Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 5

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

Quality Rating of Lists

WP:NRHP includes numerous articles that are lists of NRHP and other sites, but which are beyond mere lists. Class=list should be used to indicate something that is merely a list, e.g. as in a mere category. Most of the 54 state-wide lists of NHLs, referenced in List of National Historic Landmarks by state are more than that already, and should be viewed and labelled as articles. List of Chicago Landmarks is the one WP:NRHP article that has achieved Featured List status. It covers sites that are NRHPs and other Chicago Landmarks that are not NRHPs. The article is an article and has quality rating "class=FA", not "class=list".

Per WP:WIAFL, a Featured List is "useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed". It meets manual of style guidelines, and any guidelines of relevant wikiprojects. It includes some photos where relevant. (Note, a photo for each list item is not required. Some FL's have very few photos. List of Chicago Landmarks has about 28 photos for its 220 or so sites. List of mammals of Canada is a FL with ~116 photos and ~85 no-photo entries. FL List of Dartmouth College faculty has about 100 entries but just 1 photo.)

I propose that criteria for Stub, Start, and B articles that are primarily lists within WP:NRHP be as follows:

Stub class is for any list that include WP:NRHP in its talk page but fails to meet all of the "Start" class criteria. Some items listed may only be red-links. These may optionally be given either "class=stub" or "class=list".

Start class is for any list

  1. that is useful
  2. that is factually accurate as far as it goes. Support for description of items can be supported by an item's article, or can be footnoted separately (although support by the articles is preferred and required to achive B class rating).
  3. that is nearly comprehensive
  4. there should not be controversy about its scope, for example what items are to be listed
  5. displays photos of some of its items
  6. has an article of at least Stub class for every item on the list that is an NRHP
  7. reference(s) supporting near-completeness must be provided.

B class is for any list that

  1. meets Start criteria
  2. that is comprehensive, with no controversy about its completeness
  3. has an article of at least Start class quality for every item that is an NRHP
  4. has support for all statements. In descriptions of items, support is to be found in the corresponding articles for the items, not in separate footnotes. This is to improve readability and to direct reader attention to Wikipedia articles, not to outside sources.
  5. displays a separate photo for a substantial number of its items
  6. reference(s) supporting comprehensiveness must be provided

Good class does not exist. An article that is primarily a table or list of NRHP sites will be rejected by Good Article review processes, and directed to try for Featured List instead. There is no provision in Wikipedia for a "Good List".

A class for lists, likewise, cannot exist in Wikipedia.

Featured List must meet WP:WIAFL and get through a defined review process. In that Featured List review process, NRHP project members should ensure that the listmeet B class criteria defined above. It is recommended that a checklist of support for how the B class rating is met should be included in the Talk page, to communicate to other editors what it takes to get concurrence on Featured List rating in WP:NRHP.

Note, by these criteria, List of Chicago Landmarks would not earn WP:NRHP support for its Featured List status. To earn support in any new review, editors would need to replace some red-links for list items by articles, and to develop quality of some of the articles that it covers. Also, its facts about separate items would have to be supported by the articles on those items, rather than by footnotes to the list.

Comments/suggestions are invited. doncram 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alot of this just sounds like your personal preferences, I am not sure I can support any gigantic list of criteria that must be met for an assessment to be considered valid. This is to bureaucratic, frankly, most of us don't have the time for this kind of in depth analysis everytime we rate something start. If you want to change the FL criteria take it up there, anything we do here will have no weight there. IvoShandor 17:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we can define what we think makes a good list-table, then that will in fact carry some weight in the FL decision process, whose criteria states that candidates should meet criteria of relevant wikiprojects. Again, it is a stated purpose of this wikiproject to come up with criteria for assessment. If you don't want to come up with criteria for assessment, you don't have to. But, I am trying to do that, to create a situation that is explicit and fair for myself and for others working on NHL lists in particular. Could you be more specific about what you consider to be "personal preferences"? I was trying to articulate a graduated approach up towards FL status, and I think what I came up with is reasonable (although perhaps demanding too much at the lower levels). However, MY INTENTION HERE IS TO BE NICE to the people working on various lists of NHLs, so that they see what it will take to get general support for FL status later on. In particuliar, I will be included to OPPOSE any FL candidacy of an NHL list that has red-links for articles that it is supposed to be indexing. I will most likely OPPOSE FL candidacy for an NHL list that includes photos of persons not the places that are the NHLs. I will probably OPPOSE FL candidacy for an NHL list that has crummy articles that don't even bother to draw from and source the official documents that are readily available on-line. I can accurately argue the relevance of this opposition in the context of the FL discussion, by saying the list isn't stable if it does not have articles that have those features. I know from experience that NHL articles are unstable until they are informed by and show those sources. To be fair to those who might put forward their NHL lists for FL rating, I am trying to be upfront and state what I think are some criteria that really matter. Again, if you don't want to articulate what you think makes a Featured List proposal get WP:NRHP support, and to come up with lower levels that gradually approximate that, you don't have to, but again, I think that's a perfectly appropriate job for this Talk page to take on. Cheers, doncram 22:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I am afraid my reply above was unnecessarily argumentative. IvoShandor has a legit concern that a too-detailed approach to rating lists could be difficult for the raters. However, I think the proposal works in the sense that it actually puts the burden on page authors, and makes it relatively easy for raters. Take any one of the state lists in List of National Historic Landmarks by state. It takes only a few seconds to tell if the list is complete, at least for those now in numbered list format (does its count of NHLs equal the total for the state?). It takes no time at all to see: are there any redlinks to NHL articles, then it gets Stub rating. And the list authors can see the rating criteria here and understand what they have to do to get to higher rating. doncram 14:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Arguments are good, I haven't had a chance to look over everything you have stated yet, but I will and then we shall discuss. :) IvoShandor 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Phew, okay, good. Note also that I estimated current quality status of all 55 state lists of NHLs, and posted color-coded assessments on the WP:NRHP main page. 16 merit Start quality by the proposed standard. List of NHLs in MN, by the way, seems to have the momentum going forward to be the first to reach "B" status, if Appraiser and others want it bad enough :). I am working hard on my pet project, NHLs in NY excluding NYC, but is just so hard to implement an editing change throughout 147 articles that MN can pull ahead if they care to (which would be fine). I am getting bogged down currently working on links to HABS galleries. By the way, if anyone wants to help, on the NYS NHL Talk page is a list of NYS NHLs currently missing photos, but having HABS photos available for uploading and including into the articles. doncram 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the image criterion at FLC is always appraised on a reasonable case-by-case basis, which results in the apparent disparity. If the images cause layout issues, than less is better, and relatively few lists automatically including an image if it is available (The List of mammals of Canada happens to be one, for the record). Circeus (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

NHRP coordinates

Is there a protocol for what to do if official coordinates of a site don't match up when plugged into Google maps or whatever? Murderbike (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How official? The coordinates from the NRIS that link to Topozone are not always accurate, especially with districts. As for what is on the nomination forms - early forms did not use GPS and the persons making the nominations were not surveyors. I would say use the coordinates off other sites (Google Maps, Terraserver, Topozone) when you are absolutely sure of the property's location. Einbierbitte (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, official as in the coordinates that pop up through Elkmans infobox generator. To be specific, I just did Pickett House, and the coordinates are a block or two off when run through Google, I've been to the house, so can easily pinpoint it on a map. Should I change it? Murderbike (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I would. IvoShandor (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I've fixed several coords for exactly this reason... dm (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In general I would think it's okay. I usually only write about the places I visit and photograph, so it's pretty obvious to me when the "official" coordinates are wrong. IvoShandor (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Anything in an article which is wrong should be fixed. (SEWilco (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

Will do, thanks folks! Murderbike (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention

Is there one for HPs that have more than one name? Should the name given in the NR be used, with others redirecting? Murderbike (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No; we use Ridge Route and U.S. Route 66 in New Mexico, not Ridge Route, Old and Route 66 through New Mexico. The naming convention is use common names. --NE2 16:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, hmmm, in 7 years of living in Bellingham, I never heard anyone refer to the T.G. Richards and Company Store in any way at all. The NRHP lists it as such, but the interpretive sign at the site refers to it as the Washington Territorial Courthouse. It has been known as several other things as well, since it has passed through many private hands the last century. Thoughts? Murderbike (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the media uses Richards building and Territorial Courthouse: [1] --NE2 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added the National register listing to the text of the article. The title used to list a place seems to be at the whim of the local group initiating the listing, a state preservation office if one is involved and the NPS. What ends up as the main name listed may or may not be what's most historically relevant. In this case, it seems the name ended up being the first one used. I would think the governmental use is what's really significant about this building and the article name should reflect that. The listing gives Whatcom County Courthouse as the alternate name. The interpretative signs is slightly different. I suspect a better name might be Whatcom County Territorial Courthouse. Calling it the Whatcom County Courthouse would be too confusing, since I'm sure there is a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clariosophic (talkcontribs) 20:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Screw-Ups

Hey, why do all the NRHP infoboxes suddenly look like they're ready to explode? ----DanTD (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Might it be related to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#.23ifexist_limit? -- SEWilco 06:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't find how that link is relevant, but here's one article Greenport (LIRR station). There were others, but I think those were fixed somehow. ----DanTD 07:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Apaprently the }} of station info box conflicted with the {{ part of the NHRP infobox. Essentially }}{{ were touching. 12:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, but they were touching before, and everything was fine until a couple of days ago. Thanks for fixing them anyhow. ----DanTD 18:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing hierarchy

I was looking at List_of_Registered_Historic_Places_in_Washington#Pierce_County, and it's kinda confusing all the listings that have to do with Mt. Rainier National Park. The park itself is listed under Ashford, Washington, and then Longmire Buildings is listed under the park, instead of Longmire, Washington, and tons of stuff is listed under things like Nisqually Entrance, instead of the park. So I was thinking it would make sense to move the park out of Ashford, and then all the places that are inside the park into the park listings, with subheadings for things like Paradise, Washington, Longmire, and all the entrances and whatnot. But I don't know if listings need to conform with how their listed in the Register or something, no matter how confusing. Thoughts? Murderbike (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Organizing so it makes more sense, and therefore more useful, is a good thing, imho. Did so with List of Registered Historic Places in Florida. Kennedy Space Center was all mixed up like that, and got sorted more logically. That's my two bits, for what it's worth. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I would group everything under Mt. Rainier National Park as the main heading using Ashford as the city, since park headquarters mailing address is in Ashford. Einbierbitte (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


Is there a consensus with what should be done for graves that are on the Register because no other site associated with the person exists. Should the graves have their own article? For a few in Oklahoma list I have redirected to articles on the person and added a statement that the grave is listed on the register. Dsmdgold (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What are a couple of examples, perchance? I know that there're graveyards on the Register, but didn't know there were graves as such. What you did sounds fine. If there's enough info and/or interest, they can always be expanded into their own articles. -Ebyabe (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Individual graves are allowed to be listed if there is no other physical site associated with a significant person extant, or if the grave monument itself is of historical or architectural interest. The two I have worked on are the graves of Jesse Bushyhead and Jesse Chisholm. Dsmdgold (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubois ... Dubious personal milestone

With Dubois-Phelps House, not only did I complete all the current listings in the town I live in (plus its three villages), I created the 100th article on an RHP in my own county. Yep, all those blue links here (save Harness Racing Museum & Hall of Fame) were created by me. That completely covers about six towns, five villages, and (as a practical matter) two of three cities. God, I can't believe it ...

Can anyone else claim some sort of similarly quantifiable excess of local zeal in this project? Maybe Ivo, but then again he's got all of the Chicago area to work with, whereas I've got a mostly rural section of the Hudson Valley on the outskirts of the New York metro area. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think all of us are a little crazy with this. Doncram for example, or myself :) dm (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
What Daniel Case has done is definitively dextrous, desirable and dashing... Me, all i have done is surfing around to NRHPs (mostly ones that are NHLs) for which public sources are available on-line, and mainly just linking in those sources. In contrast, Daniel has been doing is really tackling all the NRHPs in a wider and wider circle, taking his own photos, and writing encyclopedia-readable articles from scratch. Great work, Daniel! doncram (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
My dubious milemarker is at 70 new nrhp articles in Minnesota. I have to thank User:Elkman for his assistance, encouragement, and photos. I'm working off of the List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota and for most of my articles, I've never actually been to the historic site. One of my guidelines is to create only nrhp articles for which we have a PD image available. So, if you live near a site and can snap a pic or two, upload them, release them to PD, and link them on the "List" articles, some fool like me might come by and create an article about the site.--Appraiser (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:National Register Of Historic Places Map

The above template needs to have it's coordinates updated. I've changed the map to an svg one but the coordinate update was necessary already for the previous png image. /Lokal_Profil 02:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Advance notice of NRHP listings

Accidentally stumbled on this, and had to share. It's a place to find potential NRHPs; that is, properties that are under consideration.

Justia > Regulation Tracker > Department of the Interior > National Park Service

You can narrow the date range and enter search terms. I used state name (Florida) and found stuff, although you could add "national register historic places" to narrow. The lead time appears to be about a month. I found the listing for Blandford (Mount Dora, Florida) in the October 9 newsletter, after finding it officially added on November 1st. Color me ecstatic! :) -Ebyabe (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your ecstasy is funny! I followed your link and was inspired to create an article for Cowell Lime Works Historic District, a site whose NRHP listing is currently pending. It includes already the NRHP refnum for the site, although it is not yet officially a NRHP. So it could set a new record for shortest time after NRHP designation to creation of an NRHP article with explicit recognition of NRHP refnum, i.e. some negative number of days.  :) doncram (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Reference numbers are assigned as soon as the nominations enter the NRHP office; they're used for internal tracking. This site is likely to be the source for Nominations can also be tracked in the Federal Register [2]. Nominations are placed there for public comment prior to listing. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI the Cowell Lime Works Historic District was listed on the National Register on November 21, while the wikipedia article was created a day or two later, so the record would be +1 or +2 days, not a negative number. The listing date of November 21 may not have been available until December 7, however. doncram (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Soldier Field and Wrigley Field

I just found out through the Cook County Listings at the National Register of Historic Places website that Soldier Field and Wrigley Field are both listed on the NRHP. Why hasn't anybody covered those landmarks? ----DanTD (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why haven't YOU covered those landmarks? ;) Murderbike (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I started today. I'm still a little hazy on the exact dates they became national historic landmarks. ----DanTD (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the National Historic Landmark list for Illinois, it appears that Comiskey Park and Wrigley Field were determined eligible for National Historic Landmark status. Comiskey Park has since been demolished, while Soldier Field was delisted as a National Historic Landmark after its most recent renovation. I'm not sure why Wrigley Field isn't on the National Register, unless the owners objected to its listing. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

NRHP infoboxes in articles that are not specifically about the listed site

Recently, NRHP infoboxes have appeared in a few articles on my watchlist. The infoboxes look terrific (congrats to the project team!) when added to articles that are specific to the site that is listed (e.g., O. E. Rolvaag House, Slater Mill) or that have a subsection relevant to that site (e.g., Grain Belt (beer), Scopes Trial).

However, there are some instances where several features listed on the National Register are associated with one article that already has one or more other infoboxes, and the multiple new NRHP infoboxes are placed at the top of the article (for want of a better place). In these instances, the NRHP infoboxes seem out of place and can even overwhelm the article (see Carleton College with 3 NRHP infoboxes, including one with an image, Shattuck-Saint Mary's with 4 NRHP infoboxes, St. Olaf College with 2 infoboxes stacked above the photos of the campus, and University of Minnesota, Morris with 2 NRHP infoboxes).

In situations like these last four, would participants in this NRHP project be satisfied with incorporating information about the historic places into the article, thus dispensing with the infobox? This could be particularly beneficial for articles that don't mention the NRHP-listed features, such as St. Olaf College. In some cases, like University of Minnesota, Morris, it appears that the NRHP-listed feature is the entire site of the institution, so it might make sense to incorporate the NRHP info to the existing infobox.
--Orlady 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in those 4 cases (and probably a few others like them) the NRHP infoboxes are a bit strong and out of place. My suggested solution would be to add a new section to, for example, Carleton College headed "Historic buildings on the Carleton campus" or somesuchlike. Under that, with some introductory or context-giving text, put a list of the NRHP buildings (either prose or bulleted) with links to another article specifically about those buildings. Then remove the infoboxes from Carleton College and place them in the new linked article(s). Ipoellet 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and carried out my suggestion on the Carleton College article. If this seems like a good approach in these cases, then I welcome other editors to carry on in the other cases. -Ipoellet 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why you can't find a way to blend some of them. ----DanTD (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I still can't understand this apparent obsession on Wikipedia to pepper articles with infoboxes. Most of the time it just makes the page look unprofessional, like a myspace—USA Today hybrid. It is just unappealing, and mostly pointless. Leave the boxes and pie charts to wanna be journalists, that's what I say, anyway. IvoShandor (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Infoboxes rule! and are pointy, not pointless, though too detailed for articles about universities that include several NRHPs. The Carleton College#Historic sites section is nicely done, and now emulated by a similar section within Cornell University. doncram (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Air Force Facility Missile Site 8

It looks like this is already covered by Titan Missile Museum. Maybe should ought to be merged? Einbierbitte 19:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Aargh. Okay, merged now. doncram (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for ships

The NRHP often has ship names in all caps, such as MARY D. HUME (Steamer). Is there a compelling reason why this is so? Would it be OK to move the page to the more conventional capitalization? Katr67 (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no real idea why they set the ship names in all caps. I guess ship names are usually typeset in italics, but the National Register database doesn't contain italics, so they must have decided to use all caps. It seems like it would make more sense for Wikipedia to use regular mixed case for the article titles and to italicize them in the article text (e.g. Titanic rather than TITANIC). (And actually, that one is really the RMS Titanic.) I've done articles such as Madeira (shipwreck), Hesper, and Thomas Wilson (shipwreck). Category:Shipwrecks in the Great Lakes, and its parent category, Category:Shipwrecks of the United States, all appear to have ship names in mixed case. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 06:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. vs. District of Columbia name change proposed

A process outside of WP:NRHP has started which would change wordings to "Washington, D.C." from what has been practice in WP:NRHP "the District of Columbia".

See Historic Places in the District of Columbia Proposal in progress to change away from " Category:Registered Historic Places in the District of Columbia", and similar change on Category:Images in the District of Columbia

This got stirred up by proposal to create Category:National Historic Landmarks in the District of Columbia, which is now suggested to be "in Washington, D.C." instead.

Assuming these go through, then I predict that the current titles of list-articles List of Registered Historic Places in the District of Columbia and List of National Historic Landmarks in the District of Columbia would also be changed.

If you care about this, participate by discussing here on the talk page of WP:NRHP if you like, but especially by voting or commenting in the category change process. doncram (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Local registers

(Since I'm on a roll today...)

Another thing I've been wondering about for a historic sites on state registers, which aren't on the NRHP, meet notability criteria? If so, would it be worth starting a split off of this project to start dealing with those? What about county and city registers? I know we've got at least stubs for things in Chicago that are on the local register, but what about smaller locations? --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

About state lists of historic sites, they often seem to be the same order of magnitude in number as the NHLs in a state. So, in list articles on NHLs in various states, I've been tacking on lists of state historic sites as well. These often overlap with the NHLs somewhat, and I think it is helpful to list them. I cover the complete list of 12 Colorado state historic sites in a section below the 20 NHLs List of National Historic Landmarks in Colorado, the complete list of 37 New York State Historic States (which are all outside NYC) in a section below the 148 NHLs in List of National Historic Landmarks in New York (that covers all but NYC NHLs). For other states like Arkansas the state historic site list is incomplete, again below the List of National Historic Landmarks in Arkansas. Other NHL list editors haven't yet adopted this practice, i don't think, but I would like to suggest it for other state NHL lists, too. doncram (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
About county and city registers: There's nothing stopping you or anyone from creating a list of historic sites in any individual county or city. It would be impossible to do a comprehensive one for New York City, by the way, they don't even publish all the landmarked properties, because they do landmarking by huge historic districts for the most part. I'm interested in putting some info about NYC landmarks into the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City article, but it is not possible to enumerate them like in the List of Chicago Landmarks article. doncram (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
But I'm talking about going beyond lists and into the realm of creating actual articles. My question, basically, is this - at what level register does a property cease to be worthy of note under Wikipedia guidelines?
Example, taken from my recent digging on the Maryland DHR website: I looked up the city of Bowie, and found 5 Registered Historic Places within its limits. Expanding the parameters yielded about 20 more sites that are on the State Register but not the National Register. Are these 20 or so sites notable, because they have been recognized as historic by the state and not the federal government? What of sites that are only on the Prince George's County register? In other words, how far does the idea of local notability (as expressed at Wikipedia:LOCAL) go? --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review on List of National Historic Landmarks in New York

Your input is invited. I've gone ahead and asked for peer review on the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York list, including the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City (hopefully to be considered by the peer reviewers as well). Open at Wikipedia:Peer review#List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. doncram (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ship/boat-related infoboxes?

I was diddling around on the Maryland DHR website yesterday (they ahve great resources regarding Maryland's registered historic places and National Landmarks), when I noticed that a lot of the state's registered historic places are specific ships and boats. This got me thinking about a possible infobox, especially as many of the historic boats are skipjacks, and part of the reason they were registered as a body is that there are so few left.

Might it be possible to design an infobox for, say the Chesapeake Bay's historic fleet? This would cover all of Maryland's skipjacks as well as some other historic vessels (a few log canoes, a bugeye, a couple of other things that I've forgotten offhand), and whatever there is in Virginia, as well. Or they can be done by state. And this might work for shipwrecks in other areas, as well (like in Florida).

Haven't done a mockup yet, but if there's interest I may tonight.

--User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 19:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like the first step would be to create an infobox that could include ALL the boats listed on the NRHP, before getting into a more specific categorization. Murderbike (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Are they all under the same Multiple Property Submission? If so, maybe we should create a MPS infobox.--Bedford 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
They appear to be (they were added on the same date), but to be honest I'm not entirely sure - the Maryland Register pages don't say, and I've not had the time to do more research. That said, though...let's expand the idea a bit; what about making infoboxes for the MPS sets and putting them in each article? It would make navigating within the MPS a lot simpler. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 20:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Further research does little to clear up the mystery. There is a group of log canoes that were also added to the register in a body, but the digging that I've been able to do does not indicate that they were added as an MPS. They just seem to have been submitted at the same time, and consequently added at the same time. So I'm not sure of their status. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds just like other MPS listings, which have many similar NRHPs appearing on the same date. And, in fact, yes, there is one MPS for the Chesapeake Bay Sailing Log Canoe Fleet MPS and one MPS for the Chesapeake Bay Skipjack Fleet MPS, both prepared by Mary Ellen Hayward in December 1984. The first included 18 of the 21 existing sailing log canoes (excluding 3 constructed during the 1970's); the second included every single one of the 35 surviving skipjacks, even two relatively new ones. Hope this helps.... doncram (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
As for how to handle an MPS, see List of Civil War Monuments of Kentucky MPS with which Bedford is doing a very nice job as a list plus individual articles on each monument plus a corresponding "Category:Civil War Monuments of Kentucky MPS". And Mwanner did a different kind of treatment of an MPS in his article Cure Cottages of Saranac Lake. His is more of a single article with an embedded list inside it, without intention of making a separate article for each one of the Cure Cottages covered in the MPS. doncram (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If/when I get around to those MPS listings (and thanks, Doncram, for finding those - I fear that being currently on dialup limits my access to some PDF aids) for the various ship and boat types, I want to make an individual listing for each, given that there's sufficient information online so to do. The reason I was asking about infoboxes is that, to me at least, they make navigation within the topic easier. Having the list is nice, and all, but if one creates an infobox to slap onto each article in the series it makes it easier to have the names of similar sources at one's fingertips without having to go back a page to the list. If this makes any sense. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, then you are talking about a navbox, as in Wikipedia:Navigational templates, not an infobox like the NRHP infobox. By all means, go ahead and create one for the skipjacks and one for the log canoes. That is like how people in WP:SHIPS seem to operate, they create a navbox for all the destroyers of the Essex-16 class or whatever, listing the names of all of them, and then march through creating articles, I have observed. But the navbox is different than the ship infobox that WP:SHIPS people are talking about now in their Talk page, which is to hold standard info fields to be filled out for each one, like the date commissioned, date decommissioned, length, beam, displacement etc. I thought you were talking about a custom infobox that merged historic info fields with ship info fields that are relevant for skipjacks. There could be benefit to that too, but it is hard to design a generally useful one. As for the navbox listing 35 skipjacks in Maryland, that is extremely unique and would be non-controversial to go ahead and do. If you like those navboxes ( i am not particularly a huge fan myself ) just go ahead and do one. Have fun! doncram (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
An expample is {{Mosquito Fleet}}. And Albert, if you want to use those PDFs, and they're not a million pages long, I can print them and send them to you. Murderbike (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That's really alright, thanks - I'm supposed to be on FIOS within the next few weeks, and in the meantime there's more than enough material out there that I can begin working with. And thanks for reminding me that I'm talking about navboxes here; I fear my wits have been woolgathering far more than is healthy for me this past week. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 18:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review on Belair Mansion

There's a peer review open at Wikipedia:Peer review/Belair Mansion/archive1 for Belair Mansion, a NRHP site in Maryland. The author is requesting review to prepare it for Good Article review, and had recently requested assessment at the NRHP assessment subpage. Please consider participating in the review; it could use attention of some NRHP'ers. doncram (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


OK, so I just went to what is listed in the register as Fire Station No. 5, but the building says Fire Station No. 4 on it. What to do? Murderbike (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Go to the building in the dark of night and paint over the 4 with a 5? ;^) If you're talking about the Fire Station No. 5 in Tacoma, WA, the listing at [3] indicates AKA Fire Station No. 4. Since it looks like the NRHP list calls it No. 5, I vote that it appear that way in the WP list. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Bah, I didn't even notice that in the listing. Thanks, I'll just put an AKA in the Comments. Murderbike (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Just a heads-up, multiple NRHP articles have been put on AfD: Alexis LaTour House, V. R. Coss House, First Baptist Church (Muskogee, OK), and St. Thomas Primitive Baptist Church. Altairisfartalk 05:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Newbie question - Boundary increases

I did a bunch of work over the weekend on the Ohio lists. I deleted a few listings that were simply "boundary increases" since it seemed to me that they were unnecessary duplicates of the original listing. Now I'm worried that I was a little too bold and am posting here to see if what I've done passes muster with the community.

I'm a newbie to this project, so please forgive me if this has already been discussed. I did a quick check of the discussion archives and didn't find anything. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

From this [difference before vs. after your edits on List of RHPs in Ohio], i can you were busy with many renames and moves between, or consolidations of location headings. Does that Diff capture all the edits? I am not sure if there were edits in any separate List of RHPs in any separate county. doncram (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
From that Diff report, the boundary increase removals seem to be:
Is that all of them in the Diff report? doncram (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally I would prefer to see that the NRHP article was created and reflected both the original NRHP date and refnum as well as the boundary increase date and refnum, before considering deleting mention of the boundary increase from the list. Note the South Park, Dayton, Ohio article does already reflect a boundary increase, but the others do not. Can you update the others similiarly? If you did that, then, personally, I would be okay with the boundary increase having been deleted from the List of RHPs, but others may differ. doncram (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Overall, your edits look constructive and it looks like you are informed about the locations in Ohio, in some cases identifying that NRIS has errors. But in the Diff report, I also see the apparent outright deletion of Bedford Baptist Church, in Bedford, Ohio. Was this one a mistake? Hope this is helpful, doncram (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Doncram, and for reviewing my work. I'll take a look at what was done in the South Park, Dayton, Ohio artcile vis-a-vis the boundary increase and will either make corresponding changes to the articles where I deleted the boundary increase in the list or undo my deletions.
I further edited the Wick Park Historic District (has 1 increase) and the South Main Street District (Middletown, Ohio) (has 2 increases) which now provide further examples for you. Perhaps you could go ahead and create the Zoar Historic District article. You do use the Elkman NRHP infobox generator, yes? doncram (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As for Bedford Baptist Church, I removed it from the Lake County list and added it to the Cuyahoga County list (with the rest of the Bedford sites). The NPS list says that it's both in Bedford and in Lake County, but I think they've got to be wrong about the county since the address they give for the location is definitely in Cuyahoga County and is a good 15 miles from the Lake County line.
Okay, very good IMO. doncram (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A fair number of my edits were adding county names to the links to town and city articles. In Ohio, there are many, many place names that exist in more than one county. I even did this on occasion where the place name was a red link. For example, there's an Otterbein in Darke, Hardin and Warren Counties. Although no article exists for any of the three places, I changed the link in the Warren County list from Otterbein, Ohio to Otterbein, Warren County, Ohio. I hope that's okay.
Sounds like that is very helpful. It would be even more helpful to set up a disambiguation page at Otterbein, Ohio and to create Ohio-geo-stub articles for the several Otterbein under the appropriate names for them. A geo stub can be very short. Here let me make one example, Otterbein, Darke County, Ohio. That way you would consolidate the knowledge for wickipedia. Keep up the good work! doncram (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd welcome any other feedback you or others may have about my work. Thanks again. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of boundary increases, does it seem like it would be a good idea for the NRHP infobox to have a parameter to include boundary increase ID numbers? I can't imagine that anyone is going to create an article for a boundary increase, so if we can just plug the second (or third, etc.) ID number into the box, people can use it. Murderbike (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Eons ago (back in September 2007), Ebyabe responded to a request and added the NHL designation date field to the NRHP infobox (which has worked great ever since, thanks again Ebyabe!) Up to then, NHL date was handled by use of editing using "br/"s, like boundary increases were. It was felt then that the NHL date needed to be separated, but there wasn't clamor otherwise for boundary increases (for the discussion, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 3#Infoboxes). I think boundary increases can be handled manually by editing the date added field and the refnum field to reflect the two dates and the two refnums, easily enough. And, I don't really know, but I think it could be complicated to program to handle that automatically, and/or there could be other trade-offs like slowing the system down. doncram (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One more

List of Registered Historic Places in Washington is getting pretty large as I add tables, so I was wondering if there's a size limit for a list, and how large a County list would need to be to justify spinning it off into its own list. Murderbike (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lists are not usually subject to length retrictions. If the list gets unmanageable, then it should be split up. I personally find having all of the properties in a state on one list easier to use than having the lists divided up by counties, but others disagree. I like the tables, BTW. Dsmdgold (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I think Pierce County is gonna have to follow King County in getting it's own page, but the rest will probably be fine. Murderbike (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, thanks for liking the table. Murderbike (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Historic preservation generally, and articles on historical societies

I am struggling with development of Historic preservation in New York, a new type of article that I started to carry some of the burden for List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. To appreciate the list of NHLs, it is necessary to understand that there are more highly protected sites (such as National Historic Sites and other National Park Service areas), while NHL status is really pretty far up the scale of historic designation. Comments/suggestions/help on the article would be appreciated.

As part of this article, it seems appropriate to cover the role of historical societies, and I am discovering that there are about 100 state-wide and local such societies in New York. There does exist a List of historical societies article, but that covered only 2 or 3 of them. Some are very major organizations. The Brooklyn Historical Society occupies a NHL building and is a major source for geneological information nation-wide, and for other historical information. Some may be among the oldest and most influential historical societies in the U.S. At the other extreme are some very small societies that are informal associations lacking nonprofit or other formal legal entity status. There are articles for some of the 100 or so now listed in this Historic preservation in New York article. I wonder, from WP:NRHP perspective, what should be the standards for wikipedia notability of a historical society? Also, I wonder if development of articles on historical societies may be taken on by this wikiproject, especially for those occupy or maintain or have other important connections to NRHP sites. I am inclined to think that it would be helpful for WP:NRHP to make connections to many of these historical associations (for example 1 to enlist their help in developing articles about NRHPs, for example 2 to secure permissions for photographs of plaques they have created) and having articles about them is one aspect of building connections. Other thoughts? doncram (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)