Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Most Notable NRHP/NHL Stub

Casliber (talk · contribs) recently proposed a moral prize at the DYK Discussion Page to the most notable/vital/core article currently a stub. The idea being that editors could then attack and expand. He asked contibutors to list the stubs. It sounds like a fun, but also productive, process. So, what do people here think are the most notable/vital/core articles within the scope of this project that are still stubs? I'll start with one from my area.Cbl62 (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Space Flight Operations Facility at JPL, Pasadena, CA - 52 words of text. Cbl62 (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes...this is a National Historic Landmark, and it is very stubby. It has the basic references of NHL summary webpage and the NRHP/NHL inventory/nomination document already linked, but little has been drawn from those sources yet. And other sources should be available. So it is a good candidate for development. And I even went on the tour there and have some more pics to add, including a photo of the custom NHL plaque on the front of the building. In the July 4 NHLs drive, however, many of us developed up many NHLs to just about this degree of stubbiness (and we failed to get a few hundred up to this minimal standard, though many of those have been brought up to this level since then). So, why this NHL over any other NHL? Vs., say, to pick one at random: Joseph Story House? doncram (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I merely meant this to start the ball rolling. I figured if people started thinking about, and listing, important sites in their area that still only have stubs, it might help spur us on to expand those stubs. Cbl62 (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In Illinois: Lincoln Home National Historic Site, and the Vachel Lindsay House stand out.--IvoShandor (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ALERT: More disambiguation problems

Someone today is doing lots of moves and changes relating to NRHP articles and disambiguation pages related to them. See Gilbert House for example. It was originally a disambiguation page, but was moved to Gilbert House (disambiguation) and the redirect page was redirected to Page-Gilbert House. I fail to see the rationale for this. This is not the only such change. clariosophic (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Aargh. I've posted a comment on the user talk page of one involved user. --Orlady (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes ARRGH. Please participate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/St. Paul's Reformed Church in particular. Recently it was User:Tavix, now it is User:Remember the dot putting up articles for deletion and/or harming disambiguation pages. I have gone about halfway through Remember the dot's harmful edits, undoing most of them, manually. Is there a better way? doncram (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I put together a quick list, Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Disambiguation#Pages_with_one_blue_link_or_less. There's 40 pages. My thought is, if stubs were created so each page had at least two blue links, that might help matters. More would be even better, obviously, but this could make a good start. When a page is done, please to cross out and delink, so as to keep track. Thanks, all! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Did some more checking, and the list is up to 62. Still not bad, though. --Ebyabe (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I opened discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#what is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation? which seems to be reaching some of the dab editors who often participate. I am asking for feedback on what is right for a NRHP disambiguation page to get their support, and there is some useful discussion going on. Also, i asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Proposed text for MOS explicitly allowing red-links for some clarification to be added to the MOS guideline, perhaps. I think the main problem is editors, including regular dab-editors, deleting (or commenting out) NRHP red-links, contrary to explicit MOS-DAB style guideline for red-links. Although one blue-link is needed to avoid AFD battles, I don't think having two blue-links is a magic number for anyone. They'll delete all but 2 of the entries, if you have 2 blue-links. I'm not against stubbing a 2nd one on each of 62 disambig pages, though, and i have done a couple on your list though i didn't strike them out yet. doncram (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves

• Eagles Building (disambiguation) → Eagles Building
• Douglas County Courthouse → Douglas County Courthouse (Omaha, Nebraska)
• Douglas County Courthouse (disambiguation) → Douglas County Courthouse

There are two sets of requested moves at wp:requested moves which relate to disambiguation pages. These relate to a discussion of NRHP disambiguation at wp:WikiProject Disambiguation already in progress. Please consider contributing to the discussions at the corresponding talk pages. As i noted in my move request of the first listed one just now, I am cross-posting this at wp:NRHP and at wp:WikiProject Disambiguation. doncram (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence in articles

I have added this to Wisconsin:

Buildings, sites, districts, and objects listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin:

And:

Buildings, sites, districts, and objects listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Arizona:

I think it covers the bases nicely. Also:

Buildings, sites, districts, and objects listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Dane County, Wisconsin:

And:

Buildings, sites, districts, and objects listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Maricopa County, Arizona: Motorrad-67 (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of this, but shouldn't it be "Buildings, sites, districts, and objects in Wisconsin listed on the National Register of Historic Places"? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I think either works. But I am a proven wimp. Motorrad-67 (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Buildings, sites, districts, and objects in Dane County listed on the National Register of Historic Places "Wisconsin" is in the article title. Saves TWO

Buildings, sites, districts, and objects in Arizona listed on the National Register of Historic Places

Motorrad-67 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're omitting "structures" such as towers, windmills, and ships. By the National Register's terminology, ships are structures, not objects. doncram (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn! You are right!

Buildings, sites, structures, districts, and objects in Arizona listed on the National Register of Historic Places

How's this? — National Register of Historic Places listings in Dane County, Wisconsin

Motorrad-67 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think this is great, and where consensus has been going. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think i can stand having a discussion until consensus on what is the perfect first sentence, only to be followed by a discussion on what is the perfect second sentence, etc. However, a phrase like "Buildings, sites, structures, districts, and objects in Arizona listed on the National Register of Historic Places" is not a sentence, and I don't think it would stand up to scrutiny in any peer review, such as in a Featured List nomination. Can I suggest that instead of having low grade edit wars switching intro texts of many articles back and forth, how about developing one or two state or county lists up to a good condition, and putting them into wp:peer review and then into wp:FL? And, i think it is shameful that we don't have a single list of NHLs or of regular NRHPs up to Featured List. doncram (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A sentence: This listing includes buildings, sites, structures, districts, and objects in Pima County entered on the National Register of Historic Places. — Motorrad-67 (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Yet another way to use "listing", now to mean a list not one of the entries on it, and not to mean the event of a new entry upon a register! :) doncram (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, this is one of the accepted meanings of the word (see the wiktionary definition) and to me is perfectly appropriate given its analogous use by real estate agents: "This listing has a brand-new kitchen wing, Jaccuzzi etc. ..." Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, he was using "listing" to mean "list". That's not among the definitions for listing in Wiktionary. doncram (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, we're talking about the first sentence. I thought we were still on the title question, in which case I have no problem with "This is a list of buildings, districts, objects, sites and structures on ..." Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping to submit a Featured List nomination for List of Registered Historic Places in Hennepin County, Minnesota sometime. I'd like to get it more finished, first -- i.e. explanations for all of the properties, and substantial completion without a lot of redlinks. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's sure a great candidate, amazingly illustrated already, and with a nice intro. :) List of RHPs in LA is another good one. It would be great if anyone would put one of theirs up for wp:peer review at least. I'm gonna keep plugging on the NY NHL list, myself.... doncram (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a good list indeed. :-) The rest of this discussion, however, seems to have descended into madness. ;-) --IvoShandor (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind Wikipedia:Lead section#Format: "if the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive—List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand for example—the title does not usually appear verbatim in the main text. If it does, it should not be in boldface." --NE2 11:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional issue with the proposal: Several of the internal links in the proposed text point to subsections of Property_type_(National_Register_of_Historic_Places). IMHO (but I think I recall that WP:MOS has a similar viewpoint), it is insulting to the reader to provide a list of internal links that all point to the same destination. It would be preferable to word the sentence to as to provide a single unambiguously-described link to the Property type article. Additional links to more specific articles such as Historic district (United States) and National Historic Landmark could be included either in the same sentence or in a subsequent sentence. --Orlady (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review on List of NHLs in NY

I've requested a new peer review of List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. This is a list-article which went through a peer review before, and had some support but failed in its nomination to Featured List. It is perhaps important for wp:NRHP because it is potentially the first of about 54 geographic lists of NHLs that could be featured eventually. A reviewer stated some criticisms and suggested there were more problems yet to be noted. By this peer review, I hope to elicit discussion of old and new problems and to allow for them to be addressed, with a little less pressure and judgment involved. Please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of National Historic Landmarks in New York/archive2. doncram (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

County courthouse photos online

Found this link while looking for information about the courthouse in Washington, Virginia (which may soon be one of my projects). It's a USDA site, and the pictures were taken by a USDA officer, so I suspect they could be classed as government property and therefore free use. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is on that website: "Most information presented on the USDA Web site is considered public domain information. Public domain information may be freely distributed or copied, but use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. Attribution may be cited as follows: "U. S. Department of Agriculture."" I think we can use them with attribution.--Appraiser (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I knew that sounded familiar. It's true, we can use them. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 1#County Courthouse photo collection for more information. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about destroyed/moved structures

This has probably been discussed but have two additional questions:

• If a property is destroyed do we continue to list it?
• If a property is moved from county to county which county do we list it?

Thanks,Americasroof (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My take: If it's been destroyed and delisted, list it in a separate table, "Former listings" below a main list of NRHPs in a county (perhaps relabelling the main section to be "Current listings"). See for example section on former NHLs, in List of NHLs in NY. If it has been destroyed but not delisted, keep it in the list (it is still a NRHP), but note in the description that it is no longer still there. And as it should have been delisted, add it to list of such cases at wp:NRHP info issues, to be reported in a batch to the NPS. If it has been moved (as in ships moved from one permanent berth to another), list it in the current county. And list it in a former NRHPs section along with delisted items, below. It's not necessary to list the ship in every county that it travelled through inbetween permanent berths. doncram (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I concur with Doncram on this one. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also FWIW, that's what I've been doing in List of Registered Historic Places in Detroit, Michigan, where there are eight or so demolished structures still listed.

All lists up to date

For what it's worth, I believe that all of the state/county/city lists are now updated through new listings of September 19. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for doing that.--Appraiser (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

i sense that was a lot of work. thanks, also. when, if ever, were all the RHP lists updated to such a current basis, previously? and i wonder if it is getting easier or harder? doncram (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly more work to add sites to the new tables, but I think it's well worth it. One thing that makes it more efficient is if editors remember to update the "complete through" dates at the top of each list. I'm now going through and adding NRHP date templates for each state that has multiple lists so that the date only needs to be changed in one place. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I went through last year in June/July to update all the lists to the June 29, 2007 new listings. Einbierbitte (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've been updating the Oregon lists, and a date notation that I made up, by hand. Does the addition of the new template mean you've checked them since the 12th when I last updated? I don't know if any other state wikiprojects watch their NRHP lists, but you might inform them how this new template works. Thanks for the handy addition! Katr67 (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Katr ... yes, I've updated the Oregon lists with new listings posted on the NPS website through 9/26. I decided to replace your note with the template for several reasons: (1) the wording is what is used in other NRHP lists, (2) putting it at the top of the article makes it obvious to editors how current the list is and (3) when the lists are updated with new listings, one only needs to change the date in once place rather than on each list. I hadn't planned to post a message on each state's wikiproject talk page to explain the template, but I suppose I could do so. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for consistency in wording and the only-having-to-update-in-one-place thing is very handy, especially when no new places have been added (otherwise, since one has to edit the page anyway, it's no big deal to change the date). But frankly I don't like how the template looks aesthetically when it's on the top of the lists. I also think having it at the top is a bit of a self-reference, meaning that those who regularly edit wikipedia will easily find the note at the bottom of the page, while those who are simply encylopedia users needn't be bothered by (what looks to me like) clutter at the top of the page. I also don't like the fact that it causes there to be embedded titled external links at the top of the page. I'd like to move the note back down to the bottom of the Oregon pages and think it should be at the bottom of all of the other state's lists for consistency's sake. Thoughts? Katr67 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Putting this type of note at the top of the NRHP list pages pre-dates my arrival on the scene here. But in my opinion, having this information at the top of the article is useful. As for the embedded titled external link, it probably makes sense just to get rid of it in the templates since the footnote points to exactly the same URL. I just copied what had been done on some recently updated existing pages and seemed like it might be the current "state of the art". --Sanfranman59 (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sites that cross geographic boundaries

While we're asking questions, I've been meaning to pose this one for a while, but never think of it when I'm over here browsing this talk page ... How should listings that span across geographic boundaries be listed? For example, the Elkman county table generator produces 15 separate listings for 1767 Milestones in Massachusetts (including two in Warren, MA, for some reason). I'm sure this is because that's the way the records come out in the download from the NRIS. But when you search for 1767 Milestones on the NRIS search page, it returns 7 records, all in Springfield (Hampden County). Should 1767 Milestones be included in our lists 15 times (including twice in Warren, MA) or just once (in Springfield)? Another somewhat simpler example is the Morris Canal in New Jersey. From the NRIS search page, only one listing is returned in Essex County (city=Not Applicable). But based on what comes out of the Elkman table generator, the underlying database apparently also has it listed in Morris, Warren, Sussex and Passaic Counties.

It would be simplest just to accept whatever comes out of the Elkman tool, but I think it looks strange to have 10 entries for 1767 Milestones in Worcester County. Also, the NRIS database has only one set of geocode coordinates, so when you click "Map of all coordinates", you end up with an outlier in all counties but the one that happens to have the NRIS coordinates. I propose that we list sites in every applicable geographic area. If the site spans several counties, list it in each county. If there's more than one location in a table (county, in this example), consolidate them into a single listing, identifying all locations in the City or Town column. Only include geocode coordinates that are within the geographic area covered by the table. Notes may be added to the Description column to further explain the situation. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

With so little information in the article 1767 Milestones, I don't see much information value in including it in every county's NRHP table. It would be more helpful to readers to include text stating that, in addition to the listed properties in the county, a certain number of these milestones are in the county (if Wikipedia knows the locations of the milestones, that is).

For other properties that span jurisdictional boundaries, such as Morris Canal, I agree with the proposal that the property should be listed in every applicable geographic area. It seems unduly bureaucratic to treat each such property as belonging only to the geographic area where it is slotted in the NRIS database. For example, it seems peculiar that List of National Historic Landmarks in Tennessee includes Davis Bridge Battlefield under the awkward heading "Former NHLs and an NHL primarily in another state" because this battlefield (which is completely in Tennessee) is part of an NHL (Siege and Battle of Corinth Sites) that is principally in another state. If the property is partially in the jurisdiction, for list construction purposes treat it as being in the jurisdiction. --Orlady (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was author of that awkward construction for Davis Bridge Battlefield in Tennessee, which is a small part of the NHL Siege and Battle of Corinth Sites, mostly in Missouri Mississippi. Yep, i agree with you now, the Siege and Battle of Corinth Sites should be moved to the main table of NHLs in TN, as it is, at least partly, in the state. doncram (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed in List of NHLs in TN. I must have worked on NHLs in TN before this issue was clarified for me, i think by WA / OR editors about NHL Bonneville Dam Historic District. doncram (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The 1767 mileposts were just that, posts marking every mile on the Boston Post Road, so it is possible for there to be more than one extant in Warren. clariosophic (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I assumed, Clar. Orlady ... I don't see why we would treat this any differently than the Morris Canal example. If the milestones exist in multiple counties and in multiple cities/towns within a county, it seems to me that they should be noted in each jurisdiction's Wikipedia table. As for the two listings in Warren, MA, I don't think it makes sense to have two rows in the table, but a note could be added to the description column indicating that there are two milestones located in Warren. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the milestones. What troubled me is the dearth of meaningful information in both the 1767 Milestones article and lists such as the tables in List of Registered Historic Places in Worcester County, Massachusetts. The main article says that the milestones are "located along Boston Post Road between Boston, Massachusetts and Springfield, Massachusetts," and it lists a single set of coordinates for a milestone in Boston. The list articles give the same location, including those coordinates in Boston. It seems absurd to list (not to mention repetitively list) these milestones in tables for numerous specific Worcester County towns when none of the location information given in the article or list has anything to do with Worcester County (unless you count the fact that the county is between Boston and Springfield). If the county- and town-specific lists indicated where the milestones are in the referenced towns (or at a minimum said how many extant milestones there are in each county and town), they would be a lot more meaningful. (Just removing those Boston coordinates from non-Boston lists would help a lot...) --Orlady (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is what I was attempting to suggest above when I wrote, "Only include geocode coordinates that are within the geographic area covered by the table." Certainly people with more local knowledge can add geocode coordinates if they know specifically where the milestones are located. Likewise, local folks could add notes to the Description column specifying the locations. My proposal is to provide guidance for people like me who are building tables from the output of the Elkman tool and who may not know these specifics. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the latitude and longitude coordinates from a different list's area showing up in the Google map, for a site like a railroad or canal that runs through several counties. It suggests correctly to the reader that the NRHP extends outside the area. This applies for Riverside Park in two of the List of RHPs in NYC subareas, for example. In fact, it could be preferred to choose to show a location outside the given list area, when only one can be displayed, for that reason. Of course in the article about the railroad or canal or milestones, it would be nice to have many coordinates given so a Google map from that article shows the full extent of the NRHP. doncram (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken something like Sanfranman59's approach in the NY county lists with respect to the New York Central line-- I have picked a prominent point (like a railroad station) within each county and used it for the geocode, while in the description I have listed all significant structures within the county. The description also makes clear the full extent of the district. Reading this discussion, it occurs to me that multiple geocodes could be entered for a single table entry-- one of my counties has two stations of equal importance. I don't think I'd want to extend this too far, though-- some counties have a dozen or more contributing structures (bunkhouses, bridges, etc.) -- Mwanner | Talk 23:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Portal development stalled

I noticed that Portal:NRHP still has the "under construction" tag on it since its creation in April and it seems largely forgotten. I was wondering what needed to be done. I've had experience with portals in keeping Portal:Erie running since last October and I'm looking for something to work on (article writing is on hold until I can get more sources and photos). Maybe just by me bringing it up again will be enough to drum up interest into finishing the portal. --​​​​D.B.^{talk•contribs} 03:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'd love to see an article from each state/territory/etc. in each section. That seems like a lot, but if each project participant did one article per section from their own state, it'd wouldn't be too hard at all. I'll see what I can do. Just need to avoid making it too weighted towards Florida, doncha know. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Created a workspace area. --Ebyabe (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:dot dot dot (...) on the National Register of Historic Places

Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but I noticed a new category "Railway stations on the National Register of Historic Places". I like it. That format can be used for the other properties on the NRHP. How about other categories in the same format such as for instance:

• Category:Art Deco buildings on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Barns on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Cemeteries on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Craftsman buildings on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Districts on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Farms on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Forts on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Fortifications on the National register of Historic Places
• Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Locomotives on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Parks on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Places of worship on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Railroad rolling stock on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Roads on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Ships on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Shipwrecks on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Towers on the National Register of Historic Places
• Category:Trails on the National Register of Historic Places

As you can see, almost any type of property can be listed in this manner. Einbierbitte (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea. It would make our categories a little more consistent. We have a few (like Category:Bridges and tunnels that are Registered Historic Places) that read a little non-standard. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A day late and a dollar short. As you can see from the links I added, some of these already exist (and we also have Category:Roads on the National Register of Historic Places and Category:Canals on the National Register of Historic Places. I would have created even more of them by now, but I wanted to hold off until we'd settled the renaming debate (as it sort of affects the topical cats, most of which use the now-deprecated "RHP" form).

"Places of worhsip" can and should easily be divided into "Churches on ..." and "Synagogues on ..." (for all I know, there might be "Mosques on ..." somewhere). The whole kit and caboodle is currently in Category:Registered Historic Places of religious function, which we ought rename "Religion-related National Register of Historic Places listings". Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I wasn't paying attention :) BTW, there are a couple of mosques listed in the NRHP. The rest is all OK by me. Can we rename the cats and create new ones for whatever property types we can come up with? Einbierbitte (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A church in a city near me that was listed recently is, in fact, used primarily as a mosque. I want to rename the cats soon too, but let's get all the "List of ..." articles renamed first before we go to CfD. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

For consistency and grammar, shouldn't all these be "__Roads/etc___ LISTED on the National Register of Historic Places". They aren't roads over the list, itself, in Washington, D.C. Also, fyi, i recently created Jails and prisons listed on the National Register of Historic Places. There are penitentiaries too. Perhaps there's a single combined name that could replace "Jails and prisons" and cover penitentiaries and more; a single name would work better in a single corresponding category name. Or you need separate categories for jails listed on the NRHP vs. prisons listed on the NRHP etc. doncram (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There are also some Native American religious sites in this category that would need another breakout category. Maybe Category:Native American religious sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places?--Appraiser (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Resource Area

I have a question about how to handle Multiple Resource Area. These designated areas no doubt add thousands of locations to the list and I don't see them listed here. Since I'm most familiar with New York, I will use it as an example. According to http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/research/mpslist.htm there are 95 in New York State alone. In looking at the application for the Village of East Hampton Multiple Resource Area there are 270 individual property listings!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=100354 The vast majority of these are within existing districts. However there are 24 additional properties many of which are significant and are not otherwise listed (and for good measure East Hampton didn't include in its MRA a registered historic windmill moved from another town!). Some direction would be appreciated. One solution might be to have a see also list on the state lists. Americasroof (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on this cited NPS webpage, the issue appears to be "multiple property submissions," in which multiple historic properties are included on a single application. In those instances, the individual properties (or individual districts, in the case of multiple property submissions that include historic districts) are listed separately on the National Register, so they would get separate WP articles. --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting my questions over here. Anyway, the problem based on the East Hampton example is that structures that get listed in a MRA don't seem to pop into any of the databases we usually use. Thanks again. Americasroof (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think we should figure someway to integrate MRA's into the lists. In looking at New York listings, the existing articles on districts tend to be stubs missing numerous intersting buildings within their boundary. The only properly structured district in NY I could find offhand was Central Park West Historic District. Toward that end an MRA could be the first stub that could be broken up later. I would add the East Hampton but there should be some consensus on naming and a commitment to include them all. Americasroof (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree that we should have a column in the tables for MPSes, since we have an infobox line for it. I also think that when we have an entire large MPS completed, one that covers multiple counties (such as the 1982 Hudson Highlands MRA, covering parts of five counties, where I've done many (but nowhere near all) of the 58 total listings, it could and should be a separate list, linked from all the appopriate infoboxes. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need for a separate table of the MRAs that cover any sites in the county, in a list of NRHP listings in a given county. Any MRA can probably support a separate article about it. And it's always appropriate to link to the study from an article about one of the NRHPs covered in a study. But I don't see that there's a one-size-fits-all-solution here, in terms of mentioning MRAs within geographical lists of NRHP sites. If there is a locally-focused study, it certainly can be mentioned in the intro text to a list-article covering NRHP listings in a given county. But note some of these studies, like the one about the myriad cobblestone houses in New York State, cover scattered sites. I wouldn't want to require that be mentioned in every county list-article that has just one of the cobblestone houses. Also, another issue is that some of these studies evaluate many sites, noting some are already NRHP-listed, others appear to be NRHP-eligible contingent upon additional research, others are clearly not NRHP-worthy at all. Not all properties mentioned in such a study should be described in wikipedia. Caveat: There might be a distinction between multiple property listing studies (MPS's) vs. multiple resource area studies (MRAs) that i am not paying mind to. This is perhaps all too general. Perhaps the question could be clarified by providing a specific suggested treatment for a specific county-list article? doncram (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting that the county listing tables have a separate column for MRAs, if there are many different ones involved. It would be useful in, say, Dutchess County, where even after splitting Poughkeepsie into a separate list (which takes care of both its 1982 MRA and New Hamburg's seven-property MRA), there's still a bunch of different MRAs covering the county ... the Chelsea MRA, the Wappingers Falls MRA, the Hudson Highlands MRA, and one devoted to old Quaker meeting houses. These are the ones I know of. Oh, and there's four from that huge New York statewide post office MRA from the late 1980s. Daniel Case (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I figured that's what the Summary column was for. That's how I've used it. An example is List of Registered Historic Places in Duval County, Florida. --Ebyabe (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed naming structure for MPS

I hope we can get our arms around it. MRA articles actually would probably be better for an overview of what's in an area. My knee jerk reaction is that the MRA's that are straight forward (e.g., Village of East Hampton MRA) should be included in the appropriate county article (there's clearly considerable work involved to implement that for all of them). I also think there should be a List of Multiple Property Registered Historic Places in New York. It would capture Multiple Property Submission (MPS), Thematic Resources (TRs) and Multiple Resource Areas (MRAs). We will have to decide whether Districts would be included. Districts are usually geographically together while MPS are in different locations. It would capture everything from http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/research/mpslist.htm plus new listings. The list would be better able to handle the quirks we have where post offices, architect structures, trails, etc. crossing county and state lines. Anyway that's my start for a proposal on how to handle it. Americasroof (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there's at least one such list already in existence: List of Civil War Monuments of Kentucky. Circeus (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a list of MPSes (The better titling, especially given our recent renaming discussion, would be "List of Multiple Property Submissions in ...") for each state, but I don't think we need to list all the properties within them. Is that what you were suggesting? Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I meant some sort of master list listing all the MPSes and the properties in them, not a list of MPSes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

More weather-related removals

Not too long after the coastal-Mississippi delistings I had noted earlier as likely a result of Hurricane Katrina, I saw on Sept. 19 that there were a number of delistings in Iowa. I can only imagine these were a result of the this spring's floodings (note a fair amount of bridges in the delisteds).

At this rate, I can only imagine we'll see a bunch more from Brazoria County, Texas, in a few months as well. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming discussion for "List of Registered Historic Places in ..."

Where did the discussion go? I don't think this was resolved, and just now Motorrad renamed what was "List of Registered Historic Places in New York", an article that i have been working on. I don't "own" that article, but i have been doing a lot of work on it and county articles it indexes. And I did not see a resolution in the discussion before. Motorrad moved it to one name that I believe is grammatically incorrect, and I just moved it to a different name that is at least grammatically and semantically correct, though i don't claim it is the best. doncram (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Arizona, Wisconsin, and New York were moved to names of the form "National Register of Historic Places in ____". I think that is ungrammatical. I think "List of Registered Historic Places in ___" is more descriptive, is clear for the general reader, and is better for the wikipedia. Also, in the previous discussions, I asked for any examples of documents within the NRHP program that list the properties and districts in any subarea, yet i have seen none. I don't believe that Motorrad or anyone else has documented what the National Register would do for a list like this. And then it is a different question of what is the best choice for list titles in wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia with a vastly different audience and purpose than internal workings of a U.S. government agency. doncram (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of where this will wind up, User:Motorrad-67 should have looked for consensus before moving it (especially since in the Wisconsin article was moved via cut and paste before he learned about the move button). doncram moved it to a different name, which is also problematic. Let's put everything back the way it was until consensus is reached. dm (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I caught Motorrad-67's move of the Wisconsin article on my watchlist and I did a proper move to make sure it complied with the GDFL. I assumed it was a consensus-based uncontroversial move. The move should be undone. I have no opinion what the right name should be, just that all of the Wisconsin county articles should share the same very similar name with the state article. I gave Motoradd an explanation on how to move properly with the move button. Royalbroil 03:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I undid the Arizona cut and paste move. I hope that this WikiProject can determine consensus so that this issue can get completed. Made up titles are bad, but I don't understand the alternatives. "List of..." makes sense in Wikipedia's naming scheme. What's the official name of the government agency in charge of the historic places, or what is the name that the agency uses for the program? Royalbroil 12:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The earlier discussions are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 15 and Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals. Those discussions may have petered out without achieving consensus, but the fundamental issue remains: the title "Registered Historic Places" is a Wikipedia neologism that should not be used in articles, article titles, or category names. Note that I cited similar "intellectual sloppiness" in my objections to the featured list candidacy of a list of National Historic Landmarks. Sloppy nomenclature is holding back this project by detracting from the quality of some otherwise excellent NRHP and NHL articles. --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The name of the federal agency is "National Park Service." The name of the register is "National Register of Historic Places." I hope that my recent actions spur on efforts to get this situation remedied and that we get rid of "made-up" terminology with no basis in federal law -- oh yes, that is the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The changes I made, since reversed, were to correct bad and erroneous terminology. Fact is not based on consensus. BTW, how is "consensus" defined on Wikipedia when you have thousands of viewers? How many thousand must agree? Motorrad-67 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The renaming controversy has been ignored for a while since consensus wasn't coming together. I think perhaps we were trying to kill too many birds at once, and maybe we can agree on one piece at a time. I would suggest changing List of Registered Historic Places in Wisconsin to List of entries on the National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin. It is lengthier, but more correct, IMO. And all corresponding state and county lists should follow the same pattern.--Appraiser (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not my first preference, but better than surrealism — so I agree. Now, how many thousand have to agree to do this? Motorrad-67 (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not thousands, but a strong majority of the people who comment after a several days aways works. In general, you'll find that most groups/WikiProjects try to work together to reach a solution that is agreeable to almost everyone (or at least not very distasteful to the minority who oppose). The validity of the arguments do matter. See WP:PRACTICAL at WP:CONSENSUS for specifics. Admin action to determine consensus is not needed except in cases where a group needs someone impartial to determine consensus. Standard naming conventions would start the article with the words "List of...". What name(s) do you suggest, Motorrad? Can you think of a more concise way to word it (that starts with "List of")? The names used right now are only temporary until consensus can hopefully be determined. Royalbroil 15:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Appraiser's suggestion above would be fine under the circumstances. Motorrad-67 (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Like Motorrad-67, Appraiser's suggestion is not my first preference but it is better than the invented name "Registered Historic Places" and other invented names that were proposed in the earlier discussion. As I stated earlier, I believe that the National Register is itself a list, and "entries on" means simply "items on a list," so this proposed title boils down to the rather redundant "List of [list items] on the [list] in Wisconsin." Therefore, I prefer names that avoid one or both of the words "list" and "entries". For example, I would prefer National Register of Historic Places entries in Wisconsin. (As can be seen from skimming the article names linked at Wikipedia:Featured lists, not every list absolutely needs to begin with the words "List of.") --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I very much dislike any suggestion where "Places" is followed immediately by a noun.--Appraiser (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Orlandy's suggestion works for me, too. I am flexible, but just want to get rid of the invented phrase. My personal preference would be National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin. Nothing more is really needed. It's a register, period. But either of the above suggestions is better than the current fictional nomenclature. Motorrad-67 (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the archived discussion (at the time and again now) and I don't understand the objection to the current list names. (Disclaimer: I recognize that my thinking is undoubtedly influenced by the fact that I've been working with them so much out here that they're familiar to me now.) They're lists, the contents of which are historic places that are officially registered by the NPS (i.e. they're registered historic places). It seems to me that the current names convey all of the pertinent information as clearly and accurately as the other suggested names. A Google search of the phrase (lowercase) "registered historic places" at the NPS website returns a few (albeit very few ... 32) documents/web pages; a Google book search returns 83 hits, including at least one book published by the U.S. Congress, several by the U.S. National Trust for Historic Preservation and several hits in the Code of Federal Regulations; a search of the ProQuest newspaper database returned 35 articles dating back to 2000 with this exact phrase. So use of this phrase is not unheard of. Is the objection that we're creating a proper noun (neologizing) by capitalizing "Registered Historic Places" as if it's some kind of official phrase? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether Wikipedia editors have invented a new proper noun in "Registered Historic Places" or merely adopted one that was invented by a sloppy journalist or lazy bureaucrat, it's not a valid term. It's not even valid to call these "registered historic places." All names that use the word "registered" are incorrect. The word "registered" generally means that a person (or property owner) has voluntarily signed up for some sort of status -- for example, a child is "registered" in school or a guesthouse is "registered" with the local tourist office (or an historic building is "registered" with a local government for some sort of recognition). In contrast, properties on the NRHP are not "registered." In the case of the National Register, the property owner (or local preservation organization) submits an application to the National Park Service, which evaluates the application and decides whether or not to list (or "enter") the property on the National Register of Historic Places. (Nobody ever "registers" anything. The operative verbs are "list (on)" and "enter (onto).") --Orlady (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please folks, can't we try to get rid of fiction and make Wikipedia fact based? I am sure that if you search hard enough you can find some obscure reference to justify anything you want to justify, like "Hitler was God's gift to women." We all know what the National Register of Historic Places is and what its official name is — it's even in Wikipedia. If you enter "Registered Historic Places" see where it sends you. Why fight it? Let's just start fixing an obvious error and get on with it. Motorrad-67 (talk)

I'm still missing the distinction that Orlady is attempting to make. Definition for the verb form of "register" from the Oxford English Dictionary: "1.a. To set down (facts, names, etc.) formally in writing; to enter or record in a precise manner." ... from the American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 2000: "1a. A formal or official recording of items, names, or actions. 1b. A book for such entries. 1c. An entry in such a record. 2. The act of registering." ... from Merriam-Webster: "1.a.: to make or secure official entry of in a register 1.b.: to enroll formally especially as a voter or student 1.c.: to record automatically : INDICATE 1.d.: to make a record of : NOTE".

To Motorrad ... I doubt that anyone disputes the name of the Register. I disagree that there's anything factually incorrect or fictitious about using the phrase "registered historic places" in this context. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment caused me to do some additional research. I found out that the term "registration" is used officially in connection with the NRHP. Specifically, the "National Register Registration Form" is used to nominate a "property" for consideration for listing on the National Register. --Orlady (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Sanfranman. Just because something isn't "official" doesn't mean it can't be used, or hasn't been used. Just because the U.S. government isn't using "Registered Historic Places" as the official term doesn't mean it's "fiction". Semantics aside, the argument for switching the article name(s) to a grammatically incoherent statement is weak. These are my thoughts on this issue. I oppose any name change to 50+ articles satisfy one or two editors semantics argument.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am finding this discussion bizarre. Here's what I see:
We are discussing lists derived from the National Register of Historic Places, and whose scope is clearly defined by and intimately linked to the National Register. In the official terminology of the National Register program, in use over the last 42 years, items listed in the Register are collectively called "properties" and include "districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture."[1]
Some Wikipedia contributors don't like the official terminology, and decided that items listed in the NRHP should have been called "registered historic places" instead. Indeed, these Wikipedia contributors like this invented term so well that they render it as if it were a proper noun, "Registered Historic Places," and are arguing for its retention because they think their term is superior to the terminology used by the entity to which these lists are intimately linked. At a minimum, they are suggesting that it is important to retain their incorrect neologism because changing the names of existing articles would involve work.
Wikipedia should not be using this invented term because Wikipedia describes topics as they are -- and as documented by others, not as we would wish them to be. If you don't like the NRHP's official terminology, try to sell your substitute terminology to the National Park Service and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, but please don't use Wikipedia to disseminate the created terminology until after the official terminology has changed.
Lists whose scope is defined by the NRHP should hew closely to the NRHP terminology related to those lists. If people want to create lists of "historic places" that are "registered" by entities other than the NRHP, then the term "registered historic places" might be appropriate, but it should not be rendered as a proper noun -- and it appears that these lists would be outside the scope of this Wikiproject. --Orlady (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

PS - The work required to rename these lists would be trivial in comparison with the time and energy that has gone into this debate. --Orlady (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Orlandy, for a thoughtful and insightful commentary. I fail to understand the resistance to using correct terminology in an "encyclopedia."

But, then, I fail to understand why anyone would vote for a candidate who was 894th out of 899 in his college graduating class and who was AWOL for more votes than any other U. S. Senator when they could vote for a top Harvard Law School graduate who has excellent proposals to offer and is one of the most brilliant candidates ever to run for office. I guess my understandings overall are limited. Motorrad-67 (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should migrate to the correct terminology, but since it is a lot of work, I'm satisfied to get there gradually, one "class" of errors at a time. (I agree with you on the other thing too.)--Appraiser (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone here is resisting using "the correct terminology". The problem is that what is the correct terminology to use in this context is not clear. Orlady and Motorrad seem driven by the importance of avoiding a coining a neologism, and that motivates me and others here to take this discussion seriously as well. Currently, I would favor a longer descriptive phrase such as List of properties and districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places in New York. That name uses "list" or "register" as a noun or verb 3 times, so it has the appearance of some redundancy, but it is accurate. However, I expect we could do still better. doncram (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I am trying not to take offense at Orlady's repeated use of the term "intellectual sloppiness" in these discussions, and trying not take offense at the suggestions that there is an obvious solution that I or we are resisting. To be just a tad pointed about this, I do not find Orlady's comment in which Orlady asserts "Some Wikipedia contributors don't like the official terminology" to be very thoughtful or helpful at all. It could be argued that anyone participating here is sloppy, lazy, ignorant, stupid, etc. for neglecting to take into account any of numerous and conflicting wikipedia guidelines that have some relevance here. I don't believe that anyone's arguments or suggestions here are perfect. doncram (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that no one argument or suggestion is perfect. Also, I believe that everyone participating in this discussion has a good-faith interest in making the best possible decision. I sympathize with the logic behind the "Registered Historic Places" term, and have deliberately avoided trying to find out who used the term in the first place, because it truly doesn't matter who was behind it. The issue is whether and how it should be changed, now that an issue has been pointed out. I continue to contend that "Some Wikipedia contributors don't like the official terminology," as that is that exact sentiment that has been expressed by several participants in these discussions. As for "intellectual sloppiness," I'm afraid that's the way I see much of the vigorous defense that was offered for retaining the terminology after it was been shown to be incorrect. --Orlady (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, if it is not already clear from my support of having this and the previous discussions, that I support some change. Perhaps I should have been more clear to you earlier that I did support making a change, despite my opposing the specific options B to L previously suggested. Interestingly, the current suggestions by Cbl62 and Orlady here are different, benefitting from the "vigorous" previous discussion.

By the way, it appears that it was Sfoskett, whose recent edits are about automobiles, who split out List of Registered Historic Places in Wisconsin, List of Registered Historic Places in New York, and all the other states on 27 December 2005. I think Sfoskett should be credited, not blamed, with furthering the development of the system we have now. Having these lists and their tables out there has supported numerous wikipedians in finding their way to add photos and to create articles about individual properties and districts.

And by the way, with breakouts of county and city-specific articles out of too-large state lists, there are now hundreds of such articles, about 30 in Wisconsin and 70 in New York State alone. So there is more "work" involved than previously estimated. But it would be bizarre to think that wp:NRHP editors would avoid doing anything for reason that it involves a lot of work. That is definitely not the case! doncram (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I was fine with the existing system. If a change is made, the one that seems best is "Properties on the National Register of Historic Places in... " Cbl62 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Or if we need to start with the word "list," then "List of Properties on the National Register of Historic Places in..."Cbl62 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I like these as well. I think districts, boats, buildings, and parcels of land can all be "properties."--Appraiser (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we now please get this change started? Motorrad-67 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In general, I like "Properties on the National Register of Historic Places in... " However, as was pointed out earlier, "Properties on the National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin" could be misinterpreted to refer to properties on the nonexistent "National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin." That could be avoided by rearranging the word order to "Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places." --Orlady (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And then, if it is felt that we should begin with "List of" we end up with "List of Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places", which while undoubtedly "correct" is long and awkward. I don't think it's a matter of any of us not "liking" the official terminology so much as there not being any clear official terminology for a list that's a subset of the National Register of Historic Places. During the first round of this debate, didn't someone say they were going to contact the NPS? If so, I'd like to know if/how they replied. Lvklock (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can live without the "list of". I'll second User:Orlady's latest suggestion: Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places.--Appraiser (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

These directions seem okay to me, although "properties" should be down-cased if it is not the first word. So, either "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places", or "Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places". I somewhat prefer "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places". I don't think that is awkward, and i like it to be identified that this article is a List, it is not just a broad discussion about NRHPs in Wisconsin.

I am sorta troubled by using properties to cover districts, but not too badly. I think "properties" can easily include ships and other "structures", "objects" like memorial monuments, "sites", and "buildings" because those can be sold. As previously discussed, it's a stretch to use "properties" to cover "districts" which are collections of individual legal parcels owned by many different parties. For list-articles, though, I am okay with districts not being included in the title. In the intro text of the list-articles, though, I would want to see upfront clarification that districts are meant to be included, as done by the South Carolina DAH in their intro which was previously discussed, acknowledging that the title imperfectly describes the contents of the list. doncram (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can happily support "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places." Doncram's reasons for including the "List of" wording make sense to me. List article intros could quote or paraphrase an official NRHP definition of "properties", which include "districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture."[2] --Orlady (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Although I still don't completely grasp the objection to the current phrase (and am smarting some from the implication that I'm "intellectually sloppy" and lazy), I have no objection to "Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" (with or without "List of" on the front end). --Sanfranman59 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, "Properties on the National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin. Either one is fine. All I really care about is getting the official terminology, National Register of Historic Places, into the article names, regardless of what words come before or after that. Motorrad-67 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll go along with "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places." It may be wordy but it's grammatical and accurate. (IMHO, "in Wisconsin" belongs after properties, not after Places.) We've wasted enough time and energy on this. It's time to reach consensus and get 'er done. clariosophic (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

... and the titles will be even longer for the county- and city/town-specific lists ... "List of properties in Fond Du Lac County, Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" --Sanfranman59 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the discussion has turned in the right direction towards consensus. I am fine with either the "Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" or adding the "List of" prefix. By the way, the Wisconsin county is Fond du Lac with the lower case "du". The wording may be more difficult, but it's at least consistent with the official source. It's great to have these lists with a spot open for photographs so photographers know what needs to be taken. I know I've taken dozens of pictures of Wisconsin properties and I'm planning to take some more tomorrow! Royalbroil 03:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My proposal

Having come late to this discussion, and reading over again what the NPS said to me in email below, I really think "National Register of Historic Places listings in ..." would be the best overall to use:

• The word "list" is in there, making it obvious to any reader that it's a list article.
• The full term "National Register of Historic Places" is as well.
• By avoiding the beginning "List of ..." it isn't constrained into awkward phrasing afterwards.
• "Listings" rather than "properties" seems to comport with NPS's desire that people not think the federal government owns these places. It also seems like a more intuitive way to account for districts, since "properties" in this context is jargon that doesn't quite mean in the real world what it means in the Register.
• Categories and lists could take the same name, solving a problem that (to me) the other solutions never did.
• It's shorter and more elegant overall than any "List of ..." construction could be.

So, the only remaining issue would be what to rename the topical categories (stuff like "X-related Registered Historic Places") I would propose that these could easily become: "X-related National Register of Historic Places listings").

Any thoughts here? Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Royalbroil 03:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it best...it's a little less wordy, and it makes the main focus of the title the National Register instead of the place. Lvklock (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See National Register of Historic Places listings in Albany County, New York for a test of how this looks. Seems okay to me. Other comments on the format/presentation/intro of that article, the first alphabetically in New York State, would be welcomed. doncram (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As a general matter of group process, I'm still a little wary of this proposal, as in other settings I have seen groups stampeded to accept the last new proposal in cases when it wasn't the best, but the last one in just avoided the scrutiny applied to previous ones. This proposal fails to meet Appraiser's concern for avoiding "Places listings". How does it work for the related titles and categories. Does it go with:

• Category and list title:"Transportation-related National Register of Historic Places listings in New York"?
• Category and list title:"Bridges and tunnels on the National Register of Historic Places in New York" or "Bridge and tunnel listings on the National Register of Historic Places in New York"?
• other titles and category names needed? doncram (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Don's link to the modified Albany County article, and I think it looks fine. Cbl62 (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have gotten split, and I think I wasn't very clear when I flip flopped. There is discussion both above and below the What the NPS Said section. My final decision is that I prefer "National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin" I did not like "NRHP properties", but the listings doesn't bother me, and it is both more concise than "Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" and puts the main focus earlier in the name. If more people prefer the latter, I can live with it. Lvklock (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What the NPS said

Near the end of the previous discussion, I mentioned that I had emailed the NR info people. I heard back from them in late August but was traveling and not really in the mood to have to devote limited time to a discussion that, at that time, was petering out as Don noted.

In light of this discussion I have been asked to post what I got. It doesn't really provide any clear direction,(another reason I didn't post it), but maybe it can guide our thinking further:

Usually we state a site is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (e.g. the Winchester Mystrey House in San Jose, California, listed in the National Register of Historic Places, was built by the widow of the owner of the Winchester Rifle Company.). You also come across" National Register Properties", but this can be somewhat misleading, since some people assume the National Register owns or regulates these properties. This is a common error, as well as the laws the federal government has regulating the listed sites, which are often assumed to be strong. Actually, they are stronger on the local level (State, County or City) in general.

On our webpage we do include the phrase "National Register properties."

You can use "Listings in the National Register include..." (e.g. Listings in the National Register include many sites associated with the history of air flight in the United States). Alternatively, "Listed Places" or "Historic places listed in the National Register..."

My reading would be that some derivative of "list" is the place to start. But if anyone can make a stronger argument for, say, "properties" based on this, I'm open to hearing it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel, for asking the question and sharing the answer. That's a typical government answer for you. I'm more familiar with HUD publications, but apparently the NPS went to the same non-answer school as HUD! Anyway, though the current names don't bother me, I guess I see the value of having the entire "National Register of Historic Places" in the title as Motorrad wants and I see the value of explicitly stating it's a list. I still don't particularly like making things wordier, but I'll go along with "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places." Lvklock (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Daniel's suggestion above the best. Lvklock (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Properties" works for me. But, all I really care about is getting the official terminology, National Register of Historic Places, into the article names, regardless of what words come before or after that. I also would like to see something along this line started now. Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we have enough consensus for this: List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places to go ahead with it. I count favorable response to this from

1. Appraiser
2. Lvklock
3. Motorrad
4. Royalbroil
5. clariosophic
6. Sanfranman59
7. Orlady

Although it's not 100% consensus, I think it has the most support. Is there anyone who can't live with this?--Appraiser (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Whew! Can we now proceed to make this change in articles?????????

Impatient? Who? Me? Motorrad-67 (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have gotten split, and I think I wasn't very clear when I flip flopped. There is discussion both above and below the What the NPS Said section. My final decision is that I prefer "National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin" I did not like "NRHP properties", but the listings doesn't bother me, and it is both more concise than "Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" and puts the main focus earlier in the name. If more people prefer the latter, I can live with it. Lvklock (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting confusing having discussions taking place in more than one place under the main heading. I suggest that new messages be added to the bottom (i.e. here). I also prefer the shorter "National Register of Historic Places listing in Wisconsin", but won't object to "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" (nor would I object to just leaving things as they are, but that appears to be a dead horse at this point). --Sanfranman59 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Sanfranman59 said. Cbl62 (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Your points are noted, but the discussion is already moved on to the next section below. doncram (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to remerge discussion

How about using List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places for the list title, and National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin for the corresponding category? I somewhat prefer that, as the latter seems to be the best category name available and this serves to identify the list as a list. Call this combo A.

Combo B is list title same as category title: National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin. doncram (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Combo A works for me. --Orlady (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Combo B, but don't object to A. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Combo B, but don't object to A. (Is there an echo in here ;) ) Lvklock (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose Combo C: List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places for the list title, and Category:Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places for the category. This avoids the awkward grammatical structure of Places listings. clariosophic (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I still like National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin. But I won't quibble. Let's just do something to remedy the situation! Motorrad-67 (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to also think of those that stumble upon Wikipedia for the first time and have no idea what a "National Register of Historic Places" is. I like the Combo C; it's wordy, but helpful. Anyway, regardless, I'll go along with the consensus. Pick something. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am with you. Pick something! Motorrad-67 (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Drumroll... Let me try to state a compromise, possible consensus: The compromise and consensus decision is the above-discussed Option A: List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places for the list title, and National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin for the category title. This reflects both of the current semi-consensus views. Also, and relatedly, it accomodates extensions like category "X-related National Register of Historic Places listings", and it leaves open either type of title for any new, narrowly specialized lists of X-related NRHP properties and districts. Option B is presumably what Daniel Case (with support of Lvklock and Sanfranman59 and Cbl62) prefers and has the advantage of avoiding awkwardness about properties vs. districts, and that is used in the option A category names, which Daniel hopefully agrees is the most important. Option C is what Appraiser and Clariosophic prefer and has the advantage of avoiding awkwardness of "Places listings", and that is used in Option A list titles, which they hopefully agree is the most important. And Option A is what Orlady and I prefer. Option A is also entirely consistent with Appraiser's assertion of the consensus, listing 7 supporters, which focused on the list title only. Finally, Motorrad should be thrilled, because it is a decision, any decision. :) That's it, my stab at stating consensus, which i believe is the best compromise, in part because it is a compromise and gives something for everyone participating at least in the latest rounds of this discussion. Of course i have no more standing than anyone else to state this, so feel free to rip this apart or to state a different summary. doncram (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OK with me. Lvklock (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

See List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places and List of properties in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places, for how this looks. doncram (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I did this one: List of properties in Dane County, Wisconsin, on the National Register of Historic Places. Remember to put the comma after the state's name. I didn't do that at first and had to fix it. Also, there is "registered historic places" language at the start of the article that needs to be fixed. Motorrad-67 (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at these, and I guess i agree that the extra comma is needed, I am more inclined to change my mind --oh no!-- and prefer B. As has been noted, it is shorter and avoids properties vs. districts. I didn't appreciate before that for the county ones, it requires only one comma, not two: National Register of Historic Places listings in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. I hate to flip flop after trying to state a consensus/compromise; would someone else like to try? doncram (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I still prefer National Register of Historic Places in Dane County, Wisconsin, but go along with others just to get some sort of fix in place. Motorrad-67 (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"National Register of Historic Places listings in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin" makes sense to me -- it avoids the extra comma and the meaning is pretty darn clear. --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(Eleven colons! Is that a record?) Good, Orlady. Let's do it! Motorrad-67 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As Don has properly read me, I prefer B. Per Motorrad, we MUST do whatever the NPS says we should do, and their email makes it very clear that they prefer not using the word "properties" if they don't have to. So we don't have to either. It would hardly be the first instance of a list and category sharing a name. Daniel Case (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I noted my earlier feelings above, but they're not particularly strong. Other than the fact that I have to say, we don't have to do anything the NPS says. Our article titles should be based on reliable, published sources, and whatever the most common way these things are referred to in those sources. Email from the NPS is original research pretty much to the letter. That said, I don't think this matters a whole heck of a lot. --IvoShandor (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's true that while we don't have to do it directly because the NPS says so, we have to do it because our naming conventions tell us to avoid neologisms, and "Registered Historic Places", as useful as it is, is currently a neologism phrase that the NPS prefers not to use. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with "nationally-registered historic places". It's a phrase with a clear meaning, since there's (I believe) only one national agency that registers historic places. --NE2 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So that is somehow not awkward English, yet the two-syllable "duplex" is? I really wonder why I have ever defended you in RFCs sometimes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Here's the count I come up with.

Option A - 1 Orlady

Option B - 7 Cbl62, Daniel Case, doncram, lvklock, Motorrad-67, Royalbroil, Sanfranman59

Option C - 3 Appraiser, clariosophic, Einbierbitte

No change - 1 IvoShandor

"nationally-registered historic places" - 1 NE2

I think that leaves us with National Register of Historic Places listings in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin for list titles and categories. Lvklock (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I still believe we could have different naming conventions for the (1) state lists and (2) county and city lists. "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" is excellent for the state lists, and the Fond du Lac version can be used at the city and county level, but "listings" is OK for all versions. --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to chime in late on this, but having just come across this discussion, I feel obliged to point out that National Register of Historic Places listings... is redundant-- a "Register" is a "list" or "listing". So I would leave "listings" out, leaving National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin, short and sweet, as proposed by Motorrad-67, above. It was objected that readers who didn't know what the NRHP was would be confused, but then all of the proposed names would share that difficulty; article titles can't explain the subject-- that's what the article is for.

And "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" is doubly redundant: list/register and properties/places. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the second point, but I think you are being too inflexible on the first. "National Register of Historic Places" by itself can only, IMO, refer to the entire list/register; "listings" makes it clear that it's partitioned locally by city, county or whatever. It would be like saying "Federal Bureau of Investigation in Buffalo, New York", instead of what we have, which is FBI Buffalo Field Office. And most people don't draw the connection between "list" and "register" right away, given that in the former instance that's the predominant of a couple of meanings, whereas in the latter it's one of several, and not the one that comes first to everyone's mind (You don't make a shopping register, do you?)

Look, we have to think of whatever we come up with, at least for categories, passing a CfD, which is the next step. The regulars there will evaluate a proposed renaming from the standpoint of the entire community and existing Wikipedia policy, rather than just this project. They may well insist on using some noun and keeping "National Register of Historic Places" as an adjectivally-used noun phrase. I would hate for us to get sent back to the drawing board without considering how it will be evaluated at CfD. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see the point of "listing". I think I'd prefer "entries in X" to "listings in X", but I could live with either. BTW, "properties" has an additional problem in that it isn't a good fit for district entries.-- Mwanner | Talk 17:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes! — National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin works just fine, as does National Register of Historic Places in Dane County, Wisconsin. As you said, "short and sweet." Definitely my personal preference. But, as I have said repeatedly, I am flexible and just hoping for a broadly acceptable "fix." Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it's time to declare consensus and push forward with names in the form National Register of Historic Places listings in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin (including National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin). This isn't everyone's first choice, but I believe that everyone who has commented here is OK with it. --Orlady (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Lvklock (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto Einbierbitte (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree I think following "Places" with listings sounds terrible. List of National Register of Historic Places in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin solves that problem, conveying the same information using exactly one fewer character. I can't relate to editors prefering the awkward wording.--Appraiser (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think several of us would object strenuously to that choice (and, in fact, have already done so, in one form or another). The problem is that "National Register of Historic Places" is a singular noun referring to a list. It does not refer to the individual items on the list, but rather to the whole list. As a result "List of National Register of Historic Places" parses to "List of list." --Orlady (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to you suggestion which parses to "list listings". That would bring me back to the earlier suggestion that received quite a bit of support, List of properties in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places.--Appraiser (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Items on the National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin",..alternatively, "National Register of Historic Places inventory items in Wisconsin" ..this seems to be consistent with the NRHP using the terminology of calling it an "Inventory Nomination Form". ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I could be on board with either of these too.--Appraiser (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Support this wording as the best possible compromise. Let's take it to CfD now. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - I've been following this thread for the most part. I gave myself time to get used to the "listings" and it still catches my eye in a bad way. I actually prefer what I'd call D, from (User:Motorrad-67) eg: National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin and National Register of Historic Places in Dane County, Wisconsin dm (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"And the beat goes on" — Motorrad-67 (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. List of entries on the register of the National Register of Historic Places nominated and then registered and entered on the register's listings in Fond du Lac County, State of Wisconsin, U. S. A.

Sorry. I couldn't resist. — Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Listings", pro and con

"Listing" is not preferable. The article subjects themselves aren't listings but there are listings associated with them. Listings are "writings"....see this definition; either #2 or #4 would be plausible for our context. People also have listings associated with them..like an entry in a phonebook, but I can't imagine that any kind of "listing" would be used in a category about people who are article subjects. ("Hall of Fame Listing"?) A property listing is the actual writing entry on the list and not the item itself. Listing is also a short form for the more proper "property listing". ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your last sentence negated your entire argument. This is a point of extreme semanticism that will be lost on 99.9% of readers. The fact is that a "register" is, as noted above, a list (a la the Social Register) and it's a fitting and proper term. We cannot use "property", since as noted it's a rather poor term to apply to historic districts, which are often collections of properties. The NPS's own page uses "list", "listing", "listed". Including this: "Included among the over 80,000 listings that make up the National Register are ...". I think if it's good enough for them it's good enough for us (the many mistaken addresses and typoes in the database notwithstanding, of course). Daniel Case (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood me and I can see where I wasn't clear. "Listed" is preferable to "Listing"..and it is more noticeable than you think...this is from the return correspondence you received above..."Alternatively, 'Listed Places' or 'Historic places listed in the National Register...'" I'm not suggesting the precise phrase here but that this is a better grammar form (using "Listed" rather than "Listing" in whatever combination would be preferable) That is what I'm saying. If you re-read my comments above, you will see that I'm not contradicting myself. The same grammar problem may be seen in this example ..."Entry in the NRHP..." or "Entered in the NRHP". An Entry is a piece of writing, the subject of an article is not itself an entry but it is entered on the register. I tried to add to my comments earlier and WP gave me a proxy error followed by a "503 forbidden" and I lost those comments..then had to leave and just getting back to addressing this. My apologies for not being clear. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that this is part of the NRHP name notwithstanding, "listed places" is not good terminology for these titles because many of the entities on the NRHP are not places (for example, trains and ships). --Orlady (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Listed Places" would be as neologistic as the term we're trying to replace, plus within the context of Wikipedia it creates confusion with listed buildings in Great Britain. And within the context of a list article, I don't see a problem with using "listing", because after all it is a list that would give a property/district's name, photo, ID number, and a short statement of significance. The actual article linked then describes the property in more detail, and does not refer to it as a "listing".

Look, it's not our fault that the NPS never considered the idea of someone outside of themselves compiling this and indexing it in ways they never have to, much less having to do so in an international context. "Listings" is the best we can come up with ... I would prefer not to break up the name of the Register in titles because that might create confusion (there's more than enough mangling of its name out there), especially if there's some other National Register in the U.S. or elsewhere out there. (Actually, there is. And if you don't think we don't have trees on the NRHP, think again. And there's private things like this)

"Listings" in this sense seems to be how the state of Ohio does it "Search this database of all Ohio listings in the National Register of Historic Places" (And here's Maryland not quite being sure of this ... note difference between what it says in the title bar and what it says on the actual page). Daniel Case (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone like entries as a substitute for listings? Properties (of all kinds) are entered on the register. -- Mwanner | Talk 11:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we discussed that a long time ago and nobody particularly liked it. It doesn't seem to be in use anywhere. Daniel Case (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I like "entries" o.k., on a par with all the other choices that have been presented. However, nothing I have seen yet is superior to National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin. But I have thrown in the towel on this matter and acquiesce to what is nominally termed the "consensus." — Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's try punctuation:

OK, folks who don't like National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin object that a reader could think that it was an entity in itself. How about National Register of Historic Places: Wisconsin? Those who don't like National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin object to the "Places listings" part. How about National Register of Historic Places: listings in Wisconsin? An emdash could substitute for the colon (and I still prefer "entries" to "listings", but let it pass). -- Mwanner | Talk 11:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the first one you've stated could be a good fit..⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"National Register of Historic Places — Wisconsin"       That lights my fire!

Also, "National Register of Historic Places — Dane County, Wisconsin" — Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not

See, first, this, first of all, and I also think WP:MOSDASH rather suggests against it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your first cite refers to not using non-alpha characters for emphasis so it doesn't apply here since that isn't how the dash is used and the second cite suggests that we use an En dash (–) as opposed to a literal "-"...but seems to indicate that it is perfectly alright to do what has been suggested.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt this sort of title would pass at FLC. Every other list title somehow manages to do it without using punctuation marks to do what a preposition should. And I feel this has the same underlying issue that "NRHP in PLACE" does: it's like saying "Federal Bureau of Investigation — Buffalo, New York" instead of "FBI Buffalo Field Office".

Basically, it's too subtle for an effectively communicative title. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

How about "Entries"?

I've mostly tried to avoid this conversation, and can't remember if this suggestion has been put forward yet or not, but how about Entries in Washington on the National Register of Historic Places? It gets rid of the "properties" issues, is proper English, has no punctuation, and doesn't look like the whole thing is a proper noun. Murderbike (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Then that would be Entries in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, on the National Register of Historic Places, etc. for county and city listings. That looks pretty good, offhand, to me. Again I would want to be careful about leaping to a new option which hasn't stood up to the scrutiny the other proposals have undergone. doncram (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I like this.--Appraiser (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it, too. It is clear and as concise as we can get it. I say, "Get'r done" 4.130.152.19 (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I probably supported "entries" at one time or another, but now I find it unclear. In this context, I think "entries" could be misunderstood as referring either to (1) the physical act of entering a building or place or (2) the entryway or door to a building or place. --Orlady (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is definitely why I tried to stay out of this conversation, but by this logic, "Listings" could be problematic because someone might think that it refers to ships listing to one side or the other. Can we assume that our readers are total morons? Murderbike (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What the hell was wrong with listings? In looking through the state SHPO websites, it seems to be the most common term, it's analogous to its use by real estate agents, and we've already come to a consensus on it.

And there's the Google results:

• "National Register of Historic Places"+listings: 170,000 Google hits.
• "National Register of Historic Places"+entries: 80,600 Google hits. And look how most of the top hits are us or mirror sites. IDaniel Case (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, there was a consensus, except not everyone endorsed that consensus. And for the record, I was against it, before I was for it, before i was against it, or the other way around. Semi-seriously, how about NRHP listings in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin? Yes it is an acronym, but there are 9,000 google hits, and climbing, on "NRHP listings". It's short. It uses "listings", which some like. It avoids "Places listings", which others want. How much grief would we adopted that? doncram (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

* I'm ok with that, it avoids the dreaded "places listings" dm (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please let's not use that acronym. 9,000 Ghits hardly indicates the kind of universal recognizability that an acronym should have to be used in a page title. Compare the 2,060,000 Ghits for "NASA images" -- that's the kind of recognizability you want to see for an acronym that is used in a page name. --Orlady (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

“Hmm, yes, there was a consensus, except not everyone endorsed that consensus.”

If “everyone” is the standard, there will never be “consensus.” — Motorrad-67 (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If "consensus" was equivalent to "universal agreement", we wouldn't have AfD or DRV, only speedies. Can we initiate a mass move to "National Register of Historic Places listings in Podunk County, Foo" now? Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Daniel. I have been doing this slowly as time and motivation permits. Have changed Wisconsin and Arizona and several counties in each of those states, though I have more counties to do. I suggest others get to work as well! Motorrad-67 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And I appreciate that. However, I want to make sure nobody goes off and does it their way. I started editing at WP:USRD on the tail end of this mess, and I don't want that happening here. Daniel Case (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, sure, but a snippet of that ArbComm decision reads:

"Making arbitrary decisions

9) When an arbitrary decision is called for, it should be made by those users and administrators in a position to do so. Sometimes any decision is better than no decision.

Passed 7 to 1 at 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Accepting an arbitrary decision

10) When an arguably arbitrary decision has been made, unless there is a substantial basis for changing it, the decision should be accepted."

(Emphasis added). -- Mwanner | Talk 15:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get the point. But I will feel comfortable when I know no one else is going off on a different page (so to speak). Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a followup: I've begun doing this to the NY counties now. Can this be done with AWB, or if not can a bot do it? Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot answer your question, but it is a good one. What I have been doing is changing one or two counties a day in Wisconsin. Not all 72 counties have separate pages, thank heavens. Arizona had only a few separate counties, so I changed them some time ago. I will continue patiently with Wisconsin until it is done. Then I might tackle another state (perhaps one with fewer separate county pages!). If everyone would tackle a state and identify it here, the work could be done in time. Motorrad-67 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But remember we have routinely peeled off lists for larger communities if they could stand on their own ... Manhattan alone is covered by four or five separate articles. So we have to go for cities (cf., for example National Register of Historic Places listings in Poughkeepsie, New York) as well. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

final decision for now

Some have been implementing renamings for state and county lists to the "National Register of Historic Places listings in ____" format. Everyone involved majorly in the discussions must have been noticing; no one is objecting. (Except i objected to some mistakes in that, just now, now being fixed.) To try to put a final coda on it, that seems to be the decision, although it should be acknowledged that it was not a unanimous consensus. This is a small point, but I suggest that edit summaries of renames mention to "per renaming decision at wt:NRHP", rather than asserting there was a consensus. doncram (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was a superplurality of editors for the new nomenclature; if that were the spread of an AfD, I'd close it with consensus. The policy page on consensus doesn't require any formal procedure, much less a closure. And in fact, I think a couple of times I or someone else asked if we were all ready to go, only to have someone else pop up with a new idea that we then had to discuss a bit. And after a couple of days when no one had posted any further complaint or comment, and Fwgoebel then posted that excerpt from that old ArbCom ruling, I decided we had to start (since no continuing objections had been reached), and apparently I wasn't the only one.

We could have started this as early as Appraiser's totaling up of the numbers on 9/19. I held off doing so because I wanted to make sure everyone who didn't had a chance to voice any concern that might not have been previously raised. That, to me, is part of getting consensus.

Look, Don, I know how you feel ... I've been on your end of that stick a few times too. It doesn't feel good but the best thing to do is move on. We still have lots of great work we can do whatever we call the articles and categories. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're mixing us up. Appraiser's assessment on 19th Sept was that there was consensus for List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places. I ended up agreeing on the "National Register of Historic Places listings in ___" format. Appraiser and some others are the ones whom you must have meant to address. doncram (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right; I meant Lvklock's count on 9/20. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been making state changes slowly — Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, Wisconsin, Maine, etc. Twice my fat fingers hit a key in "move" before I was ready and I screwed it up. My latest boo-boo was Vermont, which is largely repaired, but "history" was lost. Perhaps someone can fix that because I do not know how.

How do we get the map in List of National Register of Historic Places entries updated? I have been updating the states list below it as I go along, but I do not know how to do the map. Motorrad-67 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that anyone cares, but I still strongly object to this "consensus"—particularly following "Places" immediately with "listings". I will not be a part of implementing that absurd twisting of English. Several acceptable alternatives were suggested, but a small number of people seem to be hell-bent on getting their way. I am not going to lose sleep over it however, because I am absolutely sure that eventually (probably when you are 75% through renaming stuff) enough people will notice and we'll restart the discussion. Feel free to waste your time however you care to.--Appraiser (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot disagree. I still prefer National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin. Simple and clear. But I was in a tiny minority and wanted to get rid of the made-up "registered historic places." Alas, my genius is not always recognized and appreciated. If, at some distant day, it is, all we would need to do is delete "listings" Motorrad-67 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to Motorrad: To modify the map, edit Template:National Register Of Historic Places Map.--Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

After all the effort that went into this centralized discussion of article names, I was surprised (and, frankly, disappointed) to see that List of National Register of Historic Places entries was renamed to United States National Register of Historic Places listings without the rename proposal being mentioned on this page. As I have stated at Talk:United States National Register of Historic Places listings, the name "List of National Register of Historic Places entries" was not necessarily ideal, but the unnecessary disambigation supplied by inserting "United States" in front of "National Register of Historic Places" is uncalled for. --Orlady (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Alabama and all of the individual county lists are moved, leads updated, article links updated. But someone may want to spot check behind me. ;) Altairisfar_talk 21:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)