigan). --Traveler100 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You got the right place. I confirmed by searching within a Michigan state system, following link from wp:NRHPhelp's Michigan section. I'll follow up more at Talk:Masonic Temple (Port Hope, Michigan). --doncram (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thanks for quick reply. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Arkansas Alligator Farm and Petting Zoo is up for deletion

The article Arkansas Alligator Farm and Petting Zoo is up for deletion. This zoo was founded in 1902 and I'm trying to save it (the article, that is). Does anybody want to help? -      Hydroxonium (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it on the National Register? It's certainly old enough to be, and it wouldn't be the only alligator farm to be listed, but I don't see any evidence right off that it's on the NRHP. --Ebyabe (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess it is not, as that information is now removed. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in this 1907 Popular Mechanics article as well as the old photos in this book and this book. Andrew Jameson (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
WOW! Thank you so very much. This is great information. I really appreciate your help. Thanks. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway FAR

User:Dream out loud has nominated Pulaski Skyway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JJ98 (Talk) 07:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

NRHP list-article formatting issues

Several NRHP list-article formatting issues are under discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Oregon#Changes by Nyttend of 2010-09-09; comments welcome.

The issues raised there, by the way, are different from the recent topics here:

I'll go ahead and summarize what I think is consensus from those discussions, in the wp:NRHPmos and/or wp:NRHPhelp guidelines over the next few days. Anyone is welcome to watch and speak up if you think my summary is imperfect or if there is better wording. --doncram (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Request

Here's a historic place needing an article yet, and it's got a nice story attached to it-- Willard Library (famous library said to be haunted by a "Grey Lady", links: [1] [2]) Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 01:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Date for lists template

Hey, the list of dates for the {{NRHP date for lists}} template was just fully-protected. This could be a problem as, I believe, some of the people who regulary update it are not admins. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Cross-County Duplicate

The Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal is listed in both Oakland and Macomb Counties in Michigan, but wasn't called out as a duplicate on National Register of Historic Places listings in Michigan. I added it under the "duplicates," but I don't know if the "total" number for MI is supposed to decrease, or if that's seperately calculated. Can someone who knows look into it? Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's quite common for multi-county linear listings such as roads (Taconic State Parkway), canals (Erie Canal) or nonlinear really large protected areas (Adirondack Park), at least in NY, to only be listed in one county, for some reason (Delaware and Hudson Canal is an exception, on the list in five counties in NY and PA). I just make sure they're in all applicable county lists. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending NHL noms

Just in case we all thought 2010 was going to end without another bunch of NHLs being added to the list, the NPS has announced what actions it will be considering at a National Trust for Historic Preservation meeting in early November:

OK, if we don't have an article, let's create it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll swipe the PRR Station in Dennison, Ohio, and add it to the WikiProject Trains To-Do list. As for Woodlawn Cemetery, if it is registered, I can't wait to see the infobox. ----DanTD (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Grr - I was just in the Brandywine valley and took the pic for the Wyeth house/studio - but didnt get to the Kuerner farm (which leaves from the same Brandywine River Museum dm (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll work on the lightship. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Split experts?

The National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford County, Connecticut article needs a split. I posted a note at the talk page of a couple of possible candidates, and a note at the talk page, but it looks like this is the place to contact the experts. Is there a standard protocol?--SPhilbrickT 14:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Usually, the tendency is to split them by cities, villages, or townships. Whichever municipality in the county has the largest number of sites, gets to be split off. On some occasions, they're all split off. ----DanTD (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 13:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

ship vs. SHIP names

One more NRHP list-article formatting issue is whether to display ships' names capitalized as they appear in NRIS, e.g. display ALEXANDER HAMILTON (steamship) or Alexander Hamilton (steamship) for how link to the article Alexander Hamilton (steamship) appears within National Register of Historic Places listings in Monmouth County, New Jersey. In the article's lede the ship's name is given as Alexander Hamilton, I believe consistent with wp:SHIPS's ship-naming practices.

The issue seems not to have been discussed explicitly in the Featured List Candidacy for List of NHLs in AL, which came out with implicit approval for display of lower-case, italicized USS Alabama (battleship) and similarly for the 3 ships on that list (actually with a line break, also, so the "(battleship)" shows on a second line). A later edit to display ALL CAPS instead was reverted and discussed at Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama#Ship name formatting.

I'm not aware of any hot disputes currently, but I noticed a change to ALL CAPS in the Monmouth County list. Over time I've noticed apparently strong views and steady churning in the NRHP list-articles about this, so views that would set a standard would be helpful. --doncram (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I work with the Navy on a regular basis and I know that the correct way of doing it is using all caps. However WP policy may trump that, since we are not supposed to use all-caps. But as far as our Navy is concerned, it is USS KITTY HAWK (CV 63) (the official name includes the ship type and number callout as well). They also don't italicize the name. Seems like italics is what we have replaced the all-caps with. I recognize that it's incorrect, however you won't find me going on a crusade to fix them all... Also, you refer to the boat like a name, not the KITTY HAWK just docked, but KITTY HAWK just docked. upstateNYer 22:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. The Kitty Hawk article is titled USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) as you know. I do think that italics instead of all-caps is sensible in NRHP list-articles. Italics cannot be used in actual Wikipedia article titles, and was not feasible in the NRHP's NRIS database names, but I believe that italics would have been used in both situations if possible.
There are more ship name edits churning out there, apparently, related or not to this discussion going on. I just reversed a number of Hawaii list-article ship name formatting changes in this edit, asking in my edit summary for discussion here. --doncram (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's stick with the convention already being used, rather than being captured by someone's official but non-standard notions of capitalization. Mangoe (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Which convention do you mean to support? There are examples of both types of usage in NRHP list-articles currently, some from recent changes and some long-standing, i am sure. --doncram (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I meant to stick with WP:Naming conventions (ships), as Altair says below. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
We would need a very good reason to depart from the guidelines set out at WP:Naming conventions (ships) and WP:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. I don't believe that the capitalization in the NRIS database would justify a break from these guidelines. Unless someone wants to start a discussion at MoS or WikiProject Ships to obtain a broader consensus. Altairisfar 15:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Use Italics as per WP:SHIP. THE REASON IS THAT ALL CAPS IS VERY HARD TO READ. IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMEONE IS SHOUTING. PROBABLY JUST ANOTHER CASE OF SOME REALLY OLD SOFTWARE DATABASE THAT COULD NOT HANDLE ITALICS, SO THEY USE ALL CAPS TO INDICATE THAT. JUST LIKE MANY COMPANY NAMES ARE WRITTEN AS ALLCAPS TO SET THEM OFF EXPLICITLY WHICH MAKES THE TADEMARK EASIER TO DEFEND. BUT MUCH HARDER ON THE EYES. WE SHOULD NOT LET LIMITATIONS OF OLD DATABASES TO MAKE WIKIPEDIA HARDER TO USE. (SOME OF YOU KNOW MY SIMILAR OPINION ON DIACRITICS, BUT I DIGRESS). WE SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO ASR-33 TECHNOLOGY (SHOWING MY AGE?), BUT THINK OF THE FUTURE. That statement about Navy policy is interesting, though. Could you point to the actual style guide? How about say, this press release from the Navy which calls the ship "USS Kitty Hawk" in lower case?
Actually, the all-cap system has been used since at least the 1940s on typewriters, meaning it would have nothing to do with a software database. As far as I'm concerned there's no need for all-caps or italics, they just went with it for whatever reason. upstateNYer 21:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the ASR-33 Teletype was essentially a remote typewriter. Actually all it had was upper case, so perhaps not the best analogy. My point was that this is the 21st century and we should not be limited by 1940s technology (typewriters that did not have italics so used all upper case to set off titles). Even if the NRHP does have this limitation. W Nowicki (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I suppose the analogy is with a title of a book, say, which we put in italics to indicate it is the title of something, not that literal thing. So italics makes sense to me and is easier on the eyes. I would also quote WP:NOTMIRROR to say that if someone wants exactly what is in the NRHP they can go to the NRHP; we add no value if we are forced to include exactly all the same data. We should be more than a mirror. Also it would quite odd to have all the other ships use one convention and the few on NRHP another one. W Nowicki (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The actual US Navy style guide says, among other things under ship names: "Ship names are not in all caps. Use USS Seattle, not USS SEATTLE." Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I prefer that we use title case and italics rather than all caps for the reasons stated above by Altairisfar and W Nowicki. But I'd be interested in comment from UpstateNYer re what Andrew Jameson found in the USN Style Guide. Also, Nyttend ... Do you want to chime in on this? I think you prefer all caps, no? What is your reasoning? --sanfranman59 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
That's odd, because I deal with the Navy on a daily basis and all internal letters use all-caps. I've never seen anything but. upstateNYer 21:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Another aspect of NRHP ships is where to sort the ones starting with USS prefix. The Featured List List of NHLs in AL has USS Alabama first in order. I think that so ignoring the "USS" is the default and is good. Reorderings in favor of putting all the USS ones at the ends of lists should just be reverted, IMHO. Also, I'd be glad also if editor Nyttend comment on this and other NRHP list formatting issues, but he has been asked at least twice and has declined. --doncram (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It was stated above that ship article titles could not have italics, which has been true, but is apparently changed; italicization in article titles is now being supported. See activity recently at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships). Ship names have been at issue in some NRHP list-articles recently too. I am asserting the consensus from here is that names like "USS Seattle (battleship)" are the standard for NRHP list-article display. --doncram (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the National Register of Historic Places articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice that a number of featured articles listed on our main page are NOT included, are not mentioned in their list of candidates.
Browsing through the candidates i notice some town articles that should not be part of the NRHP wikiproject (Stratford, Connecticut, Sackets Harbor, New York) and i removed wp:NRHP from their Talk pages. I further notice a number of university articles and wonder if many of those should be dropped from wp:NRHP.
Out of the articles indicated as selections, I notice National Register of Historic Places and Historic district (United States) are the most prominently NRHP-related. Perhaps those 2 are worth some focus from us to update them (and then to provide a new version number to them, per their request)? --doncram (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I looked through the list and found a bunch that I don't think belong. I'm not going take this WT:Version 0.8 yet, pending any agreement of disagreement with my selections. Feel free to look through the rest and add anything to these lists to could be removed that I missed. I'd support adding any of the FA NRHP articles to a list of articles that should included on WP:V0.8 list. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 17:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Articles that should probably be removed:
  1. ^ Numbers represent an ordering by significant words. Various colorings, defined here, differentiate National Historic Landmark sites and National Register of Historic Places Districts from other NRHP buildings, structures, sites or objects.
  2. ^ "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2009-03-13.