Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 31

Combined NRHP - Lighthouse Template

I have reopened this question on the Lighthouse Project talk page. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Referencing various NRIS sources

I've been questioned on the correctness of our common usage of the nris reference in Elkman-based infoboxes, e.g. as in Garfield_School (Brunswick, New_York). Wadester16 points out to me that "the link, though, doesn't really offer the information cited", which is true.

The nris reference used (<ref name="nris">{{cite web|url=http://www.nr.nps.gov/|title=National Register Information System|date=2009-03-13|work=National Register of Historic Places|publisher=National Park Service}}</ref>) is in fact what has been used for info from the NRIS download that User:Elkman serves up. It is the reference suggested in Elkman output. Wadester is correct, though, that the National Register's own interface does not give access to all the info in their own database, in particular not to certain fields included in Elkman's interface. It would perhaps be better if we specifically referenced the Elkman download in a different way than has been practice.

There are several major interfaces to NRIS data which should perhaps be cited differently:

• the Elkman interfaces which use the March 13, 2009 NRIS download. This provides info like alternate names which does not appear in the NRIS interface
• the NRHP.COM interface, which has at least one known systematic error in it (the factor of ten error in historic district sizes), and which may or may not have been updated for the March 13, 2009 NRIS download. Currently the NRHP.COM interface is the only one providing numbers of contributing and non-contributing properties in historic districts, and the only one providing historic district sizes (off by a factor of 10).
• the National Register's traditional NRIS interface, at http://www.nr.nps.gov
• the Focus system , at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do?searchtype=natreghome which is supposedly being developed.
• Also there are state-specific versions.

Actually i think we should specifically cite the interface that we have actually used in getting information, which would often involve crediting Elkman's system more specifically than has been our practice. Others' thoughts? doncram (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Relatedly, Dtbohrer was just recently suggesting linking to the Focus system for some articles. It is great that the National Register is scanning more NRHP application documents and making them available through that system. But try searching on "Garfield School" there, and u can see it is a mess. If u can find your way to the New York one of the Garfield Schools you get to a point where there is a bad link to the NRHP document which is not scanned, not available, but shows there as if it is available. And it has had many other problems, such as erroneously labelling all documents and photos as being "Public domain" when only some of them are. I wouldn't want to be referring wikipedia readers to that interface currently, personally, unless it is actually the interface that i used in getting some piece of data. Note, it does not have the basic descriptive fields available in the Elkman interface. doncram (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've linked to the Focus photo archive at Bar B C Dude Ranch thus:

• Photographs of the Bar B C at the National Park Service's NRHP database

in order to lead readers to something visual, in despair at finding anything that can be included directly. However, given that the NPS is misrepresenting the images as PD when most of them are not, this could conceivably be construed as linking to a site that violates WP copyright policy, although I think it's a stretch. Acroterion _(talk) 20:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If the NRHP official site would actually work I might use it more often. Almost every time I try to search for a location I get a rotten error message, so I have to resort to the NRHP.com website. Unforunatley, I tried to find The Old 76 House on that website and they didn't have it. If the feds have it on their website, they sure as hell can't tell me. ----DanTD (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability question

I am unfamiliar with this project. I stumbled across Sudbury Center Historic District and my first reaction was, shouldn't this be merged into Sudbury, Massachusetts? I know that lots of historic places would not otherwise be captured in detail if they were just merged into a parent article, but in this case, wouldn't a lot of the information (should this ever be more than a stub) be redundant to info that could also easily be in the larger article? As a subheading-and not even a long one-for example? I'm wondering what the rationale is on a situation like this. Thanks! Surfer83 (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I share your concern, but I hasten to point out that my point of view is not shared by several of the Wikiproject's most active participants.

It has been convincingly argued that every individual property listed on the National Register has received sufficient documentation that it can be assumed to be notable. As a result, articles can be written about each of the buildings and properties on the National Register.

Unfortunately, this reasonable argument has been interpreted (distorted, in my opinion) by some participants as implying a corollary that says that there must necessarily be a one-to-one correspondence between National Register listings and Wikipedia articles. In the case of historic districts, this unstated corollary has become a source of controversy. Many historic districts are created for towns, villages, town centers, neighborhoods, school campuses, and other entities that are themselves notable topics for Wikipedia articles, but some active NRHP project participants are adamant that the NRHP-list historic district requires its own stand-alone article (even if that article is a useless stub like Sudbury Center Historic District) unless and until it can be demonstrated that the scope of the historic district is substantially identical to the scope of the entity covered in the other article. See Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut, Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Rhode Island, Talk:Norris, Tennessee, and other talk pages cited on those pages for some examples of recent confrontations over this philosophy. --Orlady (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the context.Surfer83 (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Way to go, Orlady, how to drive off a potentially interested participant by bringing out dirty laundry! Yes, there has been disagreement over a number of NRHP-listed historic districts, although I disagree with Orlady's characterization of it. I am on the side of supporting any wikipedia editor who wishes to get valid sources and develop articles on these wikipedia-notable districts. I am perhaps adamant on the point that bullying by certain editors to force uncomfortable mergers with unfocused town articles, preventing interested people from working on developing well-sourced historic district articles, should not be tolerated. To Surfer83, if you would nonetheless be interested in developing the Sudbury Center Historic District article, I and other WikiProject NRHP members who actually like working on NRHP articles would be glad to help with sources and otherwise. doncram (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Doncram, the user did not express an interest in converting that stub into a complete article about the historic district. The user said: "I stumbled across Sudbury Center Historic District and my first reaction was, shouldn't this be merged into Sudbury, Massachusetts?" --Orlady (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Doncram: Why do you consider pointing out that an issue is "controversial" the same as "airing dirty laundry"? Bms4880 (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To Orlady, I did not say the user had expressed that. I suggested he/she was a potentially interested participant. On the facts of the case asked about, I think it would have been better to say something like, "Hey, that's a reasonable concern. The consensus that has emerged, however, is that NRHP HD articles are generally deemed wikipedia notable, and at least if their area is not substantially the same as an existing town/village article, it is usually accepted that they can usefully have a separate article. In this case, a few minutes browsing can establish that the Sudbury Center has area of about 1/3 square mile, while the town of Sudbury has an area of about 25 square miles. So they are very different. It would be good to have a link from the Sudbury town article to the Sudbury Center HD article, though." And leave it pretty much that way.

To Bms4880, by dirty laundry, I referred to the kind of bickering that is perhaps starting up again here, and which is exemplified in the Talk:Norris, Tennessee and other Talk pages pointed to. In broad terms, bickering that includes use of sarcasm, insults, and overstatements or other sorts of apparently deliberate misrepresentations, and badgering of others. I am not going to point out specific examples. I'm sure reasonable people could find fault with some of my statements in those pages too. Anyhow those pages are awfully unpleasant reading, showing great evidence of bad faith, poor communication skills, and otherwise, and they are not among this WikiProject's greatest works. I am not saying to avoid mentioning controversy, but you don't have to trot out, immediately, more than many persons are likely to be able to stand. :) doncram (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Doncram, note that I said: "It has been convincingly argued that every individual property listed on the National Register has received sufficient documentation that it can be assumed to be notable. As a result, articles can be written about each of the buildings and properties on the National Register."

That's fine. I have to cut up your words to point out where, after that, I think you are wrong. doncram (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As I further stated, the issue I have had is that I do not believe that there is consensus with your view that it logically follows that there must necessarily be a one-to-one correspondence between National Register listings and Wikipedia articles,

That is not my view, and you know it, or should know it. doncram (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

nor that every NRHP-listed historic district requires its own stand-alone article unless and until it is convincingly demonstrated that the scope of the historic district is substantially identical to the scope of the entity covered in the other article.

That is not my view, and you know it, or should know it. It is a different thing, when I say I wish to support others who want to write a wikipedia article on a NRHP HD, and they should not be bullied by others who have no sources and have done no meaningful research into mergers with bogus village-type articles. Read what I say, this is different. doncram (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've pretty much given up trying to engage in discussion with you on this matter, but that does not mean I am going to parrot nonsense on your behalf. --Orlady (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, don't present nonsense, but don't characterise my views. You have done that many times previously and you have often gotten it wrong. It must be frustrating for you, if you are convinced in your head that i must have unreasonable views, when i do not hold those unreasonable views. doncram (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Also, I do wish you would stop with the insults and personal type attacks, Orlady. I think it is pretty obviously meant to be insulting to term what I wrote further above as "nonsense". The main point relevant here is that the Sudbury Center Historic District is pretty obviously very different from Sudbury, Massachusetts. If you want to say that is nonesense, then take it to AFD and your view will be rejected, I am pretty sure. Or take it anywhere else. This WikiProject is hurt by your personally toned attacks towards me. I suppose it is also somewhat hurt by my responses, but I often feel that I do need to respond to your attacks. This kind of exchange is distasteful to many others present. I regret having this kind of exchange here. If you want to get in one more dig to have the last word, why don't you take a shot, and maybe i won't respond. doncram (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, doncram, I've never seen you engage in a single debate where you didn't complain about "personal attacks" and "tone" every other paragraph. How you've construed anything she has written in this section as a personal attack, I have no idea. She simply answered a user's question, and you flew off the handle. And as for sarcasm, I'm curious to know how you characterize the statement, "Way to go, Orlady..."? Were you congratulating her, or were you being sarcastic? Or do your rules of polite society not apply to you? Bms4880 (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bms4880, your critique of my comments here is noted. I can think of just two debates i was involved in where i know you were present, too. I found both of them very unpleasant and yes i did complain somewhat as I thought it was relevant, even important, to do so, in those contexts. Okay? Enough for now, for me. Thanks! doncram (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate to contribute to this, but man oh man I don't ever want to participate in this project if this is the level of the conversation. Surfer83 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

May I remind everyone involved that we're developing an encyclopedia here, and that the entire idea of a WikiProject is designed to get people to collaborate on articles and to improve coverage of subject areas within the encyclopedia? If this project, or the long-simmering arguments within it, have the effect of turning away new contributors, then the project is not improving the encyclopedia. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Surfer83, the project does not usually go down this path. The two valued contributors in question are unfortunately still working towards agreeing to disagree with each other, which is a real shame, since both of them have good intentions and bring value to the encyclopedia. If you are a new contributor, feel free to jump in, especially by creating new articles (ie: the dread redlinks). Anything that you need help on, pls feel free to ask. Not everything is a landmine like your first question, nor does the noise and light from the landmine have anything to do with you. IMHO dm (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, to provide a simple answer to the question: Sudbury's Historic Districts lists several other historic districts within the town: King Philip Historic District, Wayside Inn Historic Districts, and George Pitts Tavern Historic District. The Sudbury Center Historic District is not coterminous with the town. And the article on Sudbury Center Historic District, when it was created, should have included at least a little bit of context to tell the reader which parts of the village were included and why. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Birch Bayh Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse

The Birch Bayh Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse is up. I'm sure it needs a template and some evaluation. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, here's the Eldon B. Mahon United States Courthouse. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidate: First Roumanian-American congregation

First Roumanian-American congregation is a Featured Article Candidate. Comments welcome here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of Private Residences

Hello all, I'm newer to this project, so I hope this isn't already discussed elsewhere. I've been taking photos for NRHP pages in my local Boone County, Missouri area. Several of the sites are private residences. I talked to the homeowner of one of these sites and he didn't have a problem with me taking photos of his house or uploading them to the wiki commons. I've taken photographs of other houses from the street without talking to homeowners. I haven't yet used any of these. My question is, in cases of private residences, have you contacted the homeowners and asked permission to photograph their houses, or have you just taken some shots from the sidewalk and used them. Considering it may take some effort to figure out current owners and contact info, what's the right thing to do.

I would appreciate any thoughts on this. HornColumbia (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that Google Earth "Street View" now has a picture of most urban residences at this point, I don't have any issue (personally) with taking pictures of NRHP sites. Most of the articles I've written link to original documentation that includes photos, so there is usually an image already on the internet. I NEVER trespass on private property. If I cannot see a house from the street, no pic.--Pubdog (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken probably 100 pictures of residences and I haven't been worried. I agree about NEVER trespassing. My biggest concern is the rights of the architect. I dug around and found something that everyone should read. Please read http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States . Royalbroil 01:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can see it from the street, you have every right to take a picture and publish it in the United States. The only time I've asked permission was when I actually had to come onto the property to get the shot (and then only for properties that are visible, but not optimally photographable - no trespassing) and in general people have been happy to cooperate. If they agree, but seem reluctant, I've not uploaded the images. Speaking as an architect, anybody who wants to take a picture of one of my buildings and publish it is welcome to do so. I draw the line at copying the design for another building, but pictures are perfectly OK, especially if they send me a copy (we're always behind on our own photography). Acroterion _(talk) 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Period of Significance info

It came up in some CT NHRP related discussion, that stated "period of significance" information could be useful for some purposes. I don't have much expectation for it, but does anyone think it would it be useful to add Period of significance field to the NRHP infobox, and, if Elkman agrees, to have it included in Elkman-suggested infoboxes?

Background: I've often noticed the period of significance info that NRHP.COM provides. For one CT NHRP it gives "Period of Significance: 1700-1749, 1750-1799, 1800-1824, 1825-1849, 1850-1874, 1875-1899, 1900-1924, 1925-1949". But actually I don't get what that means, and in general I don't understand what is recorded for dates in the National Register's NRIS database. I have viewed the NRHP.COM's "Period of Significance" field information to be possibly unreliable, possibly an unjustified fabrication. Like there could be two significant dates given in two NRIS fields, such as one in 1705 and one in 1932, and then the the NRHP.COM programmer went on to set up wikipedia-like categories for date ranges of 25 years, and was without justification assuming that all the periods inbetween are significant. Also, I do not understand the correspondence between any date information in an NRHP document vs. what is shown for periods in the NRHP.COM. Unlike other fields like area and coordinates and name, there is no required field in NRHP applications for this information. Is there any way for an NRHP applicant to state that one period is significant, then a following period is not, then a later period is significant again? Nyttend noted to me that "I downloaded the main .dbf database, and its key-to-the-rest-of-the-files file notes that there's a "Period of Significance" column in one of the .dbf files. I don't have that .dbf for some reason (perhaps I deleted it by accident?), but at least I can tell you that the idea of "Period of Significance" is known by the NRIS."

Any comments? doncram (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that the entries in Michigan's Historic Sites Online also have a field for "period of significance," which I wondered about the...significance of, for lack of a better word. The Michigan information on "period of significance" seems to approximate, but not match, the information on NRHP.com. As a couple examples that I've recently worked on:

• Rock Harbor Light has a POS of 1826-1865 at Michigan's HSO and 1850-1874 and 1875-1899 at NRHP.com. (Rock Harbor Light was built in 1855, deactivated in 1859, relit in 1873, and deactivated for good in 1879.)
• Central Mine Methodist Church has a POS of 1866-1900 at Michigan's HSO and 1850-1874, 1875-1899 at NRHP.com. (The church was built in 1869 and closed a little after 1898.)
• US 41-Fanny Hooe Creek Bridge has a POS of 1928 at Michigan's HSO and 1925-1949 at NRHP.com. (The bridge was built in 1928 and has remained in use ever since.)

If I had to guess, I'd say the POS is distilled from dates in the original submission, more precisely by the Michigan site and less precisely at at NRHP.com. "Precise," however, is not necessarily "accurate," and it seems to me that the POS would be misleading without some context; the context would make the POS redundant. Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

From NRHP Bulletin 16A

PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE

Enter the dates for one or more periods of time when the property attained the significance qualifying it for National Register listing. Some periods of significance are as brief as a single year. Many, however, span many years and consist of beginning and closing dates. Combine overlapping periods and enter them as one longer period of significance.

DEFINITION OF PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE

Period of significance is the length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, or persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for National Register listing. Period of significance usually begins with the date when significant activities or events began giving the property its historic significance; this is often a date of construction. For prehistoric properties, the period of significance is the broad span of time about which the site or district is likely to provide information; it is often the period associated with a particular cultural group.

For periods in history, enter one year or a continuous span of years:

1928

1875 - 1888

For periods in prehistory , enter the range of time by millennia.

8000 - 6000 B.C.

Base the period of significance on specific events directly related to the significance of the property, for example, the date of construction for a building significant for its design or the length of time a mill operated and contributed to local industry.

Enter one period of significance in each blank on the form , placing the ones most important to the property first. Use a continuation sheet, if more space is needed. Complete this item for all properties, even if the period is less than one year.

GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING THE PERIODS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Criterion A : For the site of an important event, such as a pivotal five-month labor strike, the period of significance is the time when the event occurred. For properties associated with historic trends, such as commercial development, the period of significance is the span of time when the property actively contributed to the trend.

Criterion B : The period of significance for a property significant for Criterion B is usually the length of time the property was associated with the important person.

Criterion C : For architecturally significant properties, the period of significance is the date of construction and/or the dates of any significant alterations and additions.

Criterion D : The period of significance for an archeological site is the estimated time when it was occupied or used for reasons related to its importance, for example, 3000-2500 B.C.

ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES

The property must possess historic integrity for all periods of significance entered. Continued use or activity does not necessarily justify continuing the period of significance. The period of significance is based upon the time when the property made the contributions or achieved the character on which significance is based.

Fifty years ago is used as the closing date for periods of significance where activities begun historically continued to have importance and no more specific date can be defined to end the historic period. (Events and activities occurring within the past 50 years must be exceptionally important to be recognized as "historic" and to justify extending a period of significance beyond the limit of 50 years ago.)

SIGNIFICANT DATES

Enter the year of any events, associations, construction, or alterations qualifying the property for National Register listing or adding to its significance. A property may have several dates of significance; all of them, however, must fall within the periods ofsignificance. Enter one date in each blank, placing those most important to the property first. Use a continuation sheet for additional entries.

Some properties with a period of significance spanning many years may not have any specific dates of significance. In these cases, enter "N/A."

DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT DATE

A significant date is the year when one or more major events directly contributing to the significance of a historic property occurred. Examples include:

construction of an architecturally significant building opening of an important transportation route

alteration of a building that contributes to its architectural importance

residency of an important person

GUIDELINES FOR IDENTIFYING SIGNIFICANT DATES

The property must have historic integrity for all the significant dates entered. The beginning and closing dates of a period of significance are "significant dates" only if they mark specific events directly related to the significance of the property, for example, the date of construction that also marked the beginning of an important individual's residency, or the closing of a mine that ended a community's growth.

For a property significant for Criterion C, enter the date of the construction or alterations through which the property achieved its importance. Enter the dates of alterations only if they contribute to the property's significance.

For districts , enter construction dates of only those buildings that individually had an impact on the character of the district as a whole. Enter dates of events for which the district as a whole and not individual buildings is significant, for example, the opening of a trolley line that spurred a community's suburban development

Bulletin 16a Einbierbitte (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the NRHP nomination form has the period of significance in blocks of 25 years - so dates from 1866-1900 occupy these blocks on the nomination form: 1850-1874 and 1875-1899. Einbierbitte (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

NPS NRHP web pages

In case you were wondering, I received the following message from the NPS when I inquired about not being able to pull up pages on the NRHP website ...

"We are getting a new server later this week. The old one went out with a bang a week before we were to replace it.

"We are sorry for the difficulty this has caused you, and the public at large."

... and a few minutes later, I received this message ...

"An older version of our website is up now--I hope this helps."

--sanfranman59 (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Factor of 10 issue in NRHP HD areas

User:Orlady has identified a possibly-widespread issue of NRHP historic district (HD) areas being identified as 10x larger in area than they actually are. This comes up at Talk:Norris District in Tennessee, other NRHP HDs in Tennessee, and one or more NRHP HDs in Connecticut. I don't yet understand how there could be a 10x error in NRHP HD areas. Is this just limited to some programming error at NRHP.COM, a private site, or is there a fundamental NRHP's NRIS database error? The NRIS database interfaces are poor and don't reflect all that is available in the database download that Elkman and NRHP.COM rely upon. If there is a general, widespread error, this is important to understand. But since the Elkman NRHP infobox generator does not include an area field, this only will apply to relatively few NRHP HD articles, i believe. doncram (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I mean, few NRHP HD articles include any area figure. This edit by Orlady suggests factor of 10 errors in acreage can go either way. Still, is there an NRIS error or is this merely an NRHP.COM error? doncram (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the errors that I have seen are instances where the "NRIS" number is 10x higher than the area on the nom form. For example, Willington Common Historic District apparently is 19 acres but was listed in NRIS as 190 acres. I think that extra zeros were accidentally added in data entry or data transfer.

I currently can't access NRIS (due to software compatibility glitches, AFAICT), so I have been checking "NRIS" numbers at http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/. However, some of these HD articles have included acreage numbers for a pretty long time, typically inserted by dedicated participants in this wikiproject and cited to NRIS.

I currently believe the 10x error affects all HDs in Tennessee and possibly in Connecticut. Those are the only states I've looked at. I've reported a bunch of Tennessee examples on the "NRIS data issues" page. --Orlady (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The NRIS .mdb file available for download has acreages listed correctly to the first decimal point. It appears to be a systematic data transcription error by nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com. --Polaron | Talk 14:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Today I was able to access the NRIS web interface again, and I do not find acreages listed in the database entries for historic districts. Therefore, I am guessing that many of the HD acreages that are listed in articles and accompanied by a citation to NRIS were actually obtained from nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com. I guess it makes sense to treat acreage entries from that site as unreliable, and delete acreage entries from articles about HDs unless the source is clearly either (1) the actual NRIS database or (2) some reliable source other than nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com. --Orlady (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I just rechecked the spatial database (spatial.mdb), which contains the acreage for each property, against the acreage listed in the main database (the PROPMAIN table). It turns out that the acreage listed in PROPMAIN is a factor of 10 greater than the acreage listed in the spatial database. I then looked at the documentation (in the SCHEMA table) and the documentation for PROPMAIN.ACRE says: "< than 1 acre .9, decimal implied. Not computed with a GIS--you may want to." I think by "decimal implied", they're saying that there's supposed to be a decimal before the final digit. I think the acreage listed in the spatial database, or computed by taking PROPMAIN.ACRE divided by 10, is correct. For example, St. Croix Recreational Demonstration Area is listed as having 34047 acres (for its second listing under refnum 97001261), while the Minnesota DNR says it's over 34,000 acres. Itasca State Park is similar, with 32,690 acres as listed in the spatial database and over 32,000 acres as mentioned by the Minnesota DNR. I haven't done an exhaustive analysis of a lot of properties in different states, but it looks like nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com didn't catch the fact that the acreage listed in the PROPMAIN table should be divided by 10.

If anyone would like me to include the acreage in the infobox output (like on the left side, not the copy/paste text box), I can include that in my query. That might be more reasonable than trying to get it from nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com now that we know it's wrong. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the great explanation, Elkman! Yes, that would be very helpful if you could make it available with the NRHP infobox generator. If you're doing that, perhaps you could also add the number of buildings, structures, objects present? That has been another factoid that NRHP.COM has provided, along with the area, which has seemed worthwhile to look up there.

About the extent of factor of 10 error in wikipedia, I myself have only added in NRHP HD areas from NRHP.COM in cases in CT, RI, VT, recently, and I think i tried to footnote the NRHP.COM source for the area, directly, so it should not be hard to identify and fix those. For other HD articles I've contributed to, I've only added area from the NRHP application documents. So I am not aware of any big need to do a nation-wide cleanup on this. But, if one were to search the wikipedia articles, I wonder if that could be done using wp:AWB. How would one search for occurences of non-empty area fields in infoboxes, though? I don't know if a query can be composed that would look for that. doncram (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got AWB going and it is rigged to go through every article with an NRHP infobox and with the word "acre", while automatically skipping pages without the word "acre". It has so far has gone through 9,000 of the 19,000+ tranclusions. It turned up a likely error in Main Street Historic District (Danbury, Connecticut), listed with 470 acres (if someone else would like to confirm that this is error). Also, Rim Village Historic District with 380 acres and Cape May Historic District with 3,800. --​​​​D.B.^{talk•contribs} 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not sure how best to handle the factor of 10 error in articles. Certainly the erroneous info should be corrected. If the NRHP.COM source is cited in an article, that could be removed entirely if all info can be sourced from somewhere else. If the NRHP.COM source is needed, perhaps use a template describing the error? Am trying use now of a draft template, Template:Nrhpdotcom factorof10error, to state text that can be repeated within a parenthetical note in NRHP.COM footnotes. Example use in this version of Brookfield Center Historic District article. I think the existence of the error in the NRHP.COM source should be stated, but it is awkward that there is no other source available to describe the error. doncram (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks DTB for running AWB and finding those 3 instances. Based on the NRHP.COM source, I confirm those 3 are all errors and i have just now fixed/documented them. Are there others to address? doncram (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately there are others (she said with a sigh...). I have been running across articles that mention historic districts and include the areas of those HDs, but that don't have NRHP infoboxes containing that information. The only specific example I can point to right now is Rockville (Vernon), where I removed the acreage. --Orlady (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

state of art for NRHP.COM references

Because the NRHP.COM source is in fact the source for acreage of many NRHP HDs in articles, it should be credited. I suggest the current "state of the art" could be improved, but it is as in the current article for Wilder Village Historic District. It displays as: "^ "VERMONT - Windsor County - Historic Districts". NationalRegisterOfHistoricPlaces.Com, a private website reporting public domain National Register information (In 2009, the NationalRegisterOfHistoricPlaces.Com website reports areas of NRHP historic districts that are incorrect, larger by a factor of 10 than what the National Register's NRIS database reports, apparently due to a programming error at the private website)."

Ideally the long parenthetical could be edited down, but centrally in the template that generates that long phrase, not in each of dozens or hundreds of articles that use this source.

To apply in articles, copy-paste the following:
<ref name=nrhpdotcom>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/__ST__/__County__/districts.html |title=__State__ - ____ County - Historic districts |publisher=NationalRegisterOfHistoricPlaces.Com, a private website reporting public domain National Register information ({{nrhpdotcom factorof10error}}) }}</ref>
and then edit replace __ST__ by 2 letter state code, and otherwise fix State and County wording. doncram (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Where's the benefit in citing an inaccurate mirror of the NRIS database (plus a mini-essay on the shortcomings of the mirror) when the actual (and accurate) NRIS database can be cited? Make sure that the article doesn't contain any inaccurate acreage values (I've run across several today) and cite NRIS. --Orlady (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's basic: if a source is used it should be cited. If you have some different means of access to the NRIS database and that is what you use to get area information and you can explicitly cite it accurately, I would support that. If so, could you please share how you would do that? However, it is my impression that your own source is the NRHP.COM database. At this point, because there exist conflicting publicly available sources for the acreage of every NRHP HD, I think it is important to specifically footnote any acreage claim. doncram (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that you don't believe that the data have been checked against NRIS, Doncram? NRIS data are downloadable at http://www.nr.nps.gov/NRISGEO/spatial.mdb (but the file does require Microsoft Access). --Orlady (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The SPATIAL.MDB file has a table cross-referencing the refnums with the correct acreage numbers. The PROPMAIN.DBF file (found within the DETAIL.EXE self-extracting archive) has a column labeled ACRE that has acreage values multiplied by a factor of 10. There is a statement in SCHEMA.DBF that this particular column has a decimal implied. All other information in nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, including number of buildings can likewise be found in PROPMAIN.DBF (for example in the NUMCBLDG column). --Polaron | Talk 16:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand that the NRIS data is available in a downloadable file, as is everyone present. The particulars of the file name and all that have appeared in various discussions. I repeat, a source which is the actual source of information should be cited. The NRHP.COM source actually is important, it being AFAIK the only on-line source of acreage information. Because of that, it is arguable that some footnote mention of it should be given in every NRHP HD acreage assertion, to avoid confusion.

To respond to Orlady's question: without specific assurances otherwise, it is implausible that the NRIS database has been checked for this particular fact using any means other than the NRHP.COM database. You have many times cited the NRHP.COM, and you have never stated a different source. Are you wanting to imply now that you did consult it, Orlady? If you did, why not say so directly. There is a lot of distrust fomented here and in similar discussions by your choosing to use sarcasm instead to make implications. I said what I believed, directly, that it was my impression that your source is the NRHP.COM source, and you have not denied it.

About the "state of the art". It certainly could be improved. But there are only two alternatives on the table for referencing NRHP HD acreage systematically: 1) the footnote I suggest above, relying upon the NRHP.COM source, and 2) to use the NRIS reference which by weight of about 20,000 applications in practice refers to the Elkman system which does not provide the NRHP acreage to other editors. I think it would be bad practice to begin to use the same reference to mean some new different download and interface.

There is a need for other alternatives. In fact it would probably be appropriate to devise a replacement footnote for the Elkman system which credits Elkman interface directly, and allows for distinction between it vs. other NRIS downloads and interface, and this replacement should be widely implemented in wikipedia articles by a bot request. So that a future bot could be used for this purpose, I would hope that "name=nris" and "name="nris" would not be used now to refer to any different interfaces.

For use by Polaron and others who have specifically downloaded the currently available NRIS database or a previous version, a new footnote should be devised which gives the NPS.COM url where the download is available and which describes the specific version, IMO. Could someone compose and suggest such a footnote? doncram (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Doncram, for reasons known only to you, it is apparent that you are determined not to believe/trust anything I say, so I figured it didn't matter what I told you.

As it happens, I did download the Access database, and I have verified the acreages for these districts. I can't run Access on every computer I use, so I can't always check the database.

Back in July (when I first noticed that the acreage for the Norris historic district was impossibly large and then noticed similar issues for other districts), some of the acreages were cited as being from NRIS (although they actually had been obtained from the dotcom site). I did not have access to the NRIS data at that time, so I assumed (incorrectly as it happens) that the factor 10 error was in NRIS (not just in the dotcom website). --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointless bickering collapsed. Acroterion (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry, everyone else, but I feel I need to respond to Orlady. Orlady, oftentimes you do misrepresent, when you say that i never believe you, as disproven within this very discussion section (of which this is a subsection) where I gave credence to your assertion there must be a factor of 10 error somewhere. I think you are biased against me, and you will tend to lie when you think a) you can get away with it and b) you will discredit me somehow. That seems to be a reliable predictor of your behavior, that you will react negatively to most things I say, whether directed to you or to someone else, and you will tend to misrepresent or to attempt to goad me into saying something incorrect. To rise to the bait, perhaps, and to be clear, I think your behavior shows that you, Orlady, are sometimes a liar. Again, sorry to everyone else for engaging in this off-topic discussion with Orlady. doncram (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Doncram, I am glad to know that I was mistaken when I said that you are determined not to believe/trust anything I say. Thank you for pointing out an instance where you gave credence to something I had said (after much back-and-forth on the subject, as I recall). I am glad to be able to say that I misjudged you. Now, please note that in the dictionaries I am familiar with, "making a mistake" is not defined as a form of "lying" (although young children often have trouble understanding the distinction). I would appreciate not being accused of lying when I was merely mistaken. --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Orlady, I have repeatedly politely asked you, to not characterize my opinions. You went out of your way to take two jabs at me, above, and in doing so you made misrepresentations of my position. Sometime you are more subtle, as here where your choice of wording is perhaps to suggest that I am being childish. Sometimes I have been more subtle, too, as elsewhere on this talk page where I objected to two other statements you made about my positions, merely saying that "should have known" my position was different than you represented. You have characterized my views and/or my motivations erroneously just too many times. You also havee many times made accusations that my edits were afoul of some wikipedia guideline or another when they were not (in some of these cases you eventually acknowledged it was your understanding of a guideline that was wrong). After a while, it seems valid to call your pattern of misrepresentations and false accusations a pattern of lying. doncram (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Whatever. I suppose I could say "I am unworthy to question the utterances or touch the shoes of the great Doncram, who is obviously superior to me in all matters" but I know that would be lying, and I am reasonably sure it wouldn't do any good. Please just lay off from the personal attacks. --Orlady (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I'm confused — what is the problem with citing NRIS for the area in the same way that we cite the Elkman-generated table? The database hasn't been updated since the Elkman download of 13 March 2009, and the Elkman citation only goes to nr.nps.gov, whence one can access the Access database as easily as one can access the information about a single property. BTW, if you don't have Access on a computer, you can always download OpenOffice.org; it's poorer quality but suffices to read the information in the Access database. Finally — my only suggestion is that we consider converting references from nr.nps.gov to http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrdown1.htm, the download page. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I couldn't open it with OpenOffice. Now that I know it worked for you, I guess I will try again. --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've only heard about OpenOffice, as I have the actual Office suite. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently OpenOffice can open Access databases when it's running on a Microsoft Windows operating system. --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I should be credited as a source for National Register information. I just downloaded it and I've formatted it nicely using PHP scripts. If I were doing something to interpret or analyze the data, then I could be credited as a source. (But that would mean that I'm doing original research, and that's wrong.) Any other editor could download the NRIS and create a query interface, though if they aren't interpreting the data correctly, they might induce a bug. Multiplying the acreage by 10 is a bug. The documentation within the NRIS database lists the PROPMAIN.ACRE field as:

FILENAME	FIELDNAME	STATUS	RELATION	MEANING	COMMENTS
PROPMAIN	ACRE	        O	        	Acreage	< than 1 acre .9, decimal implied.  Not computed with a GIS--you may want to.

And to echo what Orlady said, I've also downloaded spatial.mdb and confirmed that the acreage listed in spatial.mdb is correct, including the decimal point.

That reminds me: I should list the acreage in the infobox generator, even though we don't have a field for that in the infobox. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes we do. | area = is used for acreage. Read the documentation for more info.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I thought the area= parameter was for "in the vicinity of" if there's no exact city, but I was remembering some old documentation. In any case, I've added the "area = " parameter to indicate the acreage, correctly divided by 10. (I think I may have left a diagnostic statement in the code by accident, but the heck if I remember where it was.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Elkman's comment leads me to wonder: Is there another template parameter for "in the vicinity of", to record instances where NRIS indicates the property is "in the vicinity" of the listed locality? That detail might be helpful sometimes, although (based on some properties I'm familiar with) not all of the determinations of "in" vs. "in the vicinity of" look to be rigorously accurate. --Orlady (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the "nearest_city" parameter is used for that (as opposed to using the "location" parameter). --Polaron | Talk 18:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that good old King Don baselessly accuses of lying. His claim that the NRHP.COM site is the only on-line source of the NRIS area data is false though. Freebase.com includes this information for all NRIS listings of State significance or higher as well as any Local significance sites which have Wikipedia articles. For example, the Norris listing shows the area as 16.188 km^2. http://usnris.freebase.com/view/guid/9202a8c04000641f800000000de902d7 -- Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.113.195 (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)