Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 4

Quickest article creation after NR addition?

I just created Colden Mansion Ruins, which was only added to the Register two months ago. Can anyone else claim a faster creation of a new listing, or do I hold the record? Daniel Case 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. What about Crossett Municipal Auditorium? That article seems very timely and interesting and in-depth, and the site was just listed on September 20. If you held the record, it just broke in yer hands. Sincerely, doncram 02:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the record but... 23 days: Southern Pacific Passenger Depot. :) But I already had pictures and it was on my to-do list as an Amtrak station. And it's still really a stub, though the train project thought it wasn't. Katr67 03:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems like that was the record, now held by the auditorium. Daniel Case 03:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway was a featured article before it was added to the NR. Ha! --NE2 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast, NE2. As "Route 1 Extension", the Pulaksi Skyway was added to the National Register on 12 August 2005. But you only edited that into the article on 25 September 2007. Up to that point, the wikipedia article was mentioning only that it conceivably could be eligible for listing on the National Register, even when it already had been listed for 2 years! doncram 19:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

African Burial Ground in news today as National Monument dedicated

African Burial Ground, a NRHP and NHL in NYC was dedicated as a National Monument today, I saw in on TV news. It is one of 111 NHLs in NYC that have been updated by various members of wp:NRHP recently. I drafted a news article about the dedication and "published" it at WikiNews main page. It needs development. I don't know what it takes for it to reach main page "In the News" billing. doncram 02:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A wikinews editor improved the article and published it as African burial ground in New York City dedicated as National Monument. It includes first public mention that there are 110 National Historic Landmarks in NYC alone (in contrast, the African Burial Ground is just the 123rd National Monument in the United States). I counted up all the rows in the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City in order to say that. doncram 19:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Image size in Infobox NRHP

I was going to try altering the code to allow sizing of the pics, instead of having only a default. Mostly for the vertical ones. But it's just beyond my grasp of Wikicode, and I don't want to risk wrecking the whole thing. If others with more knowledge could help, it'd be muchly appreciated. :) --Ebyabe 23:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We need a template guru! IvoShandor 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone give us any help on this? IvoShandor 17:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Boy do I feel dumb, all I had to do was change the image size and the box size, no new parameter was needed. If anyone thinks it's too small feel free to kick it up a notch. IvoShandor 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Michigan State Capitol FAR

Michigan State Capitol has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Epbr123 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose that a minimal requirement for a NHL site article to be a Featured article, not met by this one yet, is that it should include reference links to the National Historic Landmark Nomination text and accompanying photos set, if such is available. These are highly relevant to explaining why the site became a NHL and provide rich info for the text of the article, besides providing a good follow-on source for the interested reader of the article. Search at NPS search site for NHL nominations / NRHP inventory-registration documents to see the Michigan State Capitol text and photo sets. doncram 03:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oddest property type?

Ivo just today awarded me the Oddball Barnstar for the work I recently did on Hunter Mountain Fire Tower, the first of what I eventually hope will be articles on all five of the remaining fire lookout towers in the Catskill Park (an entry I loved doing, to be honest, because it let me combine this project with the Catskill Mountains, the interest that drew me to Wikipedia in the first place), all of which are on the Register.

He says that fire towers are among the types of property you'd least expect to be on the National Register, although he once saw a landfill. What's the most unusual type of property you've found to write about? (It doesn't have to be one you've been able to create an article for yet? (I guess my personal favorite would be Oliver Avenue Bridge in Middletown, New York, which doesn't exist anymore (the railroad tracks were torn up a long time ago and the land beneath the road has been filled in), and frankly should really be delisted). Daniel Case 02:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just typing whatever came into my head into the NRIS database one day a few weeks ago and added these to my to do list as "Oddball NRHPs"

• McDonald's Store #433 Sign or just McDonald's Sign (Pine Bluff, Arkansas)
• Fresno Sanitary Landfill, Fresno, California
• Umatac Outdoor Library, Guam
• Fence at Alamo Cement Company, Bexar, Texas
• Lincoln Street Electric Street Lights, Twin Falls, Idaho
• Fireman's Drinking Fountain, Lehigh, Pennsylvania
• Old U.S. 67 Rest Area, Curtis, Arkansas

IvoShandor 02:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If we start getting into contributing properties in historic districts, well, the list, gets, how do you say, strange. IvoShandor 02:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing that got me thinking on this was when on stumbled on Elkman's creation of White Castle Building No. 8, which he did back in January. IvoShandor 03:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Man, once I get going, I just never shut up. As far as contributing properties, I have a stub for Iron Mike (fountain), which could be fleshed out with the right books. Drinking fountains are odd, and I got to drink out of it last weekend, you can bet I got a picture of that, but that one is for me. :) At Lowell Park (which I haven't done yet) in Dixon, Illinois, there are basically some stones that were used for barriers along roads that are considered contributing properties as "objects". The park is famous because Ronald Reagan purportedly saved a bunch of idiots there while working as a lifeguard during his youth. IvoShandor 03:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Glacier National Park (U.S.) has a number of structures on the National Register. Some, like Granite Park Chalet, are traditional buildings, but there are a number of fire towers and fire lookouts within the park that are listed on the National Register. Take a look at List of Registered Historic Places in Montana#Flathead_County for a list. As far as unusual property types are concerned, I have an article upcoming about Barn Bluff in Red Wing, Minnesota. It's a bluff that towers nearly 400 feet over the city of Red Wing, and the bluff figures in Dakota Indian legend but also served as a landmark for 19th-century explorers and tourists. It isn't famous for being a building or having any buildings, though, or even being the site of any demolished buildings -- the National Register database just lists it as a site. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a big bluff, I stubbed Millstone Bluff and Native American mounds are always interesting, Beattie Park Mound Group is one here in Illinois. One of the coolest places, among many, that I have visited was the Malvern Roller Mill.IvoShandor 06:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)The Barn Bluff link goes to a location in Tasmania btw. ;) IvoShandor 06:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A while ago I edited NS Savannah, the first nuclear-powered cargo-passenger ship. I just checked, and that's an NHL. It is a historic site where some of the original equipment was being removed, which is unusual for an NHL. (SEWilco 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Template:Infobox nrhp

For weeks we have been trying to shrink the default image size or add an image size parameter. It looked like it worked for a few days at 260px and then someone came along and said that didn't work, which it rendered fine in my browser. Now there has been something done to the template that causes it render in correctly, this obviously affects literally thousands of articles so a quick fix is in order. IvoShandor 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates and Picture Requests

A reminder that geographical coordinates for many sites are in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/coords. In addition to including them in articles, using them in Wikipedia:Requested pictures makes entries visible in the page's map. (SEWilco 21:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

This is all well and good, but there are really a lot of them that aren't listed. Nothing in Nassau & Suffolk Counties in New York. It helps if we all knew what each coordinates were. I listed them with a lot of blank maps, hoping somebody would fill those maps in with red dots in the right places, but nobody would, and unfortunatley some of them have been deleted. ----DanTD 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several map technologies being worked on, which is one reason for that reminder. Two collections of requested pictures might soon get on a map, and coordinates on a single page can already be displayed separately. Nobody has yet picked up the task of generating locator maps within an article, but getting the coordinates defined is the first step toward that. (SEWilco 02:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

NRHP status for Lancaster (Amtrak station)

Currently, somebody made the claim that Lancaster (Amtrak station) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and I need to know if this can be confirmed. Although the architectural style, and it's original name as the "Pennsylvania Railroad Station" seems to indicate that this might be possible, I've looked on both NRHP websites, as well as TrainWeb and the official website of the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and neither of them support this claim. ----DanTD 02:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's not listed individually, but is part of the Lancaster City Historic District http://www.livingplaces.com/PA/Lancaster_County/Lancaster_City.html I think you would have to look at the NRHP nomination to see if it's a contributing property. If it is (and it should be--lovely building), then it would be considered on the NRHP. I hope that helps! Katr67 05:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I did consider the possiblility that it might be listed in one historic district or another. I didn't see it mentioned on the two NRHP sites, but I did find it mentioned briefly in the link you showed me. Thanks a lot. ----DanTD 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

NRHP FA candidate

Oregon State Capital has been listed at FAC if anyone from this project would like to participate in the process. Aboutmovies 19:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Post Office

This dab page was reduced to bluelinks but I reverted it. Someone who is more familiar with the dab project might want to leave a note on the talk page about what we're trying to do there. Katr67 23:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the blue and red links are NRHP/NHL sites. I don't recognize why the normal text entries are there. Clarify in the Talk page. (SEWilco 14:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

You don't have to suspect--they are. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Disambiguation. What I was saying above is, "Someone messed up what WP:NRHP, of which I am a member, is trying to do. I fixed it, but can someone who is more involved with the disambiguation subproject of NRHP please explain what the page is for so it doesn't happen again?" Most of the edits to the page were by WP:NRHP members. (Page history)Katr67 15:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Article references to maps

I don't see a recommendation regarding article usage of links to maps. The Geolinks templates may be superseded by recent changes in the coord template which provide a list of mapping services when the geographical coordinate is clicked on. Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Geolinks-coord_Issues. I notice that recent versions of the Geobox template emit coord-style coordinates and locator maps. (SEWilco 16:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Question: Date formatting in sortable wikitable so sorts properly?

Want to put dates in format YYYY-MM-DD so that they will sort properly. I checked Help:Date_formatting_and_linking which, by my reading, indicated that YYYY-MM-DD format would be sortable. But trying YYYY-MM-DD format in NHL designation date column of List of National Historic Landmarks in New York, it doesn't work. It still sorts the 1 October 2005 before 2 September 1967. Actually it displays each date as two separate chunks, just as when you write it in MM-DD, YYYY yourself. I am missing something. Help! doncram 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Following Help:Sorting I tried adding {{smd}} to the first entry in the date column. I think it helped. Maybe that was needed because there is more than dates in the column. (SEWilco 03:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Using a DD-MMM, YYYY format works. For example, 28 Apr,2003. The wikitable sort algorithm will eventually get better, probably, and properly support other date formats and mixes thereof. Have implemented in List of National Historic Landmarks by state and in some of the state-specific links. doncram 03:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A partial solution to our need for a hybrid infobox

The newly-created (as of today) Cogan House Covered Bridge uses the bridge version of the {{Geobox}} template, which I hadn't known existed. I found that the free fields were an excellent place to add the NRHP date and number.

So, that solves that problem. Perhaps I can talk to Caroig, who's been working very hard on these wonderful templates that are seeing more and more use in articles about geographical features, about adding some more optional fields that could help us out (I think it would be neat to have the NRHP, CP, or NHL banner right below the top picture, complete with the same color backing we use). Daniel Case 19:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges#Geoboxes_for_bridges about this subject as well. I think a combined infobox would be a good idea, but I'm a little unsure about just using the free-form fields to do this. It might be nice to have some structure behind this. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggested over there an NRHP brick format, which emits a very brief NRHP label to be placed under infoboxes. Many infoboxes have a lot of details which might be duplicated in NRHP boxes. It might also be possible to have a [details] button to expand the brick into a detailed box. Can the detailed box be the default on the print page? (SEWilco 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Should I bring some people from WikiProject Trains in on this discussion? ----DanTD 13:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Point out the Bridges discussion to them. There are several rail NRHP and they have some informative rail infoboxes. Also they might be interested in Geobox|Bridge for their rail bridges. So they might be interested in both the existence of Geobox|Bridge and in the NRHP infobox. (SEWilco 14:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

As long as we're at it, why not bring in the Lighthouse and Ships folks, too? Einbierbitte 18:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, take a look at nesting the Infobox at Rose Bowl (stadium) Einbierbitte 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

National Register photos and slides

The Register maintains a large photo collection and I have always wondered what the copyright status of the images was. I queried the NRHP through email, this is the response I got.

By allowing a photograph to be submitted to the National Park Service with a National Register form, photographers grant permission to the National Park Service to use the photograph for publication and other purposes, including duplication, display, distribution, study, publicity, and audio-visual presentations. The rights to almost all of the photographs in the nomination files (and on our website), however, are not owned by the National Park Service. They are not considered to be in the public domain. Permission to use these photographs would have to come from the source of the photograph, usually either the photographer, the archives collection of a specific organization, or the State Historic Preservation Office from where the property exists. (You can find contact information for the SHPOs at: http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/shpolist.htm).

The only photographs considered to be in the public domain would be those specifically marked as "by National Park Service," or those taken and submitted to the National Register by another Federal agency.

While fair use doctrines may apply for certain types of educational purposes, before using a National Register photograph not in the public domain you would need the permission from the photographer and possibly from the property owner, but you wouldn't need permission from the National Park Service.

The last part is nonsense, you don't need property owner permission to shoot a building from public property, only to cross onto there property (must be what they're referring to), even if you did so illegally it would have no bearing on the copyright status of the photo. However, it looks like a no-go as far as using most NRHP slides and images on the NRHP. This would include anything in the nomination forms, unless it meets the criteria outlined by the NRHP above, in the email response. I thought I would post this here so everyone knew, I have seen a few comments here and there about using them, and it appears the answer is, "not free enough for Wikipedia." Note that WP's NFCC won't allow fair use of an existing building or structure. IvoShandor 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I take this to include any photo submitted for lessons on the NPS Teaching with Historic Places program are likewise not in the public domain, unless they originated from a Federal agency. Einbierbitte 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that to be true. Do those photos have attribution on them? IvoShandor 21:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I was pleased to find this disclaimer on a NOAA site:"The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public so long as you do not 1) claim it is your own (e.g. by claiming copyright for NWS information -- see below), 2) use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS, or 3) modify it in content and then present it as official government material. You also cannot present information of your own in a way that makes it appear to be official government information.."[1] Does the term "government server" apply only to NOAA? I doubt it. I bet the photos on the NPS servers are covered by the same rules—the e-mail above notwithstanding.--Appraiser 00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be duplicating what was probably already discussed about Wikipedia:Copyrights. For the National Register, see the links in {{PD-USGov-Interior-NPS}}. (SEWilco 03:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

This article or image contains material based on a work of a National Park Service employee, created during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, such work is in the public domain. See the NPS website and NPS copyright policy for more information.

WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 4

For example, Bathhouse Row was just created with NPS text and pictures (two color pictures from Commons have been added). It's almost all U.S. Government public domain material. If you look at the source's title page (or the source file of the images) you can see it was produced by an NPS employee (the same one happened to produce both the text and images). Not everything on .gov web sites is public domain, notably stuff done by federal contractors, but there is usable material for some topics. (SEWilco 03:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

This discussion was meant to clarify the issue of nominator submitted photos and slides that reside in the massive archive maintained by the NRHP and oft made available online by SHPOs. The copyright status of U.S. government works was never questioned, merely added to the NRHP representatives response as somewhat of an aside. I would note that I submitted some follow-ups, mainly to ascertain the status of maps and other parts of nomination forms, floor plans and the like, it appears they may be "free enough" (email response follows):

I don't recall anyone actually ever asking the copyright question regarding the nomination maps, though I suppose that a highly detailed and crafted map could be considered the intellectual property of the preparer. Most of the maps, however, are already taken from other sources (city planning maps, etc.) and augmented with nomination information, making them difficult to call "original" art. The text has never been considered copyrighted material. Like any reference work, however, use of the materials should be properly cited and credited.

The National Register nomination forms are considered public documents and reside in the public domain. There is no formal "copyright' in place on the written application forms. Anyone may copy and re-distribute the applications. (The only exception to this would be in the case of applications for sensitive sites, like archeological properties, wherethe National Register reserves the right under the law to withhold locational information and other aspects of the nomination form whose release may likely cause the damage or destruction of the resources. See Section 304, NHPA).

This was the response from the Register. This discussion was not meant to duplicate any discussion, the status of NPS and DOI works has always been known around this project far as I know. IvoShandor 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

St. Andrew's Church

Is the statement from the Register too conservative, or can in fact photos taken by contractors, owned by local historical societies, or otherwise not falling within the "produced by Federal NPS employees" categories be considered public domain? This comes up in discussion on my talk page and Appraiser's talk page that I wish would occur here, in regards to a photograph of St. Andrew's Church (Prairieville, Alabama), which was included in the "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: St. Andrew's Church" that is a reference in that article. From discussion above, I personally would believe that the text of that Inventory-Nomination is public domain, but not the photo taken by Frank L. Thiemonge III whose negative is owned by the Alabama Historical Association. However Appraiser, who expressed disbelief of the Register's view in a comment further above, believes the photo is public domain. I would tend to hope that the photo is in fact public domain already, but don't want to be too bold. Should someone slap a copyright violation tag on the photo, now included in the article? Or how can this be resolved. Some help on this would be appreciated. doncram 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Look up US Gov PD and you find dozens of years ago federal contractors were given copyright. Only work by fed employees is fed PD. Some of the NRHP "new search" docs have attribution for text and images. (SEWilco 01:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

My viewpoint comes from this statement on a NOAA website: "The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public so long as you do not 1) claim it is your own (e.g. by claiming copyright for NWS information -- see below), 2) use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS, or 3) modify it in content and then present it as official government material. You also cannot present information of your own in a way that makes it appear to be official government information."[2] The picture of St. Andrew's Church resides on a U.S. National Park Service website,[3] along with a photo-submittal form that credits the photo to Frank L. Thiemonge III. I don't see anything on the photo or on the form that specifically claims copyright. I believe that by submitting the form without a "specific annotation", the creator has released the data to the public domain.--Appraiser 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The forms for those photos only identify the photographer and photo; if the photo copyright was being assigned there should be phrasing which specifically mentions copyright. Just as by talking about the photo here we are not affecting its actual copyright ownership, a description of the photo does not affect the ownership. You might have confused the NPS description form with the status of something in other historical archives where PD is mandatory in order to be within the archive. (SEWilco 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

The NOAA statement follows the law that work by a U.S. Government employee is PD but work by a government contractor is not (the contractor gives permission to the government to use the work for government purposes but the contractor holds the copyright). NASA is particularly problematical due to so many contractors (such as JPL being a contractor). This is reflected in WP:COPYRIGHT#U.S. government photographs. For NPS, the NPS disclaimer page has a similar Ownership PD statement. Also, the "new search" pages [4] sometimes shows that NRHP descriptions/images have been created by NPS employees. (SEWilco 15:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

For example, the pictures of the steamboat President (pdf photos) show some photos are courtesy of another organization while some are NPS photos. The last photo has no credit so we can't use it without confirmation (although it is probably NPS photo). A more formal example is Bathhouse Row, where page 12 of the nomination form shows it was created by an NPS employee and the separate photos each have a typed description which includes mention of their being an NPS photo and that NPS has the negative (and the photographer happens to also be the nominator). (SEWilco 15:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Good news and bad news: I'm pretty sure the St. Andrews Church photos are PD, based on the "public domain" statement here.[5] Bad news is that we don't have a definitive general answer about photos published by the NPS that simply have a photographer's name and/or location of the original. Guess we'll have to take them case-by-case.--Appraiser 16:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Update, since the search link didn't stay working, go here[6], type in "St. Andrew's Church" in Resource Name and "Alabama" in State. That should lead you to the page that says, "Restrictions:Public Domain."--Appraiser 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The link you posted is to a temporary search result which we can't see. Maybe you mean the search result page which mentions "Restrictions: Public domain". I think we have reason to doubt that, unless the info was given to the NPS before copyright law changed. There was a USGov PD law change decades ago. (SEWilco 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

There is the issue as to whether documents given to NPS in 1973 are PD; under present United States copyright law I think they are not USGovPD. The application forms have a 1973 date. I don't know when the "contractor" provision to USGovPD appeared. There was a major change to U.S. copyright law in 1976: Copyright Act of 1976 and another in 1983: Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. I think the USPD change was in 1976 but haven't found confirmation. Copyright status of work by the U.S. government refers to this FAR clause which has a 1987 date (but that might not be the first date it took effect). FAR does not affect this situation, as the state group is not a contractor, but might help in tracing to the USPD rules in effect in 1973. (SEWilco 17:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

I am not even close to being a lawyer, but I don't see how anything that is "in the public domain" in 1973, could be taken OUT of the public domain at a later date due to a law change. That's akin to putting champagne back in the bottles in the Red Sox' locker room. Once it's free, it's always free, IMO.--Appraiser 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that although I think under present law the photos would not be USGovPD, the law has changed since 1973 and I don't know the status of the 1973 material. Maybe in 1973 it did become USGovPD. However, I suspect the original church photos are not owned by the NPS and the copies given to the NPS are probably not PD. If the photos were taken as part of Alabama government work then the 1973 Alabama copyright-related laws would apply (states have various copyright policies for state-funded work, and the 1976 federal law overrode some state laws). (SEWilco 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

There are two workarounds: Request free photos or contact photo owner to confirm status (or acquire permission). You can request a Wikipedia take a photo (either {{reqphoto}} or asking an Alabama Wikipedian). If you can't find the 1973 organization with the negatives, you could try a web search for the photographer. (SEWilco 19:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

The St. Andrews Church photo in question has been deleted. Thank you to Appraiser and to SEWilco for participating in this discussion and getting to this resolution for now. The discussion got out some useful information, I think. It doesn't solve the problem of getting a photo for the beautiful little church yet, though. doncram 06:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One approach is to contact the Alabama Historical Society, which operated as an unincorporated association from 1947 until becoming 501c3 nonprofit in 1998. I could pursue that, but would be inclined to wait until some more work is done on the List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama. There may be more than one site to request photographs for. I know there are sample letters for requesting copyright permission at Wikipedia:Example Requests for Permission, but does anyone have experience in contacting local or state historical associations for photographs for NRHPs, though?doncram 06:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Another source is HABS. Elkman pointed out that there are pictures for St. Andrews Church listed at HABS, although you can't see online images of them. So one could order and pay for photographs to be generated. Then, could one scan and post those? I don't know. doncram 06:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can't see online images, but with Firefox I see a camera icon with this link to photos. (SEWilco 15:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

Joseph Priestley House

Anybody better than me at this can add and fill in an Infobox for this upcoming Did You Know? hook? Circeus 00:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality rating for List of NHLs in New Hampshire

I've worked on List of National Historic Landmarks in New Hampshire. I think it merits Start quality rating, although some of its descriptions are very terse. Discuss at Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in New Hampshire. Could someone else please review the article? doncram 00:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ebyabe and Appraiser for evaluating the article and giving it Start rating. I daresay it wasn't too difficult to verify that it met the checklist of proposed criteria, which I had laid out in the Talk page already. Thanks for your comments in the Talk page, too. Yes, I agree it needs work before meriting a further ratings advance. doncram 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment checklists

I came across a neat checklist-based system for assessing articles within the Wikiproject Florida. It provides Yes/No indicators for whether an article meets each of 5 stated criteria for achieving B-status. The five criteria are: 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited, 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies, 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content, 4. It is free from major grammatical errors, and 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.

See Quality scale in Florida assessment and see Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida/Project banner. To apply within assessment of NHL articles here at WP:NRHP, one could define additional yes/no parameters for each checklist item, for each level of rating. E.g., whether the NHL date is given and supported by appropriate reference, or not. These are optional parameters. doncram 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Help?

I've been working on the photos for Bellingham, Washington's HRPs, and am nearing the end. However, two listings are troubling me, the Sanitary Meat Market is listed for three addresses next to each other, one of which doesn't exist. So, I took a pic of the the three buildings it seems it could be, but don't want to post it without knowing the deal. As well, the Larrabee Mansion is listed at 405 Fieldstone Road, but Google Maps doesn't show anything for this. I'm not really sure if folks have access to sources other than the web that would be helpful in figuring these out. Anyone?

Maybe this will help find the mansion. Somehow people find it for weddings. SEWilco (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22sanitary+meat+market%22+bellingham&btnG=Search This search has only a few items to examine about the Sanitary site. If you're not certain exactly which buildings are correct, a single photo which includes all the candidates is a good start. The image description could identify what is known and that can be adjusted if someone learns more. SEWilco (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this made me think that the building must be the one in the middle, and that they've changed the address system at some point since the business actually existed, so I cropped the photo to show the one building. I'm still a little confused about the Larrabee house though. Murderbike (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just figured out that the City of Bellingham and NHRP sites were mislisting the address as Fieldstone Road instead of Fieldston.Murderbike (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

One more

The Fox Theatre (Spokane) has been renamed the Bing Crosby Theater. Should the article now redirect to Bing Crosby Theater, or vice versa? Murderbike (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Registered Historic Places in Vermont

It seems odd that this article is a redirect to a list for a specific county in Vermont, at least a couple others that are specified for counties, actually show all the other counties as well. Anybody know what's going on here? Murderbike (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's odd, so I boldly changed it back to a statewide page. My best guess is that the redirection was done by mistake. (I guess that because I've been known to make mistakes, too.) --Orlady (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

NHL photo concerns

Great work, those of you who are part of the drive to create all the missing NHL articles and get better photos. I'd just like to point out, as I did at Sunken Village Archeological Site, (which is subject to heavy looting) that some of those sites are sensitive archaeological sites and "address restricted" per the NRHP, so it should be made clear that the photo requests are for photo uploads of existing photos and not an invitation to trespass on these sites. I know some address-restricted places are merely about the exact location, and that the general location is accessible (Fort Yamhill comes to mind), so after the rush to get these articles written is over, I think it would be well to do a little more research and make sure the photo requests aren't inappropriate. Thanks for considering it! Katr67 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Looting of historic and archaeological sites is a very real danger that editors should be keenly attuned to. For a site like Sunken Village, which indeed does have a history of looting, we should absolutely not be disseminating location information that further endangers the sites. Photos of the actual location of such a site could give away substantial clues regarding how to find it. In those cases, we should think creatively about how we can illustrate the article with other images. For Sunken Village, a depiction of contemporaneous Chinookan life would be good, or a photo of some of the artifacts that have been (legitimately) excavated there. Ipoellet (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As a note, some of the address restricted sites are complete nonsense. Two in Illinois that come to mind are Native American mound sites in Rockford, Illinois (Beattie Park Mound Group), and another in Sterling, Illinois, which I never did finish an article for. Both are in public parks. If the information has been published elsewhere it should most certainly be included, per WP:NPOV, to omit it would be a violation of that. However, if the site information has never been published, as in the heavily looted site above, or one near me in Illinois that I located and photographed (but have not published the photos here because of my own concerns about disseminating location information. It is not our job at Wikipedia to protect these sites but I personally feel it is my job, as a citizen of Earth. While we shouldn't encourage illegal behavior, if someone commits an illegal act and obtains photos, we can use them (one law violation (trespassing) doesn't make an otherwise legal act (photography) committed during said violation a violation itself). My basic point is, if the location information is readily available from sources other than the NRHP, there is absolutely no reason why we can't publish it here.IvoShandor (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Caution on Church Names

This is just a reminder that National Register churches in the same state, county and even city can have the same name. A case in point is Christ Church in Washington, D.C.. The List of Registered Historic Places in the District of Columbia listed only one with a link to the disambiguation page which listed Christ Church, O Street, N.W.. Archiplanet has a listing only for this one on O Street. Yet the National Register listed another Christ Church on G Street, S.E. I have just created articles for both of them. O Street is Christ Church, Georgetown (Washington, D.C.) and G Street is Christ Church, Washington Parish (Washington, D.C.). I've corrected or am correcting the disambig & List pages to reflect both churches. clariosophic (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality Rating of NHL articles

Note that "creating guidelines for articles about U.S. National Register of Historic Place listings" is one of just 2 goals for WP:NHRP. There are 2432 NHLs among the NRHPs, and defining guidelines for them is important and may be different than for other NRHP sites, as there are different information sources available for NHLs.

I propose that criteria for Stub, Start, B, and Good quality articles for sites that are National Historic Landmarks be as follows:

Stub class for NHL articles is for any that include WP:NRHP in its talk page but fail to meet all of the "Start" class criteria.

Start class rating of articles for sites that are National Historic Landmarks are to meet the following criteria:

1. a short intro is written that is factually and grammatically correct.
2. NRHP infobox is included. It may appear late in the article, if the article is started by another infobox, or it may appear just following another infobox.
3. NHL designation date is included within the NRHP infobox.
4. NHL summary source is referenced as source for NHL designation date.
5. NRHP inventory/nomination text or NHL nomination text is linked (if available)
6. accompanying NRHP photo set is linked (if available)
7. that any "official site" of the owner or controlling organization, if any, is included as an External link. Format as "Official site: (link)"
8. that External links section exists and includes at least one link.
9. that See Also section exists and points to List of NHLs in the state.
10. Optional: Support for "Start-class" quality rating may be detailed in the Talk page for the article, including notations that suggested resources are not available.

B class articles for sites that are National Historic Landmarks must:

1. meet criteria for "Start" class rating
2. include at least one photo of the site (and not merely a photo of a person associated with the site)
3. intro should seem to be complete discussion of the site, and be a nutshell reflecting key components of the article
4. article development should be reasonably complete and reasonably well-written, perhaps including non-trivial sections. (Avoid use of "Today" as a section. It's all history.)
5. where NRHP inventory/nomination text or NHL nomination text is linked, that there is reasonable, substantial, appropriate development of the article citing and/or quoting that text.
6. area and boundaries of the NHL should be described.
7. that HABS photo gallery for the site, if available, is included as an External link
8. that External links section exists and includes at least two links, justifying the plural in section title.
9. Optional: Support for "B-class" quality rating may be detailed in the Talk page for the article, including notations that suggested resources are not available.

Good class articles must meet WP:GACR and get through a defined review process. In that Good Article review process, NRHP project members should ensure that NHL articles meet B class criteria defined above. It is recommended that a checklist of support for Start and B class rating should be included in the Talk page, to communicate to other editors what it takes to get Good Article rating in WP:NRHP.

Comments/suggestions/discussion welcome. doncram 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think the bar for reaching "Start class" is too high. I suggest reducing the requirements to this:

1. a short intro is written that is factually and grammatically correct.
2. NRHP infobox is included. It may appear late in the article, if the article is started by another infobox, or it may appear just following another infobox.
3. that the infobox contains the NRHP reference number.
4. that any "official site" of the owner or controlling organization, if any, is included as a reference or External link.
5. that the article contains at least one third-party reference (not the official site).

I think this is more in line with Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, but with slightly more requirements related to the historical designation.--Appraiser 16:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think infoboxes should have anything to do with quality assessments, that would be an absurd reason to oppose an FA or GA bid. Infoboxes shouldn't have any info that isn't found in the article, in general (save maybe the ref num for the NRHP listing, which I have always found useless ;-) but that's another story)
• External links don't have anything to do with article quality. Per WP:EL, external links should only be included if they provide relevant information beyond what the article would if it were featured. NHL summaries provide almost nothing, they are fine as sources but useless as external links. Simply not including external links has nothing to do with article quality.
• Source choice is up to the author. If there are more definitive and reliable sources than NRHP nomination forms or NHL summaries, they should be utilized, even for dates. There often are, for example, works by architect Frank Lloyd Wright has been extensively researched by scholars. Simply not referencing an NRHP form may not have any detriment to quality.
• Basically, the start class "criteria" need to be scrapped. There really don't need to be "start" class criteria, and certainly not with the requirements included here. IvoShandor 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• More or less, if there are criteria for start they should be brief, such as Appraiser's example. The crtieria that doncram originally posted shouldn't be incorporated into any "class" of article. IvoShandor 16:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• This means almost all of the criteria outlined above by doncram are unacceptable to me, I suspect others who do a lot of work on NRHPs but don't necessarily come around this page often are more in line with my thinking. Certainly, some of the criteria seem to go against community consensus at places like WP:MOS, and WP:EL. IvoShandor 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• I keep blathering, but these criteria are just that bad. Sorry don, I know you work hard, no offense. The checklist for providing reasoning for ratings don't work, they are useless. There are over 90,000 NRHP listings (over 1,000,000 if contributing properties are included), no way is anyone going to provide rationales for their ratings. Anything outside of the defined review processes at GA and FA can be rated by anyone, which means you can add the checklist, but I wouldn't expect anyone would ever fill it out. IvoShandor 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Come on, now, the criteria are not that bad! No offense taken about your blathering :). There's room for agreement here on many points:

1. Overall, though you think the criteria should be "scrapped" as absolute requirements, do you agree on the other hand that if an article meets the above criteria for Start or for B class, then it does merit Start or B rating? Perhaps the proposal should be rephrased, to say this is one way to earn those ratings. MY INTENTION running through this is to encourage early use of the definitive, official, good sources that are available for NHLs. Having them in early will affect continued development of the writing of the article. I guess I would allow you to get a Start or B rating with those sources but less writing, relative to other ways of getting those ratings. If the proposal is amended to allow an otherwise well-sourced, well-written article to get the ratings, then could it be okay? A "two paths" approach to rating can still provide clarity and encouragement for article authors.

2. About NRHP Infoboxes: Okay, it shouldn't be an absolute requirement. But the infoboxes are really good and helpful, and provide a unifying motif throughout the NHL articles. Through their repeated use, they convey better what they carry: the official NHL name for the site (which may differ from the common name and the article name), the definitive date of NRHP listing and NHL designation, sources for those dates. I think they almost always add to the article, with possible exceptions being for some Frank Lloyd Wright homes or skyscrapers or ships where there is a long elaborate development already, possibly already using a different infobox. But even then they can be used in a later section providing punctuation about the historic preservation of a property, possibly in a stripped down version with as little as just the NHL name, NRHP date, NHL date, refnum. Sure, I would allow an editor the option to leave it out, if it does not add. An editor can easily say, hey i tried it and it doesn't add so I deleted it, so I want the rating without it. Not such a big problem. For most short articles, it would clearly add, and making it a requirement (to be "enforced" with flexibility) just provides clear guidance on what an article author should do to improve an article.

3. About External links: Okay, this should not be "enforced" inflexibly either. But often there is an "official" webpage of a nonprofit or other entity controlling a site, providing visiting hours and so on, and it seems useful to require that a Start article should have noted what the official website is, and that would be done properly as an External link. To require that there be at least one external link is to set a target, to encourage the article author to make some effort to find at least one. Another good way to meet that requirement is to link to a HABS gallery about the site.

4. About Source choice of NHL summary. Unlike other wikiprojects, ours is focused on objects of official designation, and using/requiring use of the official documentation available makes sense here. I simply find that the NHL summary page is far-and-away the best source to support the NHL designation date, and I do think it is reasonable to require it as a source. For an article about an NHL, the date of NHL designation is a basic fact that should be in the article, and it should be supported. (Having the actual month-day-year in every NHL article then coordinates with the List of NHL webpages, too, where it is useful for the actual article to provide support for facts given in the List table). The NHL summary page as a reference supports the date directly, and provides verification to a reader who chooses to check the reference that the date really corresponds to the site in question, as the reader can verify the site shown and described in the NHL summary page is the one covered in the article. It does not burden the reader with extraneous info, like is the case if you source the nation-wide, state-wide, or other list of NHLs and their designation dates, where the reader would have to search through the source and could still remain unconfident of the correspondence between the date given and the reader's image of the site itself. I DID NOT say put the NHL summary as an external link, I agree it is not that great that way. I am saying put it in a reference footnote. I can't imagine why it cannot be included in every article that way.

5. About the source choice of official NRHP text and photos, or NHL nomination form and photos, being required. This is even more natural to require than the NHL summary (which usually just lifts a few phrases from these). These show the official reasoning as to why a site is significant enough for NHL designation, these define the boundaries of the NHL area, these are just basic to any good article on a NHL. Why a site is significant now may differ from why it was felt to be significant at time of designation, and the NHL designation is a historic act that should be explained. This is the official, definitive source about the official act of designation. It shows alternative names for the site, which helps in refining the article title and in justifying alternative names to give up front in the article. And articles without this reference often have inaccuracies. (For example, the Stonewall article misstated that the NHL was the Stonewall Inn, when in fact the NHL area includes nearby street areas and park areas where the Stonewall riot occured.) My preference is to require this for lower-level articles, at least as part of one way to get a given rating, so that article development will be informed by this particular source.

6. About HABS photo link being required. I put this in as a 2nd level requirement. This is not official about the designation, so should not absolutely be required. But the HABS photo sets are definitive, great sources, and frankly an article author is wasting my time as a editor/rater if they don't look it up and link it in already, so that I don't have to. I like having it in as an encouraged option, part of one path, at least.

Again, overall I think the proposed criteria, with some modification so as not to be too rigid, can provide clarity and good guidance to article authors and article raters. doncram 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I take some issue with one of doncram's basic points: That NHLs are somehow so fundamentally different from mere NRHP sites that they require a separate set of criteria to guide quality assessments. Realistically, NHLs are just a particular subset of the NRHP - sites where there has been an additional recognition that their historic significance is of national scope, rather than state or local. This is actually a fairly narrow distinction amidst the vast number of points that could be discussed about any of these sites. I see very little in the proposed criteria above that would apply dramatically differently, if at all, to NHL sites vs. NRHP sites. It all seems like an unnecessary expenditure of effort to set up a parallel list of quality criteria for NHLs when we could instead work on refining the criteria that apply to all articles within the scope of this WikiProject. And doncram's proposal is a good step toward jump-starting that conversation, but I recommend we target these criteria refinements into the structure already in place at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Assessment.

I'm also concerned that we may let the "official" nature of the NRHP and NHL programs dictate an overly regimented approach to these criteria. We should not let Wikipedia articles become a simple restatement of the content of any given source or set of sources (even with minor elaborations from other sources), and especially not of an "official" source. Doing so simply replicates the errors or idiosyncracies of that selected source. For example, if you've ever really looked critically at the list of NHLs, you've gotta get the impression that there's a little bit of arbitrariness about it. I mean, really, the Fresno Sanitary Landfill is an NHL while Independence Hall is not. My hypothesis as to the reason for this is that the Interior Department has deprioritized expending resources to raise National Park System units to NHL status, because they are already well protected and recognized to be of national significance. This may possibly be a rational business decision, but hardly one that reflects actual encyclopedic import. Therefore we minimize and go outside the "official" NHL/NRHP sources to properly reflect the important components of those articles. In this context, I take some issue with #5 in the "start" criteria above, and #5 and #6 in the "B" criteria. Yes, because the WikiProject parameters are generally defined by the "official" documents, we should make some reference or link to them. But they should not become an essential part of our quality evaluations, and we may even choose to evaluate based on how far beyond the official documents the article goes. In fact, I would make the use of at least one or two references other than the NPS documents a requirement for "B" class.

Finally, I'd just re-emphasize that these are guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules. Because any editor may make stub, start, B, and A assessments, any criteria we lay out will become little more than recommendations for them. Because editors will apply the criteria flexibly, they had better be constructed flexibly, or they will simply break and become irrelevant. Ipoellet 07:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ipoellet for your thoughtful comments. About your first point, NHLs are different than other NRHPs in that usually the NHL nomination text and photos or the NRHP registration text and photos are made available on-line for NHLs, but not for most NRHPs. I believe it is a basic, obvious criteria for quality of an NHL article, that a readily available on-line explanation of the official designation should be referenced in the article, otherwise the article author is wasting the rater's time by not bothering to put it in. To make this more general, then, perhaps it should simply be a requirement for any NRHP at all, that to attain Start rating it must include such a reference, if such an on-line source is available. The National Park Service makes such texts available on-line for NHLs and some other nationally prominent NRHPs, but not all NRHPs. A few states, including Pennsylvania and Illinois, make the NRHP texts available for all of their NRHPs. So, we would make criteria for attaining Start rating for NRHPs in those states more stringent, based on the convenient availability of the NRHP texts in those states. Personally I think that is fine. I think it is fine to tailor criteria to the availability of data. So, while I was initially focused on the NHL articles that I am most interested in personally, I would be happy to broaden this discussion to describe criteria for all NRHPs, i.e. that to advance in ratings they must include basic official sources at least where those are readily available. doncram 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

About the criteria that apply to all articles within the scope of this WikiProject, I absolutely mean to influence the criteria that are to be stated there. Upon resolution of discussion here, the criteria stated there should be modified. The criteria heretofore stated there, by the way, are rather generic, and include an example about a topic in mathematics rather than more relevant examples of NRHP sites meeting various rating level criteria. doncram 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

About the "official nature" of the act of designation of a site as an NRHP or NHL: I think it is important, indeed, that our wikipedia work should shed light on any arbitrariness or political nature of NRHP and NHL designations. I am not confident that we or others have unveiled that sufficiently. The article on National Historic Landmark is not yet well developed along those lines. However, the Fresno Sanitary Landfill (whose stub article I started) may well be as nationally important as Independence Hall, under general criteria as being an important industrial development, as it was the first modern landfill facility following what are now general landfill management practices. To rate it vs. Independence Hall requires some judgment. What you observe about Independence Hall having other national recognition and not requiring NHL designation may be correct; I myself am unclear if something is, say, already a National Historic Site, does it help in any way to give it an NHL designation as well. The NHL theme studies on industrial and other topics are interesting and not yet well developed in our understanding of NHL designations. I appreciate your wish that to attain B rating that an article should refer to other sources other than the official, perhaps idiosyncratic nature of NHL summaries and NRHP documents. i note that what I proposed, to include at least the official documents, is not inconsistent with your wishes. doncram 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no intent to minimize the historic significance of the Fresno Sanitary Landfill (though ya gotta admit it makes a person do a double-take). My thing is to not handicap our coverage of Independence Hall merely because it's not an NHL, or give undue weight to the landfill because it is. Ipoellet (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

About criteria 5 and 6 above, which would require NHL articles seeking B-level status to carry content about the significance of the site from the on-line available NHL nomination and/or NRHP text documents, and to describe their area and boundaries usually available in those documents: I don't understand an objection to requiring that. It seems self-evidently helpful to include such, to me. doncram 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The objection there, as you state with regard to the see-alsos below, is that discussion of the boundaries will not always contribute to the quality of the article. Sometimes it will. But if it doesn't, if it ends up being just a bureaucratic NPS artifact that doesn't speak to the actual notability of the article, then it should be left out. Ipoellet (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

About your noting these are merely guidelines. Yes, they are, but as guidelines coming from this wikiproject on NRHPs, to apply to lower-level articles, that has impact on the outcome of higher-level Good Article and Featured Article discussions. I believe that we provide a helpful service to authors of articles, if we push them at lower levels to address "at least" the criteria covered in the proposal. FYI, I recently have had experience interacting with authors of Joseph Priestley House, a Pennsylvania NHL. It was awkward, at first, for me expousing my view that the article was merely stub status by my proposal for this wikiprojects rating, but I think overall it was helpful to push them to include these official sources, in their ongoing work towards achieving FA status for that article, and the article has included and benefited considerable from including those sources. doncram 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

About one other criterion I had proposed: I had proposed that a See Also section must exist and points to List of NHLs in the state. I simply want to take that back, to remove that from my proposal, as I feel it is indefensible. It does not necessarily add to an article. I found myself that I could not argue for it as a requirement in the case of the Joseph Priestley House article. What I was looking for should be addressed somehow in the categories section of NHL articles, and/or as some feature of what comes up when one clicks on the NHL overall categories. doncram 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would note, that in my view, and the view of others who have written extensively on the topic, NHLs are little more than the "honor roll" of the NRHP. The designation doesn't mean much of anything, just another form of recognition. I would again point out that the NRHP nomination forms are not always the best sources. Just about every Frank Lloyd Wright building in existence has better, and more thorough sources available, for instance. More comments to come some day. IvoShandor (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that the NHL is the "honor roll" of the National Register. It seems to me that the National Historic Landmarks program recognizes buildings, structures, and sites that have the most importance within American history. As an example, the F. Scott Fitzgerald House in Saint Paul, Minnesota is a National Historic Landmark because of its association with F. Scott Fitzgerald. The building itself is certainly historic, but without F. Scott Fitzgerald living it, it would most likely be on the National Register and not an NHL. Thorstein Veblen Farmstead, architecturally speaking, sounds like it's mostly a plain Minnesota farmstead, but it's a National Historic Landmark because of its association with Thorstein Veblen. To put it another way: You'd expect the homes of famous people like Alexander Graham Bell, Helen Keller, and Sinclair Lewis to be National Historic Landmarks because of their owners' contributions to American history. On the other hand, I'd expect the place where the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific drove the Golden Spike to be a National Historic Landmark, but it's actually Golden Spike National Historic Site. Similarly, Independence Hall is part of Independence National Historical Park. Finally, let's not forget that the National Historic Landmarks program pre-dates the NRHP, and that the NRHP was founded with the goal of preserving historic places that would otherwise be lost, destroyed, or threatened by development. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 07:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)That really is an arbitrary difference, "most historic", or "most importance" is not only entirely subjective, it really doesn't have that much meaning to begin with. The NRHP and NHLs stated goals may indeed be the preservation of historic places that may otherwise be lost but the reality of it is that the NRHP and NHL do precious little to stop historic places from being destroyed. Both are little more than honorary designations, scholarly work on the topic will stand behind me on this. Reality is often very different from perception. IvoShandor (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, hello again Elkman. IvoShandor (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know where I am coming from, please make sure you read National Register of Historic Places, more specifically, read its sources. This will help illuminate the often arbitrary, politically charged nature of the NRHP and NHL process. The criteria have been significantly criticized by a number of scholars. The NRHP article and its sources also talk about the largely honorary status of these designations which results from the relatively simple reason that almost no municipal land use decisions are made at the federal level. Designations at the local level are almost always more protective of a historic property. On another level, requiring that an article absolutely be sourced to one specific type of source is giving that source undue weight to that source.

The nomination forms and documentation for an NRHP nomination or NHL designation are always geared toward ensuring that a property be designated. They are meant to be persuasive, and thus, the neutrality of these sources can be brought into question. Not that they often embellish details of fact but by their nature, they are likely to embellish importance. (Trust me, I am working more than one nomination right now) Ipollet's example of Fresno Sanitary Landfill vs. Independence Hall or some other similar property is a good comparison to draw. There is nothing inherently more important about the landfill than, say the Ronald Reagan Birthplace but one is an NHL and the other is nothing more than a contributing property in a historic district. A healthy dose of skepticism and a critical eye is necessary when assessing any source, even those that are official and would be thought to be free of POV and/or inaccuracy.

I cannot support any proposal that requires specific sources be used to reach a certain quality. Such a requirement is much more likely to be harmful than helpful. The choice of sources is, and always has been, a consensus based editorial decision. Rules are unneeded for this aspect of Wikipedia at any level. IvoShandor (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)