Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 62

NPS Focus has been updated

NPS Focus has finally been updated. Links to nomination PDFs have been altered, e.g. the nomination form for Centre Street Congregational Church, NRIS #75000114, is at the wonderfully mnemonic http://focus.nps.gov/nrhp/GetAsset?assetID=4553326c-6369-48fa-b1ff-588ddd7a31fe . Magic♪piano 12:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the links to the old nomination forms are broken too, and they aren't using the reference numbers in the links anymore... oh God, if this is permanent it's going to be a maintenance nightmare (and takes away a very useful part of Elkman's infobox generator). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any automated way to convert to the new links based on the URLs. Should I start manually updating or is that jumping the gun? RevelationDirect (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Before we embark on a manual update campaign, lets see if we can avoid doing in again in a few years. States that are in Focus are now broken. Some states that aren't in Focus are also recently broken - PA, for example, was https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/ce_imagery/phmc_scans/H001179_01h.pdf now is https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/CRGIS_Attachments/SiteResource/H001179_01H.pdf. New York was http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=14117 is now https://cris.parks.ny.gov/Uploads/ViewDoc.aspx?mode=A&id=26998&q=false. We need to start using archive.org or something similar for every reference where we have a url to a document rather than an app. Or, we need to use some sort of template that provides a redirect database that we can maintain - a pain, but at least we won't have to edit every article each time something changes - just the database. It doesn't look too hard to write a page scraper to get all the new urls from Focus, though maybe someone with a contact there could get an updated nrhp_links.xlsx spread sheet to build a table? A template with a db lookup, fed by such a table, would have made this transition a lot easier. If we're going to have to edit each article, lets try to protect ourselves from doing it all over again in a few years. As it stands today, it many cases we still have valid citations even with a dead link, title, date, etc., but in others the citation is simply "nomination form" and a url. Generic1139 (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It is probably also worth asking NPS if they plan to maintain the old links as more durable URLs. Magic♪piano 15:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As of right now, the old URLs are working. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about the ones used in "List of NRHP sites in X county", etc? For me, they now link to the form to fill out. (Before that they were dead.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the best solution is to request a bot that will save these URLs in archive.org. Visit an active page that they don't have in the database, and their bot will archive it as part of the process of resolving your request. It would be eminently simple; five minutes' work would be enough for me to write a Macro Express program that would do it. If we could have a bot archive the currently-active nomination URLs, we could stop worrying about what NPS is doing; it would still affect Elkman if they remove the HTTP redirects from the old names, but our references wouldn't be broken. The bot could also create a page (or group of pages) in our projectspace that would list the URLs, so we wouldn't need to visit archive.org to get them. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be really helpful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Surely there's an easier solution than using a bot to copy the whole database to archive.org, where it will never be updated as new sites are added to the database.

Let's see if I have a handle on the problem. You have a series of articles such as National Register of Historic Places listings in Androscoggin County, Maine, with broken links in the Date listed column, which has an eight-digit number below each date, which is the number assigned to each location in the National Register Information System database, which can be viewed by clicking the number. For example, All Souls Chapel (Poland Spring, Maine), the NRHP Reference # is 77000060.

The ideal place these links should land at now looks like this. We can see from the Asset metadata that the Asset ID is 0c9bcfc1-5a59-4e22-a510-0757163595c7 and the National Register Information System ID is 75000114. The URL uses the AssetDetail?assetID=0c9bcfc1-5a59-4e22-a510-0757163595c7 syntax to lookup that page by the "Asset ID". But our National Register of Historic Places listings pages don't use these "asset IDs". They use the "system IDs" (reference numbers). However, we can still search by Reference Number using this form. We need an automated way to plug the Reference Number into this form, i.e. use some URL that will fill in the form.

The rows in these National Register of Historic Places listings pages are filled in using Template:NRHP row. In turn, the Focus link in each row is handled by Template:NRHP Focus, and there is a discussion about this problem at Template talk:NRHP Focus. I think the easiest solution should simply involve an update to this template, so I'm now off to read that discussion. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yea I'm slightly confused here too. Is it as Wbm1058 describes? Wouldn't updates to the template be a simpler task?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Wbm1058 and Cyberpower, the problem is much bigger than just this specific template. All over the project, and beyond, we've used the old URLs extensively; in particular, their systematic nature is a benefit with the infobox tool run by Elkman. If we find a way to fill in the form, it will help with this specific template, but all other uses will be un-benefited. Systematically archiving all nominations published before a certain date (e.g. the last update to their database, some time in 2010) would allow us to get around this problem; if the bot dumps a list of original-and-archived URLs somewhere in our projectspace, we could request another bot task, much simpler in scope, where the bot looks for all instances of in-article citations to pages such as http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/05000195.pdf and replaces them with citations to archived editions such as https://web.archive.org/web/20150806120143/http://focus.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/05000195.pdf. And moreover, Elkman's page could begin pointing to the list of archived pages to make it easy for anyone to find the archived URL for a specific page. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is also not necessarily a good idea to depend on the asset ids (rather than the refnum-based urls), as we have no idea how durable they are. (E.g. does the submission of "additional information" for a given listing result in a new asset id.) Building a database of refnum->URL mappings might have other benefits, like being able to include pointers into state databases. Magic♪piano 13:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've spoken with a NPS Focus staff member, who hopefully will email me soon with a solution to this. Again, unless you fear that funding cuts or something will cause the NPS to take their database offline, I don't see the point of making a redundant copy at archive.org given that as I understand it archive.org runs on limited resources and is funded by donations. As long as we don't hard-code NPS database links into articles, and keep the links centralized in templates, all we should need to do is update the templates. That's one of the key benefits of using template transclusion. Thanks for the link to Elkman's tool. Obviously they would need to update anything located at http://www.elkman.net. Elkman's Infobox Creator (nifty tool!) creates transclusions to {{Infobox NRHP}} and {{NRISref}}, so it may be helpful to update these templates as well. The latter just has a generic link to http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/All_Data.html. Here is where I see a bigger problem: in this diff a hard-coded reference link was added: {{cite web|url=http://focus.nps.gov/nrhp/GetAsset?assetID=4553326c-6369-48fa-b1ff-588ddd7a31fe|title=NRHP nomination for Centre Street Congregational Church|publisher=National Park Service|accessdate=2015-07-15}}, then the next edit added a "more durable ref": {{cite web|url=http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/75000114.pdf|title=NRHP nomination for Centre Street Congregational Church|publisher=National Park Service|accessdate=2015-07-15}}. Hardcoded links like these should be avoided. Do you have any idea how many there are like these? Will need to search to find them. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So we're not supposed to link to these online documents when we're citing the nominations? Are you suggesting that they should all be cited as offline documents, or do you mean something else? Much much better to provide a link to the document than not. And yes, I do fear that these links will get taken down: how can we trust that they'll retain the old-style links? Nyttend (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that they should be cited by using a template, and passing the refnum as a parameter to that template. Then, when NPS changes their URL syntax, all we need to do is update the template. As long as NPS keeps their refnums the same, and continues to support them, we should be good. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

But that assumes that the nomination form URLs have a consistent naming scheme, a standard naming convention — they've had such a convention for a long time and just dumped it. The whole reason for this thread being started is that they've just stopped keeping things the same: we can't trust them to keep things the same. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So, to clarify, so we're all on the same page. Where we want to link to, the page that has text, photos and metadata:

• http://focus.nps.gov/nrhp/AssetDetail?assetID=4553326c-6369-48fa-b1ff-588ddd7a31fe

doesn't have a reference number embedded in the URL any more. I'm waiting on the NPS Focus staff to tell me how to get to that page by passing a reference number. I just saw that Elkman's tool points to two URLs, one for the text and one for the photos:

• http://focus.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/75000114.pdf
• http://focus.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Photos/75000114.pdf

If the preferred link to the page with the metadata isn't forthcoming, I suppose we can punt and update to point to the two links above. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

At the moment, most (all?) of the old URLs still work; at the moment, they're retaining them with some type of HTTP redirect. The problem is that we have no reason to assume that they'll keep those redirects in place over the long term. This is the whole reason that I suggested a bot to save URLs with archive.org, since at least for the moment they're working and the bot would have an easy task. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What links are you talking about that still work? All the links in the date listed column on National Register of Historic Places listings in Androscoggin County, Maine just dump me to a form where I have to type in the ref number and click "search". Wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

We're talking about several different things in this thread, two of which are the URL used in articles that reference nomination forms, and most recently, the link generated by NRHP row to post a query to focus when the reference number in the Date listed column is clicked. The query format has changed, NRHP row needs to be updated. Generic1139 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, {{NRHP row}} uses {{NRHP Focus}} to do the link, so the new URL in the latter will propagate back up through the former.

Looking back at one of the earlier things, Pennsylvania. Just looking at Jean Bonnet Tavern, I see that all that Focus has is the metadata. So the broken link to the PA state-maintained database needs updated:

• https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/ce_imagery/phmc_scans/H000990_01H.pdf to
• https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/CRGIS_Attachments/SiteResource/H000990_01H.pdf

Again, here it's a shame that the URL was hard-coded. If it were in a template, then all we would need to do is change ce_imagery/phmc_scans/ to CRGIS_Attachments/SiteResource/ in one place and that fix would propagate through the whole encyclopedia. Maybe in the future we'll want to change PA to use the NPS site instead. A template would make it easy to flip the switch. In the meantime, this seems like something I can do with WP:AWB semi-automated editing. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. NPS ID is 79002164 which is different from H000990_01H – what's the latter? A state ID number that just PA uses? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

 Question: why not just have a bot follow the redirect and simply replace the link with the new one?—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Because there is no indication at the moment that the new urls are any more durable (likely to survive further redesigns by NPS) than the old ones. This is the argument for using a refnum-based template instead of bare links: it is durable for page editors, and provides a centralized place for dealing with later url changes. The link in NRHP row is broken now, and appears to be unfixable given the current configuration of the Focus query interface (it doesn't seem to support command-line queries including the refnum). Magic♪piano 17:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This problem has been going for some time now and is not showing signs of easy resolution. As a service to our non-editor readers, can we take the interim step of removing the non-functional links from the date column in {{NRHP row}}? They can be reinstated when/if the problem is resolved. I would boldly do this myself if I had template editor permissions. — Ipoellet (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I promise to have this fixed one way or the other by the end of the day. Been holding off on this because each time this template is changed, it puts a load on the MediaWiki servers as the change propagates through the encyclopedia. Want to avoid making a temporary fix which will only be replaced by a better fix just a few hours later. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It would seem that Wbm1058 has a better grasp of the situation than me currently, so I will leave it to him. Wbm1058 if you need any help, or a bot, feel free to ping me.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 18:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've updated Template:NRHP Focus with the best solution we have right now. Let me know if there are any issues. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a sample query for the new focus that allows a reference number

http://focus.nps.gov/nrhp/SearchResults/?view=list&search={"SearchType":"NRHP","Action":"Search","Operand":{"Term":"ReferenceNumber","MatchType":"Exact","Attribute":"77000060"}} Generic1139 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! And a few hours later, I have a better solution. What a mouthful. No wonder I couldn't guess that syntax on my own. That gets us to the search screen, where there will always be just the one result, and the user is just a click away from the desired destination. Would be nice if we could skip this screen, but this is better than not having a link that includes the pictures and metadata. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I received an email from the NPS Focus staff with the direct link to use, and have updated {{NRHP Focus}} accocdingly. Much more elegant solution:

• http://focus.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/77000060

Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Delisted properties

I invite project members to participate in the discussion at Talk:List of delisted National Register of Historic Places properties regarding whether or not there should be separate lists and categories for U.S. states. Also, if sublists and categories were to be created, is there a systematic way to go about constructing these? I figured it best to start a discussion than to start making changes single-handedly. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See also: Category talk:Former National Register of Historic Places. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Former National Register of Historic Places in Oregon

Update (see linked discussion above for context): I went ahead and created a subcategory for delisted sites in Oregon. Assuming project members are fine with this, I invite you to create similar subcategories for other states. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Link to wrong article

At National Register of Historic Places listings in Laurens County, Georgia, Dublin Historic District links to one with the same name in a different state. I've tried taking out the link, but it still links to the wrong article. How can this be fixed? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I never could fix it, until I found out that the real name of the one in Georgia is Dublin Commercial Historic District. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at Masonic Lodge (Missoula, Montana)

Stubby-stub article that I would like to improve... but I have run into a problem. While there is a Masonic lodge building at the location... I can not find a NRHP listing for it. I checked the NPS focus website... and the reference number given in the article's infobox does not get a hit - I have also tried an advanced search search for "Masonic" with Montana as the state, and Missoula as the county. Again no hit. Is the building actually listed on the the NRHP? If so, what is the correct reference number? I would like to check the the nomination docs for background history. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It is listed under the refnum given (90000649) in Elkman's database, which is valid up to about 2010 (i.e. it will not include a later delisting). It also shows up on the Montana SHPO list for Missoula County; you may be able to get a copy of the form from them. You might also write the Park Service (nr_reference@nps.gov) about why it's not in Focus. (Although lookup of http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/90000649.pdf gave "file not found" when I tried it, the nomination form is in Google's cache here.) Magic♪piano 18:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks, the links helped. Reading the discussions above, I gather that the NRHP has shifted to a new ref number system... so that may explain why I could not find it on Focus (ie I was looking it up under the old ref number). Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Offshore shipwrecks

I just added the newly-listed HMT Bedfordshire wreck to the Carteret County NC list in line with the data stated in the Weekly List. I used the coords already shown in the Bedfordshire article. But I noticed that those coords are approximately 26 nautical miles offshore. NC state waters only extend to 3nm and US territorial waters to 12nm, so in the strictest sense the Bedfordshire wreck lies neither in Carteret County nor in NC, but actually in international waters. I don't see a problem in following NPS's lead and simply including it in the nearest county (with appropriate notes), but I thought I'd air the issue if anyone had other thoughts. — Ipoellet (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I added the infobox and categories to the article Einbierbitte (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Historical markers in Georgia

Marker in 2008

Marker in 20015

I don't know about the other states, but the historical markers in Georgia are in bad shape and getting worse. A few months ago I contacted the state person in charge of maintaining them about a missing one and he said that the state had not funds for doing that. Look at how the Fort King George marker has deteriorated in 7 years. :-( Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't be hard to clean this one; it's just lichen, I think. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There is another one in that county that is broken off. That is the one I contacted the state about and they say that they don't have money. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Central of Georgia Railroad: Savannah Shops and Terminal Facilities

I'm pretty sure this issue has been brought up before, but I'm convinced two other articles that are merged into the Central of Georgia Railroad: Savannah Shops and Terminal Facilities should be split off, and the article on the Georgia State Railroad Museum should be redirected into the article as a separate chapter.

• The Central of Georgia Depot and Trainshed should be split off and combined with the Savannah History Museum.
• The Central of Georgia Railway Company Shop Property should also be split off, and possibly merged with the SCAD Museum of Art, since it's owned by the museum, and is located next door to the main building.

User:Bubba73 already merged the Historic Railroad Shops into the Georgia State Railroad Museum a few months ago, and we should all thank him for it. But there are still other moves that have to be made with that article. I'm certainly willing to do the work myself, but any other help would be greatly appreciated. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There were three articles on that area - the old shops, the railroad museum, and the terminal building across the street. I did a quick merge of the first two since the museum is at the location of the old shops. But I wasn't really sure at all on how it should be done. I will support your reorganization. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I just started a sandbox on a rewritten version of the Depot and Trainshed, and I'm still working on it. Maybe I'll look through the earlier versions of that article. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Good - I thought something should be done (others did too) but I couldn't really figure it out (and I didn't know about the SCAD Museum of Art connection). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

And that building is now a SCAD building - I didn't know that until today. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you like my work. I just found out some really interesting info about the old buildings. The "Central of Georgia Railway Company Shop Property" was an administration building, and when I read about the museum itself, I thought the article mistook the CG building for this one. I was wrong; They used to call this one "The Gray Building" back in the day. We all have a lot of work cut out for us in Downtown Savannah. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Bubba, take a close look at these two images, and you'll see a SCAD sign along what was once the "Cotton Yard." Honestly, I'd like to find out if SCAD bought both buildings at the same time, or used one and then the other or whatever, because according to the Historic Aerials Online, there were tracks ending between this building and the "Gray Building." ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Is that building to the right of this building as you face them? I looked up a map of SCAD facilities, and Eichberg Hall looks like it should be next to it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The old terminal, which is now the Visitor's Center (I think the museum part was in the back) is the one on the corner of Liberty Street and Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. Facing it, to the right is a big parking lot, from where the trolley/tram tours of the city depart. To the right of that is the Eichburg Building. The Visitor's Center, btw, was very helpful when I was there. Highly recommend as your first stop when you visit. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 03:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, clarify. The Railroad Museum is to the left of the Visitor Center as you face it. It's in a round building. See here. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 03:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

But that is a different building from the "two images" above, isn't it? This is a close up of the museum to the left. .. Yes, when I was up there a few months ago my daughter and I were using a map I printed on 8.5x11 paper. Then we saw people with a much bigger map. We found out that they got it at the visitor's center - we should have gone there first. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The museum is separate. I don't think I took any pictures of the museum b/c it didn't catch my attention at the time. Plus I'm not much for museums. From south to north along MLK Blvd it's: Museum -- Visitor Center -- parking lot -- Eichburg Hall. There's at least one other SCAD building a few blocks north. The museum info is in the Central of Georgia Railroad: Savannah Shops and Terminal Facilities article. It is all a bit confusing. Maybe contact SCAD? That's kind of what they're all about. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 03:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC) No, I see I did take pictures of the museum. Just not very good ones. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 03:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I've been getting from the Google Street View searches; Railroad Museum -- Visitor Center -- parking lot -- Eichburg Hall -- Main Art Museum Building ("Gray Building"). The two images I posted indicate that Eichburg Hall is now part of SCAD, and I know that the Gray Building was also a Central of Georgia HQ, but nothing I've seen indicates that the Gray Building is NRHP listed. Also all the posted HABS images correspond with what I've seen so far, and the old topographical maps indicate that the tracks terminated at all the buildings mentioned. If SCAD doesn't have all the info we need, maybe the "Coastal Heritage Society " might. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

While you two are working this out, note that the Central of Georgia Depot and Trainshed article gives a refnum of 76000610 but the article gives a reference to a focus url for 78000970, which has't been scanned. 76000610 does exist, however, maybe just a cut an paste error but I didn't want to get in the middle of a reorg. Generic1139 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC) (760006100 is titled Central of Georgia Railroad: Savannah Shops & Terminal Facilities) Generic1139 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, and yes this looks like a cut and paste error on my part. The Chatham County list gives the refnum for the trainshed (Visitor's Center) as 76000610, the shop and terminal facilities (railroad museum) as 78000970, and the Red Building (Eichburg Hall) as 70000199. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

New NHLs

The latest Weekly List has quite a few new NHLs (and one removal). Einbierbitte (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories for photos that are in a historic district

When uploading photos of things that are in a NRHP historical district, but are not specifically on the register, should the NRHP category be used for the photo? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say yes, since they're listed on the register as part of the district. Though if you have more than one picture from the district, you might be better off making a new category for the district itself. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Some forms have a list of the contributing structures (which is nice) but some don't. I'm working on Vernon Square-Columbus Square Historic District and it doesn't list them. It shows their location on a map and has photos of some of them, but that isn't as good as having a list. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Unity Ranger Station assessment

Request someone from Wiki-NRHP take a second look at Unity Ranger Station. It looks like the article meet criterion for rating.--Orygun (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixing Pennsylvania

Per the discussion about Pennsylvania in § NPS Focus has been updated, I created Template:NRHP-PA and have begun using WP:AWB to update broken links to use this template. In the future, if PA changes any part of the URL that is now in the template, all we should need to do fix all the links is just update the template. It will take me a while to work though them all, even with semi-automated editing. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice. Generic1139 (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed this today when I saw Wbm1058 updating many Pennsylvania covered bridges. It's awesome that we now can have a link to the PA nomination forms without hand coding and double-checking on the PMHC's 13th century website. I don't do any of this automated stuff, but I'd encourage anybody who knows how to help with AWB or bots.

BTW, it was previously the case that you couldn't link to PMHC photos (no idea why). It now appears that you can link using the NRHP-PA template and just changing the last 3-4 characters on the PA number from e.g. A.PDF to B.JPG (but I'd recheck this).

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And is there something similar we can use for the url to NRHP focus in a full citation? The NRHP nomination|name=|refnum= template results in National Register of Historic Places Nomination: name (#refnum). Is that sufficient, or have I been working too hard in using a cite web with title, publisher, date, author, access date, etc. Generic1139 (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've already racked up over 400 edits, this is a fast way to move up the leaderboard! I don't know whether it's the new version of AWB, or MediaWiki, or both, or just a low-traffic day on the site, but the response time on my updates is lightening fast today. Bridges done, next on to cemeteries and clubhouses. - Wbm1058 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe I'm  Done. 2600 transclusions of the new URL template. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice job. Remaining to be done are the photos. I've been doing some by hand, such as Harrison House (Centerville, Pennsylvania), but there are more, like Harrison House (Centerville, Pennsylvania) Regester Log House. Some of them, like Harrison, are integrated into the reference, others are in the external links. Not all end in 01b like H001182_01b.jpg, some are -02b, _03b, etc. I suspect you can find these with AWB faster than I can with normal user search tools. Generic1139 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely wonderful. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! AWB re-walked Category:National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania and its sub-cats and fixed about 8 pages with photo links. Wbm1058 (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Local Historic Register places in Martin County, Florida

Category:Local Historic Register places in Martin County, Florida, which is not quite within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Garrett Snuff Mill

The Garrett Snuff Mill was placed on the National Register in 1978, with a category of "building", consisting of 14 buildings at the core of the mill complex. The Garrett Snuff Mills Historic District was placed on the National Register in 1980, with a category of "district", consisting of the 14 core buildings plus a number of houses associated with the mills. The nomination form for the latter says that it's an "amendment and expansion" of the former nomination. Should the two be consolidated into a single article, or does that only apply to boundary changes (and not amendments)? Choess (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, NPS Focus doesn't treat them as inherently related, so I guess that suggests keeping them separate. Choess (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, the 80004486 nomination form says "increase approved" in the For NPS use Only block on the upper right of the first page - seeming to say that the 2nd nomination was intended to be an amendment/expansion of the first and was approved as such, as if the first was already an HD and not just a building. I think this is just one of the outliers in a big database and we can do it either way. Since the nomination forms are written as an expansion, and not as a separately listed building that is also contained in a new HD, one article would be closer to the intent than two, and combine the two in the county list as well, and add a redirect to Garrett Snuff Mills Historic District from Garrett Snuff Mills. But the way it is now is probably also ok, Generic1139 (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I would lean toward combining the two articles. It appears that the buildings in the Garrett Snuff Mill comprise the majority of the Garrett Snuff Mills Historic District -- not numerically, but in square footage and in historical importance. So the amount of information in a good HD article that would not also be in a good Mill article would be relatively small. Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

A new resource for Vermont

The Vermont Division of Historic Preservation has been digitizing all its documents, including its NRHP nominations, in its Online Research Center. Most of them are already in Focus, but it's nice to have a state resource for more recent nominations (through at least 2012, it appears) and Vermont's handful of address-restricted sites. (And for anyone who doesn't like working with Focus, for that matter.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Two questions

(1) at National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Duval_County,_Florida, at Grand Site, there is an image saying "Address restricted". That seems to count as an image, since the progress page shows Duval County, FL as 100% red. It seems to me that those should be taken out.

(2) Duval county also shows one NHRP that has been delisted. What causes something to be removed from the list? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The "Address Restricted" images boost statistics. Some editors add them, others remove them. I'm in the latter camp, since they leave the mistaken impression that pictures relevant to these places cannot be found or taken, a generally false assertion. I have found pictures, and taken pictures, of such properties.

Properties are delisted, usually by action of the relevant State Historic Preservation Office, when a property has lost historic integrity (typically by demolition or significant alteration) and has been reported to them. Note that removal requires positive action, and there are many demolished (or historically compromised) properties still listed. I have also recently come across properties where the SHPO requested removal, but the Park Service did not act. (The delisting of Gerrish Warehouse and several other Maine properties are now pending due to my inquiries, but were first requested by the Maine SHPO many years ago.) Magic♪piano 02:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

#2, I've seen quite a few that are gone now. As for the "Address Restricted" image, I'm also in favor of removing them, for the reasons you say. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel like it's been discussed in the past (can't remember where though), but I'm another person who doesn't like address-restricted images. They pad the statistics for sites that are often publicly accessible, and in some cases even marked by signage. In one case I've even seen an address-restricted placeholder image blocking an actual image of a site from appearing in the "Unused images" page. I usually remove them when I see them in lists, though I've seen people doing the opposite so I suspect there's not a real consensus (yet). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I know what you mean. The Glynn County, Georgia listing has Gascoigne_Bluff#Hamilton_Plantation as "address restricted", although it doesn't have the image. However, it is no secret where it is - there are signs directing you to it and tours are given by the garden club every summer. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

#1 I'll put a vote in the other camp, but conditionally. I too have found such sites that are in easily accessible places, and always felt an extra sense of accomplishment when I could get pictures of them. Like this NHL, for example. But there are some sites that are legitimately restricted for archaeological purposes, to prevent vandalism and such. I'll put the AR image on such sites, but only after researching to verify that. I've thought about contacting regional archaeological societies or universities to see about access, but not got round to it. But like private homes, we don't want to encourage trespassing just to get pictures. It's a balancing act, but one that most here have probably learned.

#2 Agree with all above. I have gotten some Florida ones delisted after finding them gone once I visited, then researching to find out more. Palm Beach County springs to mind. I sent the info about it to the appropriate state agency, they notified the NPS and they got delisted. That's the best way to go. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 04:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The "eligible but not listed" ones seem the most odd to me. Go through all the effort and expense of getting something on the NRHP, then it's like, "Nope, never mind." Weird. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 04:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against it saying "address restricted" in the location column, if there is a reason for it. I object to the "address restricted" image in the image column, but I see your point. (When I see an "upload image", it is like a challenge. But then if I see "address restricted", I usually don't go after it.) The one above is an exception, but its location is common knowledge. Two others are in Glynn County, Georgia (old town), because any archaeological work there was done decades ago, and one in Bryan County, Georgia because there is nothing to see (just a bend in the river) and the photo won't really reveal where it is. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't care for or use the "address restricted" image, but... I think the logic some folks have behind using it is that leaving empty space with an "Upload image" link in the image column encourages people, some of whom may not be very conscientious about preservation, to go out and hunt up sites that legitimately should be left alone. It's not all about padding completeness numbers.

My personal thinking is mostly in line with what Ebyabe said. In some cases the location has become so public that maintaining the confidentiality fiction is silly: the Fort Yamhill Site has been developed into a state park, but the address restriction never formally lifted because (I'm guessing) no one wants to go through the bureaucratic steps of updating documentation. In other cases where the site remains sensitive and confidential, I've been able to deduce the location and got pictures, but I was very careful to restrict the frame to eliminate any identifiable landmarks and certainly to leave out coords (example). But in cases that don't fit either of these situations, I'll still at least try to find photos of stratigraphy or recovered artifacts (such as here) rather than use the "Address restricted" file. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Another example is the ones in Collier County. All the unlisted ones are archaeological sites way into the Big Cypress National Preserve and/or the Everglades. Platt Island is the only one with approximate coordinates, and you can see how far into the swamps those are. The shipwreck sites are problematic too. I resorted to taking pictures of the Atlantic or the Gulf (or a river, in one case), since I don't dive or know anyone who does. I understand the desire not to use the AR graphic, but in cases where reasonable efforts have been made to get photos of a site and just can't be done, I think they're valid. Maybe there could be some alternate graphic that indicates caution if one wants to get photos of such sites. Back to uploading images of non-restricted sites I've been putting off uploading for way too long. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 23:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

ErfgoedBot

I see that ErfgoedBot has been disabled and hasn't run for almost two months. Among other helpful features, it built lists of commons pics and categories tagged with nrhp refnums so they could easily be found and added to the county lists. Anyone know if this is coming back, or if there is another method of getting the same data? Generic1139 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I saw that User:Multichill didn't have time to maintain the bot and retired it instead (correct me if I'm wrong). I was about to suggest we try to get the code and have NationalRegisterBot do it instead, but User:Dudemanfellabra and his bot have both been inactive for months too. I know he's been inactive before due to real-world commitments, so hopefully he'll be back at some point, but that means we're short the functionality of two bots for the time being. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Generic1139: @TheCatalyst31: For some background, this is what I put in my report of Wikimania: One of the recurring topics was the monuments database and ErfgoedBot mainly in use for Wiki Loves Monuments. I've developed most of the code (especially the backend code) and I maintained it for the last couple of years. Last year I organized Wiki Loves Monuments (2012) I was able to get some more people on board to help out, but after that it slowly died down. I asked around for someone else becoming the lead maintainer, but I didn't find anyone. The underlying library (pywikibot compat) was going to break and I didn't feel like investing time so I pulled the plug (mailing list). Quite a few people approached me about this before and during Wikimania. I explained them the situation and what needs to be done: Someone else needs to step up as lead maintainer and organize things. Other people (including me) will help out. I am not going to take the lead in this. The positive part is that the bot and the database are appreciated by a lot of people and other people are willing to help out. The negative part is that unfortunately nobody stepped up as lead maintainer. I sure hope someone will do that because otherwise Wiki Loves Monuments will have a problem this year. Multichill (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Multichill: Thanks for the background, and thanks for your efforts in the past. I'm a programmer by trade, and therefore know enough to know that I don't want to take the lead in something this large as a first bot effort. I hope someone with the proper qualifications can step up. Generic1139 (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Multichill. It was great while it lasted and I'm sure somebody will step up to the plate soon. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Generic1139: @TheCatalyst31: In case you haven't noticed, user:Jean-Frédéric took over the role of maintainer of the bot. Not sure if everything is already fully functional, but at least Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Missing commons category links is updated. Would be great if people work on that list. I hope the unused images will also be fixed soon. Multichill (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I had minor edits temporarily hidden in my watchlist (occasionally necessary when you watch several thousand articles and someone comes through them on an AWB run), so I missed the updates. It looks like the list really built up while the bot was down, but I'll see if I can put a dent in it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, those edits shouldn't be minor. Filed phab:T110830 for that. Also found why the unused images page wasn't updating, see phab:T110829. I just did a manual update of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Unused images so that you can catch up on that one too. Multichill (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the update. I whacked away at the bottom of the missing commons category links for a while. Generic1139 (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see the tasks fulfilled by the bot are appreciated! If you encounter any issue, could you file them on Phabricator? That would help a lot. Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Weekly List: a word of caution

I exchanged some e-mails with the Oregon SHPO today, inquiring about the procedure to remove listings from the NRHP. In the course of the conversation, my SHPO contact sent me a copy of a year-old request to delist the Baxter House, with the comment that it was a good sample even though the petition to delist was ultimately unsuccessful. This came as a surprise to me, because the NPS Weekly List had reported the Baxter House as delisted on 2014-08-08, and I had removed it from the county list at that time. So I went back to the Weekly List archive to search for the delisting entry and could not find it. When I asked, my SHPO contact said, in effect, that the NPS had recorded the delisting in error, and when they went back and examined the petition again they rejected the delisting request. So it appears that when NPS corrected the error, instead of using a later Weekly List to explicitly reinstate the Baxter House, they simply erased that entry from the already-posted Weekly List. This correction was invisible to editors (we thought we had already finished recording everything from that Weekly List), so the error remained on Wikipedia until today's chance discussion.

The upshot: The NPS can, and evidently does, occasionally change the contents of the Weekly List after it has been posted. We (WP:NRHP editors) typically treat the posted Weekly List as the final word, but that may not always be the case. I doubt these post-publication changes to the Weekly List are frequent enough to make it worth our while to put any sort of monitoring procedure in place, but we probably ought to keep this issue in the back of our minds. — Ipoellet (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright on SHPO images

Take, for example, File:Old Safford High School.jpg, a grab from a nomination, in this case, an Arizona state historic property inventory form. The license used by the uploader is PD-USGov, clearly incorrect as, at best, it was an employee of Arizona, but in this case, a consulting firm, terms of the contract unknown. Seems to be a candidate for speedy deletion due to copyvio, and there are many like this one, but is there some other reason these are allowed on commons (where fair use isn't permitted)? Generic1139 (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it's just mistagged. Ntsimp (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The PD-USGov tag is clearly incorrect, but PD-US-1978-89 could apply. — Ipoellet (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingman, AZ Santa Fe Depot

I've got a combined infobox prepared to replace the one for Kingman (Amtrak station) since that station is a contributing property of the Kingman Commercial Historic District, but I swiped the NRHP CP half from Southampton (LIRR station) which contains a direct link of all the properties that were added on October 2, 1986. I need the same type of page for May 14, 1986, but the NPS website isn't providing one. Is there another way to dig it up? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The link in the Southampton article goes to a weekly listings page from 2000 that doesn't mention the Southampton station (I'm guessing this was a bad copy-paste job from East Hampton (LIRR station)). The weekly listings for all of 1986 are in this PDF, so you should be able to cite that. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, I should've taken a look at that. I thought that was going to cover the historic district Southampton station is in. I suppose I can try this for Kingman. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Intercultural Council Houses

I added photos of the Intercultural Council Houses in Claremont, California They're in the Commons in the Claremont, California category. Einbierbitte (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week

I brought up the idea of this project having a Collaboration of the Week once before, and thought I might say something about it again, now that we are inching our way toward the end of the calendar year. Designating a single NRHP site each week could be a great way for project members to collaborate and promote content to Good or even Featured status. But unless there is enough interest, organizing a Collaboration of the Week would be just another thing to manage.

Feel free to express your interest, or lack thereof, below. Or, if you have ideas about how to go about selecting NRHP sites for each state, or other thoughts re: COTW, please do share. Best case scenario, there is much enthusiasm and WP:NRHP manages to expand 50+ articles, possibly even resulting in 50+ Good articles. Worst case scenario, we give it a shot, there is a lack of participation, and we move on to other projects and tasks. Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Collaboration of the Week? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Something related I just noticed at WikiProject stats Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics/Hot articles, which is transcluded on their project page. We could get the equivalent for NRHP and put it on the talk page. That way folks could help and review big new changes where people are currently interested in editing without going thru a time-consuming selection process. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Great tool and idea! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we can't really do it. The bot has a limit on categories that it will look at to those with under 10,000 articles. A 12,000 articles category was turned down in June. Our main category has 66,000 articles. Can we find a meaningful sub-category? Category:Mid-importance National Register of Historic Places articles has less than 6,000. Somebody who knows more about cats than I do might look into this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Texas Historical Commission atlas has changed information links

This has also been posted at the WP Project Texas. The home for the Texas Historical Commission atlas URL remains the same: http://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/

However, once you access information, those links have changed. Whatever you have linked to THC as sources in articles are now dead links. I just made a recent change to an article. You can see by the diff how it's been changed.

These atlas links have been used for NRHP citations, as well as other historical marker citations. I have no clue how many thousands of links in articles this affects, but I imagine it's considerable. — Maile (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Bot Request to resolve the issue. — Maile (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Lat/long of new addition

At National Register of Historic Places listings in McIntosh County, Georgia, Ashantilly was just added. It originally gave the lat/long as 31.3835 & -81.4147. That is about 1000 feet off as the crow flies, and more along the roads. If you look for it there, you won't find it. The website (linked in the description) gives a link to Google Maps that shows the correct location. I opened the website in IE and then told it to open that page in Word. From that I could hover over map and see that the location it shows is 31.37784 & -81.418455. I put that location into the article, but it doesn't go to the right location either. Can anyone figure out why this didn't work and what the correct lat & long are? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting (or at least improving on) coordinates that I knew were close but wrong. My examination of the Ashantilly Center map gives its location as 31.381109, -81.413093. (When you have a Google Map, you can right-click and select "What's here" to get coordinates.) Magic♪piano 17:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks, I didn't know about "what's here". I saw that you added it this morning. We have been having a LARGE amount of rain (with heavy overcast) for days, and more expected this afternoon. About 11AM the clouds broke and the Sun came out. I thought that I could get up there and get a photo and be back before lunch, which is what I did. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bubba73: your problem was that with the way you looked at the URL, you were seeing the location of the center of the displayed map, not the marked house location. Generic1139 (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yea. The other parameters must tell the offset of the point you want to mark. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Bubba73, take it easy on yourself. Instead of using Google Maps and "What's Here", use mapper.acme.com; it's the "ACME Mapper" link just below the "Global services" header on the left side of the coords page. That page has a bit box at bottom right with lots of information, including the coordinates of the center of the page. "What's Here" only gives coordinates for a single spot, and you can't move them without reclicking, but this changes coordinates with the simplest movement. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about that. Hold the cursor down and drag the map, and it shows the coordinates of the mark in the center. Good. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Uploading nomination forms to commons

See File:Bowman-Pirkle-House.pdf, a complete nomination form from 1973, uploaded with PD-USGov as the license. As this was written by the someone from the Georgia Historical Commission, that's the wrong license, and PD-US-no notice probably applies. But, my first thought was that we don't want to upload (after vetting) all nomination forms written before 1989 to commons. Or do we? Is it any different than uploading all the habs/loc photos? At what point does commons become Project Gutenberg? Generic1139 (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The same question can be asked about converting noms to wikitext for WikiSource. — Ipoellet (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any reason, except perhaps for space considerations, that we can't upload all pre-1989 NRHP noms to some WMF site under the PD-US-no notice license. These are official government documents where the applicant (nominator) is asking for a government recognition or benefit (however small). The nominator had no expectation of privacy and knew that the documents would be widely distributed via libraries, snail-mail, and now via an antique web site by the US government. If they did not comply with the copyright law before 1989, then its clear that they did not expect to have a copyright and that they don't have a copyright. I've never seen a nomination form comply with the pre-1989 copyright laws, except for a few photos. I'll also say that the same argument applies to most photographs in the noms, but that discussion should be left for later because it would be very controversial, especially at Commons.

BTW, last time I checked Focus, it looked quite a bit better than usual, but I don't expect the site to stay up and working or to keep pace with the general improvement of the internet.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

link to create a stub for a NRHP

I've used a link to something that generates the text for an NRHP stub. But now I've lost that link - what is it? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably Elkman's excellent tool. Magic♪piano 03:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's it - create an info box ... Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I used that to start Hofwyl-Broadfield Plantation. There are a couple of problems. (1) it gave the year built as 1900. The plantation started in 1800 and the main house was built in the early 1850s. (2) it gave the nearest city as Brunswick, Georgia. It is about 15 kilometers from Brunswick but it is right across the river from Darien, Georgia. Of course, Darien is a much smaller city. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The National Register Information System, the NPS database that Elkman's tool pulls its info from, has a lot of errors like that - the year was probably just bad data entry, and the city probably came from a postal address and didn't actually look at the nearest city geographically. If you see wrong information like that in the tool's output, please go ahead and correct it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't begin to say how many times Elkman has stressed that his tool is just that... a tool... it is not a source in and of itself. It does a great job of compiling information from the database, but it won't catch any errors in the database. Thus, it is subject to "garbage in, garbage out" when it comes to accuracy... Use with caution, double check everything and when there is an error, just fix it. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll second Blueboar's admonition. The NRIS is rife with error, and if we write an article that contains one of those errors, we spread it. Relatively few people know about NRIS, but lots of people look to Wikipedia for information, and some of those people are likely to echo an error that makes its way into a WP article.

By way of example, suppose that someone produces a substub on an NRHP-listed church based on NRIS alone, and includes an incorrect date from NRIS. Later, a parishioner gets that bad date from the WP article and incorporates it into the church's website, without expressly saying where they found the date. That makes it look like the date's corroborated by an independent source, and makes it less likely that the error will be caught and corrected. — Ammodramus (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks everyone. The thing gave 1900 for the year. It started being a rice plantation in 1800, according to the State of Georgia brochure. The main house was built in the early 1850s, but the whole site is on the NRHP. So what year should I use, 1800? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Use either 1800, 1850s, or both; consider it an editorial judgment call. By the way, you can also read the nomination form. Magic♪piano 00:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

...Or leave that particular infobox field blank. If a place's history is too complicated to boil down to a single construction date, describe it in the article text. We don't have to fill in every single infobox field, and it's better to leave one empty than to give a false impression of specificity.

The same holds true for other infobox fields. I've seen NRIS-only stubs that have specified a single architectural style in the infobox; but when I've read the actual nom form, the architecture's described as incorporating a whole mix of styles. — Ammodramus (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

NPS - Bad Page

This link gives "bad page" for the photos

http://focus.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/89000152

The PDF of the form is OK. Is there a way to notify them that something is wrong? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

NRHP Focus template

The NRHP Focus template used by NRHP row still checks for date <= 20120831 before adding the url to Focus for the refnum in the date listed/ref column. Since the new Focus has at least the meta data for many listings past that point, is it time to ask @Wbm1058: to remove that check? Generic1139 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:NRHP Focus doesn't have that date check, it's in Template:NRHP row. What was the rationale for putting the date check there, in other words, what problem was that addressing? I'm not familiar with the background here... hmm, I see this edit added the 20120831 date. How did he get involved here? The edit summary "Comment out code causing errors" doesn't exactly jive with the edit. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I see, Template talk:NRHP row § Edit of 25 Feb. 2014... there was a template-protected edit request. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

...and this earlier edit was actually where the 20120831 date was added: "don't include Focus link for properties listed after August 2012". Why not? Wbm1058 (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I see that it was again Dudemanfellabra who implemented the fix... as he hasn't edited since April, and I don't want to distract him from his pursuit of a PhD in Physics, I'll try to help here. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

For a good while, Focus didn't even mention the existence of the newest records, and apparently August 2012 was approximately the most recent date for records that did get mentioned. In such a situation, providing a link to newer records was pointless, because it caused us to have non-working links: older refnums were taken to working information, but newer refnums were taken to what was essentially a 404 error. Having no link in such a situation is generally better than having a broken link. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

So at this point, can we assume that all links, even new ones added this month, will work? Can you point me to an article or two which has a link newer than August 2012, which isn't working now, but should be after this fix, so I can test and confirm the fix? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

In National Register of Historic Places listings in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 14000813 (Mt. Lebanon Historic District) and 13000741 (Mooncrest Historic District) have default pdfs, but the metadata is there. Generic1139 (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Ping me if you find any problems. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Generic1139 (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

HD boundary increase / expansion

Currently in Saginaw County, MI are these two table rows:

• Saginaw Central City Historic Residential District (79001168)
• Saginaw Central City Expansion District (82002875)

Despite the absence of the normal "(Boundary Increase)" formulation of the name, the nomination for the expansion district makes completely clear that the expansion district is intended as an addition to / amendment of the already-existing district. Therefore I'm inclined to combine the two table rows into one (under the 1979 name) and reduce the county's/state's count of listings by one, like we normally would with a boundary increase. Can anyone think of a reason not to do this? — Ipoellet (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

We've done that before for other listings-that-are-really-boundary-increases. I remember a similar extension happened in 2013 with the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site, and those are considered part of the same listing in the Sullivan County, New Hampshire list, and I think there are other examples but I can't remember them. It makes sense to do it with this one too. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Also see the "West Fourth Street Historic District (Amendment)", NRIS 79001861, which is really a boundary increase for the West Fourth Street Historic District (Cincinnati, Ohio). Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Also also see the "Springfield Main Street Historic District" entry at National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Kentucky, together with the summary comment. Unlike the Cincinnati amendment, this started with a small, compact district in the downtown of a small county seat, and it was converted into a district that lines the main street almost literally from one end of the city to the other. This is one of the most dramatic boundary increases that I can remember encountering. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, all. I've gone ahead and merged the rows. — Ipoellet (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

A little help needed

Most of you probably know User:KLOTZ over at Commons. He has uploaded over 4,500 photos, including perhaps 3,000 NRHP sites over the last 3 years. I'm in awe of much of what he does, and would love to be able to say "well, I've photographed my 3% of NRHP sites." I have been attempting to help him out in a couple of ways 1) by categorizing his photos at Commons, and 2) by placing his pix in articles and county lists. My situation has changed and it is more difficult for me to do this now.

KLOTZ is going to try to edit on Wikipedia, and I think with some trial and error he will have some success. I've been fairly good about placing his pix this summer and might only be about 2 weeks behind. As far as categorizing, I might be a full 3 months behind. One little thing with categorizing - he tends to put the NRHP registration numbers in categories rather than inside curly brackets so if you see [[Category:92001621]] it should be {{NRHP|92001621}}

Any bit of help would be appreciated.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

To be specific, we are now talking on editing files on Commons, right? Once the templates are in order, the bot will make the rest of the job (well, with some help from us).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, once you change [[Category:92001621]] to {{NRHP|92001621}} it gets in the Erfgoedbot system - which is now working again - and it will list the pix on our "unused image" page. The bot seems to be running a couple of times per week. I think it even does some automatic categorizing. In any case I like placing the pix in articles and lists (that's the whole point, right?) rather than pass it on to somebody at the unused image page. Roy likes seeing the pix in the articles and lists as well and checks on me.

The photos to check are at

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/KLOTZ, and
• [1], here they come again!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've started on a few and added the NRHP template. I caught a misspelling in the title of one picture. Einbierbitte (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Link refnum in Infobox NRHP to Focus?

Hello everyone.. sorry to dip out on the project for several months, but I've been busy 1) moving across the country from Mississippi to California, 2) getting settled into a new Ph.D. program at a new university, and 3) having my old computer crap out on me and having to buy a new one. I finally found time today to get on and check out what's happened while I was gone, and boy has there been a lot. First, it looks like Focus has been updated to have awesome new direct links for all sites' metadata, and the links have been changed in {{NRHP row}} accordingly (thanks to other template editors who made that work). I just edited the infobox sandbox to incorporate these links too since they're so direct and easy to generate. The results can be seen at Template:Infobox NRHP/testcases. Does everyone approve of this change? I think it would be a great addition to the infobox, but I'll forego taking the edit live until people have had time to give their input.

In other news, I'm currently running NationalRegisterBot to update duplicate information and NRIS-only lists and will hopefully update the Progress page and all the other statistical stuff I had kept up to date before my hiatus. I also have some plans to update the NRHPstats script with a few other goodies suggested by User:Smallbones during my stay, namely to show only non-illustrated/redlinked/other problem rows in the county tables. If there is anything else related to templates, scripting, etc., that has remained unresolved while I was gone (I didn't do a full check), please feel free to let me know, and I'll see what I can do. I don't plan on being as active as I was before, but I definitely won't skip out for several months again haha.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. I'll suggest that the Ph.D. is probably more important than updating some bots, but that's up to you of course. Sometimes a little programming can be quite relaxing. I'm not sure what I suggested, but if enough small bones make enough random suggestions, a few of them are likely to be worthwhile. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back! It's good to see you around again, and you new changes all look pretty awesome.. There were probably a few things that came up while you were gone that I either would have pointed out if you were active or just got lost in the shuffle - if I remember them and they seem important I'll let you know. Incidentally, do you have any plans to make the source code for NationalRegisterBot public (or is it already, in somewhere I didn't think to look)? If you did end up being inactive for a long time again, it might help if someone else could take over the bot. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the refum link in the infobox would be nice to have. The link in the "included in a train station infobox" sandbox test case isn't working correctly, however. Generic1139 (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Smallbones: You suggested above some ideas for WLM (which is almost over, but such is life) that I thought were pretty good, including having something one would be able to click on a county list to only show non-illustrated listings. I plan to add that feature to the NRHPstats script which shows stats about each list already when enabled.

@TheCatalyst31: The code for NationalRegisterBot is actually public but not readily linked from anything. The code has a check to see if you are signed in as NationalRegisterBot, though, so if you were thinking of copying the code somewhere, that won't really help unless you modify it to include your username. The bot actions, namely tagging/untagging NRIS-only articles, are only approved for that user account, though, so what you'd really need is the login information for that account. When I was creating the bot I made it pretty clear that I didn't necessarily want to be the sole "owner" of the bot, thus the name NationalRegisterBot rather than like DudemanfellabraBot or something. If I for whatever reason dip out for an extended period of time, feel free to email me or Facebook me (links on my user page) and ask for the login information. I don't know if there's anything official that would need to be done in that case, but we can cross that bridge if/when we get to it.

@Generic1139: Thanks for pointing that out. The reason those train infoboxes weren't working properly is because there was a citation added to the |refnum= parameter, which is not really necessary and wasn't an official link anyway. I've removed the ref, and the cases look correct now. In other cases, one can just move any refs to another parameter, e.g. the listing date. If no one objects, I'll take the changes live soon.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dudemanfellabra:Spot checking random entries in OH, NJ, and PA, it seems to be very common to have the nris template on the refnum, e.g., Bradner's Pharmacy, Boyce Station, Bartlett School, Van Horn Building. Those are all non-embedded infoboxes that have the extra url reference link displayed in front of the reference number when using the current sandbox version of the NRHP infobox. At a guess, there are hundreds or thousands of entries like those. Generic1139 (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I've also added a test case showing that usage.Generic1139 (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

After toying around with it, I was able to use Module:String to do a regex replace and match only the refnum itself, ignoring any references. The example you added to the testcases page works for me now. How about you?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks. Generic1139 (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

As such, I've updated the live template.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Year 2066 problem

The NRHP ID numbers start with the last two years of the year, starting in 1966. What are they going to do in 2066? Looks like they would have done something about this in 2000. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The reference numbers are eight digits long, and they've only ever needed to use four of the six digits after the year, so they have plenty of space once they need to start repeating years. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Numbers ending with "1xxx" are common (for example, 93001025), and I may have seen an occasional number with "2xxx" (none comes to mind), but at the current rate of designation, it's going to be a few hundred years until they get to the point of having to start repeating years. Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The numbers did get pretty high around 1979-80 when the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service was active - I've seen a few in the 4xxx range (80004592 for instance). They're still nowhere near the point of having to repeat numbers, of course... TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Charles Wenner House nominated at AfD

Charles Wenner House, an article which this project may be interested in, has been nominated for deletion. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Issue with categories under Category:Historic districts in the United States by state

If this isn't the best place to bring this up, please let me know.

I noticed that all the subcategories under Category:Historic districts in the United States by state are in categories related to the National Register of Historic Places. For example, Category:Historic districts in Alabama is in Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alabama. (The parent category Category:Historic districts in the United States is not in an NRHP category.) However, not all historic districts in the states are on the NRHP. For example, I know that there are locally-designated historic districts in California, so I checked the ones in the California category. The following entries for California don't appear to be on the NRHP:

• California Citrus State Historic Park
• Dryden Historic District (San Diego)
• Historic Core, Los Angeles
• La Grange, California
• Old Oakland
• Willborough, Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame, California
• Wingo, California

I think one of the following should be done:

• Remove the NRHP categories from the subcategories under Category:Historic districts in the United States by state.
• Create separate categories for the historic districts that are on the NRHP, and populate them appropriately, leaving the existing categories for the ones not on the NRHP. This would, of course, be much more work.

Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

For the second idea, the by-state historic district categories are automatically added for districts using Infobox NRHP. We could change the infobox and recategorize most of them, though it wouldn't update articles where the category was manually added. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I proposed the category structure above way back forever ago when this issue was raised. My structure wasn't implemented and the discussion fizzled out, but I still think this would be the best way to arrange categories. It differentiates between federal and state/local historic districts for each state, using Alabama as an example.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Since nearly all HD articles are NR-listed, I don't see a huge benefit to having "NR HDs" and "Local-or-state HDs" categories. We definitely need to get the HDs out of the NR category tree, since they're not all NR-listed, but I think a single "HDs in state" category tree for each state will be sufficient, not subdividing the statewide category unless there's need for a geographic split such as Category:Historic districts in Hamilton County, Ohio. Splitting between local and state and federal will cause a huge degree of overlap in some places, since lots of NR-listed places have state and/or local designation too; seven of the ten districts at {{NRHP in Monroe County, Indiana}} have City of Bloomington designation, and the other three (all outside of Bloomington) have other local HD status. Do we really want to categorise them both as federal HDs and as local HDs? Or consider New Jersey, where (if I understand rightly) all NR-listed places have state status too; it's not going to be useful if all "Federal HDs in NJ" articles are also in "State HDs in NJ". Finally, note that the latest incarnation of the HDs-in-NR-tree problem is a very recent thing, added here as one of Hmains' numerous misguided AWB runs. Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. I'm glad that changing the template would do most of the work. If no one objects after a reasonable amount of time (a week? longer?), I wouldn't mind making the protected edit request and taking care of the categories, unless an official member of this project would rather do it.. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request for what template? Infobox NRHP already does what we need it to; the problem is that someone messed up the inter-category relationships. Nyttend (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The category added by the template is "Historic districts in state". It should be "Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in state". --Auntof6 (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be: as I noted already, most HD articles are just federal HDs, and many of the exceptions are both federal and state-and-or-local HDs, so having a separate set of categories for federal HDs will (1) make our HD categories virtually empty, and (2) make it look as if the federal-and-state-and-or-local HDs are federal only. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant to have a separate category for the NRHP ones, and leave the others under the existing categories as opposed to in a new more-specific category. Let me see if I understand: you would just remove the NRHP parent categories from the "HD in state" categories? That would leave nothing in NRHP categories to represent the historic districts (because the NRHP category should also be removed from Category:Historic district contributing properties, since not everything there is under the NRHP). Is that right? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Major update to NRHPstats script

Many of you use the NRHPstats script, which runs on every NRHP county list and calculates statistics about articled/illustrated percent, how many stubs, start+, etc. articles there are on that particular page. During my extended absence this past summer, User:Smallbones suggested a feature originally aimed at WLM (sorry for coming back so late) that would allow one to click something on a county list and show only the unillustrated items on the list in an effort to speed up identifying unillustrated listings. After a few days of tinkering with the script in my spare time, I have now added that feature, as well as being able to filter by any of the other statistics calculated by the script (e.g. showing only NRIS-only articles). The update also hopefully makes everything load faster since it does its querying in parallel rather than in series, not freezing up your browser for the ~few seconds or longer it takes to run on larger pages, which can get pretty annoying. Also the update better respects the user's preference to disable automatic execution in favor of a toolbar link in the left navbar (by setting "NRHPstatsAuto=false" just above the script in your .js file). Before even if the user had set this option to false, the script would run anyway and just hide the results when it was done, still making the user wait through that annoying lock-up period at page loads. Now that should be taken care of, and the script doesn't run at all until the toolbar link is clicked.

If anyone has any feedback they'd like to give, feel free to do so. Obviously if you catch any errors, please let me know as well. I've changed the entire method of calculating statistics, so there may even be (but hopefully not!) some accuracy errors that have crept in. If anything seems out of the ordinary, please let me know! Also if you would like to see something else added to the script, let me konw that as well! Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That feature was from my list of suggestions (on the User:Smallbones thread) for things needing to be done before a "final" 2016 US WLM push, so you aren't late. Your addition to the NRHPstats script is great, thanks, and will help me for one, but it is for the already clued-in - you have to know about the script, how to add it in, and if desired, how to set the variable and where the display command appears on the page. This not something to be expected of new editors to the project. For WLM-2016, we need to consider how to make the filter feature easier to discover, or have it automatically included. Further, the filter on current listings doesn't affect the "map all coordinates" tool - it would be nice to pass in a parameter as needed to wiki-osm.pl to also have it filter, or pass in a pre-filtered list, or whatever, so we can get a map of just those items needing photos. The intent, for a notional WLM-2016 in the US, is to emphasize getting photos of non-illustrated listings, and making it as easy as possible for new or infrequent photo providers to focus on the right area. I see the monuments mapper now has layers so the user can see only monuments without images, excellent. Generic1139 (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I just did a quick check. It looks good to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for the misattribution. That section had a lot of formatting and I was just skimming, so I must have missed your signature. Either way, it was a good suggestion, and I've added it. I'll look in to extending it to interface with GeoGroup template, but I fear that uses an entirely different system, so I may not be able to do that. In any event, as you mentioned, the monuments mapper has that ability, so at worst, we can just link to that from each county list.

As far as enabling filtering for everyone, I'm afraid that's pretty impossible to do with template code/other on-wiki options. It may be possible to have some online system kind of like the WLM maps tool that could filter the tables via a link, but that's above my head haha. If nothing else, maybe we could just create a "welcome page" for new contributors and explain in detail how to add the script if they wish to do so. The fact that the script not only talks about illustrated statistics but also articles (stub, start+, tagged, etc.) may also spur new contributors that are ostensibly here solely as photographers to contribute on that side of things as well!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Add Rural Electrification Act content to affected U.S. National Monument Pages

Add how rural electrification affected each National Monument article in the United States be searching the Rural Electrification Act records in the National Archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Shelton32 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

More thoughts on Wiki Loves Monuments

Based on the positive discussion, and a nudge from Smallbones, I've created an organizing page for a possible 2016 photo event. Please take a look, comments and signups are welcome. Generic1139 (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What to do when a location has changed?

The NRHP form for Midway Historic District at National Register of Historic Places listings in Liberty County, Georgia lists it at the intersection of US 17 and SR 38. However, SR 38 has been moved, so now that road is simply Martin Road. What is best to give for the location, just the current address or include the old address to avoid possible confusion when someone compares it to the NRHP form? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I usually just correct entries like that to reflect current road alignments (just like correcting geocoordinates that are off). If there's an article, I might mention in it that road alignments and numbering have changed. Magic♪piano 23:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Add to article or create another one

Much of Fort McAllister Historic Park is about the state park. It is the fort itself that is on the NRHP. There needs to be more about the fort in an article (I plan to do that). But should it be added to the existing article or should a new article about the fort be created? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, the fort is the reason for the historic park's existence, so I'd add material about the fort to the current article. I'd also pare down the lists of facilities and events, per WP:NOTGUIDE, in particular eliminating anything that I couldn't easily find sources for; and convert whatever remained from the bullet lists to prose.

Once I'd added enough fort material that the park tail was no longer wagging the fort dog, I'd rename the article "Fort McAllister". — Ammodramus (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the fort is the reason for the park. The park existed separately under a different name (Richmond Hill Park, or something like that) and then it was combined with the fort to create the current state park. (You actually take a fork in the road to go to the camping facilities vs. the fort.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I changed the disambig Fort McAllister to a proper article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Reformatting tragedy

As some of you know, back in September 2015 I took another big road trip to the New York Tri-State area, and started snapping pictures of sites all over the place, including NRHP sites, train stations, and others. Unfortunately, the camera I was using kept giving me an error message at random moments saying "This card cannot be read." I got another SD card for my camera on the way up, but when I mentioned this problem to a relative, he thought the solution was to reformat the disc. Not only did that not get rid of the error message, it eliminated anywhere between 200 and 500 pictures, including of sites on Long Island recommended by Daniel Case. So while I didn't lose everything from this excursion, there was a lot of good stuff that could've been here. -------User:DanTD (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Reformatting should warn you that you will lose all data on it. However, there is software that can try to recover the images. I don't know the name of any of it offhand, but you can search. Try that before putting more photos on that card because that will overwrite them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 13:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Google "recover images after card format". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 13:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

And don't fall for that one again. I've gotten that one before many times; my solution has always been to reseat the card. And try it in a different device as well. If it works in another device but not the one that it started giving you the error messages in, get another card.

Of course, now that I use a DSLR with a CompactFlash, that happens a lot less. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I recommend at least a bridge camera. Since changing the card didn't fix the problem, the problem must be with the camera.

I sometimes have problems with my camera and taking out the battery and putting it back in clears it up. For instance, I put RAW files on card 1 and JPEG on card 2. After a few shots the other day, it quit making RAW files and put JPEGs on card 1 instead of 2. Taking out the battery and putting it back in cleared up the problem. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?}

So far the newer disc is okay in the camera, and the disc has worked fine in other devices. Taking the batteries and discs out only went so far, though. I just tried to get some new recovery software, but they wanted $39.95 after a few more megabytes. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If the software works, it may be worth it to you. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

So far, it has worked. I posted a large batch of pictures of subway stations in Brooklyn, as well as a few LIRR stations and former LIRR stations. I've got a historic site or two to tackle before tomorrow when I go to the hospital for wrist surgery, and then I'll be out of commission for the next six weeks. :( ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway listed at FAR

I have nominated Pulaski Skyway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Imzadi 1979 → 01:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing historical marker

I've been working on pictures for this list (basically just like NRHP). However, when I got to the Knaggs Bridge Area Informational Site, the plaque was missing. Apparently, it was stolen a couple of years ago. My question is, should I put in a picture of the empty support posts, along with a note about the theft, or just leave it empty (with the same note), and hope that a new marker is put up in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by kennethaw88 (talk • contribs)

Honestly, having a picture of the lack of sign seems at least mildly interesting to have. By the way, would happen to know why the Historic Sites Online site has been down for several months?

That was my instinct, too, so I went ahead and added the picture. I was also really disappointed when that website went down. However, I have found this website. It still seems incomplete compared to the Michigan State Historic Sites lists, but at least there is plenty of overlap with the NRHP sites. kennethaw88 • talk 04:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

kennethaw88, I've supplied pictures for the Indiana and Pennsylvania county-level lists similar to your Shiawassee County list, and I've always tried to focus on the site itself. When there's nothing of particular interest at the site (an event happened there, and now it's just the marker), I've often tried to get a general image including the marker, e.g. File:Rhodes Family Incident historical marker.jpg. Among other things, this avoids copyright issues: remember that markers placed after 1977 are almost always still under copyright. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I had never actually thought about copyright issues. I think I just saw that there were other similar pictures and did the same thing. Do they need to be deleted? (That would really bum me out. Some of these markers took forever to find) kennethaw88 • talk 03:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The HSO site also wasn't entirely up to date (I know of at least one marker which had no page on it), I think it was fully up to date through 2003. I'm still hoping that they are updating and it will reappear, and annoyed that the Internet Archive doesn't have the whole thing. Chris857 (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ohio History Connection

I've been having reasonable success in getting photos of Ohio properties at the replace for the old Ohio Historical Society page, the Ohio History Connection search site. This string works well as a shortcut, use the NRHP refnum:

http://nr.ohpo.org/Details.aspx?refnum=

I updated the Ohio resource information at the resource entry for Ohio. Generic1139 (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Category policy

Is there a policy about categories and sub-categories for photos? If I add a photo from one of the county pages, it defaults to the NRHP category. I often add the category NRHP in X county. Sometimes there is a category for the particular site. Does it hurt to have two or three categories, e.g. NRHP and NRHP in X county? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In general, you only use the lower category, if x is in y, and y is in z, you'd only use x. Don't use y or z. If there is a category for a particular site, then use it. You might want to check to make sure that the site category is a member of an NRHP category. Sometimes a site won't a 100% overlap with the NRHP site, and the site won't have the NRHP category. In that case, you would use both the site and the NRHP in X county categories for your photo. Some counties don't have an NRHP in X county category. You can add one, and then find all the photos that can now be moved to your new NRHP in X county category. It depends on how much time you have, and if you want to learn the somewhat non-intuitive cat-a-lot interface. Generic1139 (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, but it seems to me that it would be better to put them in all of the categories. For example, if someone wanted to look at all NRHP photos, I don't see a practical way to do it. Or if they wanted to see all in Georgia, there are 159 counties to go through, and then that wouldn't get them to all of the ones that have their own category. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, and also see the same issue. A "flatten" button is needed for display. However, see commons:Commons:Categories#Over-categorization. Also, note that exception mentioned in that section doesn't apply to your example. Generic1139 (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It would probably be good if there were an option to show/not show photos that are also in a subcategory.

But I think some categories are ridiculous. For instance, File:Turner County Jail.JPG is in Automobiles in Georgia (U.S. state), Black automobiles, and Fifth-generation Chevrolet Camaro convertibles simply because there is a car in it. The car isn't the subject of the photo. And there are categories such as "Georgia (US State) in September 2015", simply because a photo was taken in Georgia in September 2015, when the date has nothing to do with it (i.e. it was not an event). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Bubba73, I don't use many of those categories (especially the "GA in 2015-09"-type stuff), but some people find it useful and do their best to add them to images. How many people are careful to add structural materials categories to their images? Probably not many, and probably not many find them particularly useful, but I still add "Brick buildings in PLACE" and "Wooden buildings in PLACE" categories to my uploads. As long as you add really basic information (for US locations, please please please put something into a county category or subcategory), it doesn't matter what you're adding Extensive categorisation is a strength of Commons, in particular because we're not restricted by the silliness of WP:DEFINING; we take the position that if the category's useful for finding images of related topics, we create and keep the category. This way, we largely avoid WP:CFD-style bureaucratic debates over whether categories are important enough for such-and-such images; it's easy for people to get images of black cars in Georgia as well as Georgia as it was in September 2015, if that's what they're looking for; and we enable people to search for subjects by name, e.g. looking for "Saint Paul churches in the United States", unlike here, where Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 3 decided to trash a useful navigation system in the "churches by patron saint" section. One final note — lots of categories are important for images, because unlike text, images themselves can't easily be searched by computers, so having additional categories makes images more easily findable. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are two such categories: "Category:July 2015 in Georgia (U.S. state)" and "Category:Photographs taken on 2015-07-08" and added to File:Pierce County Jail, Blackshear, GA, Us.jpg. The photos are of a historic building and have nothing to do with July 8, 2015, except that is when they were taken. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

When clicking on "upload image" on one of the county pages, it defaults to the NRHP category. Is there a way to make it default to the lowest category? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd ignore the "upload image" link, go straight to Commons, and upload from there. I've always done that in the past, but after reading Bubba73's comment, tried using the link from the county page. Doubleplusungood! For one thing, it wouldn't let me release my photos into public domain, as I usually do; it insisted on a different license, so I had to edit each file and change the license manually. For another, as Bubba noted, it fills in the description and the categories automatically, in a way that I didn't particularly want; so another manual fix indicated. For a third, it put the NRHP template on each individual picture, whereas I wanted it on the category containing all three of the photos that I'd taken of the particular site. Won't do that again; I'll upload from Commons, which lets me decide how things are going to be licensed and described and categorized. — Ammodramus (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I usually use the county thing when I can. It puts in some NRHP data and categories. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I generally try to get multiple photos of each site, to give article writers a choice and to make it less likely that I miss an important detail. With digital, there's basically zero marginal cost for each photo, so why not? That being the case, I create a category for each site, and that category goes into the larger NRHP-in-X-county and other categories. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think if you click the upload image and select multiple images to upload, it adds the same information to all of them. But I certainly see your point. If it is one building, I generally take two to five photos. If it is a historical district, more like ten photos. But I go through and pick out the best and usually do a little editing in photoshop, and upload only those. Uploading is a chore I don't like. I don't think I've ever uploaded one that I didn't intend to use in an article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I take a middle approach: I hope to use some of my pictures for print publication at some point, so I take several and upload one in most cases, although I've sometimes done otherwise, e.g. Commons:Category:Clay County Courthouse (Illinois). Like Ammodramus, I always work from Commons:Special:Upload, and now that I've uploaded 13,507 own-work photos and 4,477 other images (tons of them not NR-listed, including most of the 2,294 images in the Commons:Category:Places recorded by the Bloomington Historical Survey tree), I generally prepare description pages offline and copy/paste them into the upload form so that I don't need to worry about losing the description page if there's some sort of connection problem. Regardless of whether you want to upload one or many, once you finish the description page for one upload of a site, it's easy to do more by copy/pasting the description and making a needed tweak or two. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Valuable information, if you're an architect

Since I don't expect to write or expand articles about most of the sites that I photograph, and since I generally haven't read the nom form in detail before I shoot a site, I try to get a variety of photos. If I just go for the straight frontal shot of the building, I'll miss Leon Czolgosz's bedroom window on the side...

One never knows what'll be of interest to an editor going for a GA. I collaborated with an editor with a strong architectural background who was working up a series of articles on a particular architect, and was asked for photos of a patch of the plainest brickwork on each building. Apparently, the dimensions of the bricks used, and the pattern in which they're laid, can be characteristic of an architect. I don't ordinarily photograph a site in that much detail (83 photos of this building), but too much coverage is better than too little. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I try to review the nomination form before I go now, especially since each NRHP photo trip from my locaiton requires a 90 minute one way drive. That way, I don't miss the occasional separately mentioned privy. I use Commons:Special:UploadWizard, that does allow easily selecting multiple files to upload and will copy selected fields from one image to the rest as desired, in particular, locations and categories. I do try to upload more that one image per location, and build a category if I do have multiple images. Until recently, I used the object location feature instead of the camera location, but just found that some of the maps that include commons geolocated photos don't look at the object location, so I'm going back to fix that. Using the upload image button on the county list doesn't always get you the location of what you imaged, and certainly not for districts. The information supplied by the upload image button is better than nothing though, which is why it remains useful for Wiki Loves Monument activities. If you are a regular, as Bubba73 in is now finding, there are better alternatives. Generic1139 (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, what is the best method? For instance, just yesterday I temporarily took an image out of National Register of Historic Places listings in Bryan County, Georgia so that I could use "upload image" to do some of the work for me. That is the method I've been using. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I almost always use the old upload form and add location and other templates manually. It certainly wouldn't be the easiest method for a new user, but it works for me. Jonathunder (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Brick and architectural details

It is interesting about the photo of the bricks, to show them and other architectural details. I've photographed dozens of buildings, but I pretty much fill the frame with the building. I'm going to start getting some of the architectural details. But one thing about using a good camera is that you can zoom in and see details. For instance, compare these two photos: another photographer and my photo. The first one is a 14.1-megapixel photo from a camera that is a piece of junk. My photo is 20.6 megapixels (not a whole lot more), but it was taken with a better camera. You can zoom in and see some details whereas zooming in on the other turns the details to mush. The 46% increase in the number of pixels doesn't make the difference - the camera and lens does. But I'll try to get closer on the details in the future. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

At the other end of the scale, something that I forget far too often is to take a shot from a distance, showing the building in its context. Good to show, for instance, whether a church is out in the country or in the middle of town, or whether a house is set in a big expanse of lawn or is fairly close to its neighbors. — Ammodramus (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking back at some of my old photos, I had to create an article (and category) so I could show some architectural details of the Union Banking Company Building. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Today in history

On Oct 15, 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was signed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

And reading it clears up the delisting issue. I was sort of against delisting sites, but the purpose of the NRHP act is to preserve sites. If they are gone, then the purpose of the listing is moot. But we should keep track of delisted places. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The thing to keep in mind there is that the NRHP and this project have different purposes; the NRHP helps preserve sites as living history, while this project helps document historic buildings in the encyclopedic record regardless of whether they're still around or can be preserved. I'm all in favor of having articles on delisted properties too (and eligible properties where the owner objected to listing, and sufficiently notable sites that aren't on the Register, and sites that were demolished before they had a chance to be listed, etc.), it's just usually harder to find suitable references for them so I usually stick to listed properties. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

New listing in Indiana

I was wondering if someone more familiar with Indiana than I am could take a look at this. The Weekly List of 10/2 shows the H. Lauter Company Complex as a new listing, on S. Harding St. in Indianapolis and Madison County. However it doesn't look to me like there should be any Indianapolis addresses in Marion County, nor can I find a Harding St. in Madison County. Maybe NPS made a clerical error and the county should be Marion? Can anyone help resolve my confusion? — Ipoellet (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the listing is for this building, which is indeed in Marion County. NPS just made a clerical error, as they often do. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a picture to upload when I get around to it. If you could add it and use the automated renumbering script, I'd appreciate it; the listing goes onto the Center Township list, not the county list. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference problems

Can someone experienced with fixing reference problems look at the NRHP article Frawley Ranch?

I've fixed part of the issue - not about what to do with the rest of it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I fixed the rest of it. (Now someone just needs to expand the article...) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Working on that (just a start) so thanks to everyone. I Keep running into other issues involving South Dakota and get side-tracked. If interested you can check out Talk:Wounded Knee Massacre#Problems with the Medal of Honor list recipients among other things including Talk:South Dakota#Controversial issues. The last one would seem to be something of importance. I am looking at other South Dakota NRHP articles. --- Otr500 (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Architectural details

We discussed architectural details in the subsection "Architectural details and bricks". I recently added details to Union Banking Company Building, Obediah Barber Homestead, First African Baptist Church and Parsonage (Waycross, Georgia), Phoenix Hotel (Waycross, Georgia), United States Post Office and Courthouse (Waycross, Georgia). However, in the past, with other types of articles, several times other editors have removed photos from articles, stating some policy of not having a photograph in an article unless it is of something described in the article. That is, don't show details of a window unless it is discussed in the article. The NRHP forms usually have such descriptions, but I don't always know what they are talking about, nor do I have time to dig them out of the forms and put them in articles. Does anyone have any input on adding photos of architectural details, without them being discussed in the article? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that the number of photos for an article should be related to the length of the article, and that, indeed, if an item isn't important enough to be featured in the article, then it doesn't need to be specifically illustrated. There are always exceptions, of course. In general though, take as many photos as are interesting, put them in a category on commons, and use one of the commons category templates to link the article to the photos. Everybody wins. Generic1139 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Then I'm overdoing it in those articles. These photos are some I selected out of the ones I took and I did make Commons categories for them. My feeling was that if they only exist in a commons category, and there is only the link "other images" from the NRHP county article, most likely almost no one will ever see them and the effort to take them is wasted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

(EC) I'll suggest using as many photos as needed to illustrate the building, without overwhelming the reader. The policy that is sometimes quoted is probably WP:Image use policy in particular "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." Usually is a key word here - it's not a hard and fast rule. If you have any trouble on this again, I'll suggest asking folks here on whether a removed photo depicts things, activities, and concepts described in the article. It always is a good idea to get as much info as possible out of the nomination form, but there is a lot of jargon in them, often both bureaucratic and academic jargon. It is our strength that we don't use that jargon, so if the nom talks about a window and you don't understand half of it, don't be afraid to write something as simple as "The first floor front window is considered especially interesting." And illustrate it with a photo, of course. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I went over the examples you provided at the top. All of this is judgement of course and different people will have different judgements, but I'll say that those examples run the full range from having just enough photos, to having about twice as many as is needed (the surplus being mostly near-duplicates or very minor details). BTW, I love photos in articles - a picture is worth a thousand words - a couple of my own examples Newlin Mill Complex and Idlewild (Media, Pennsylvania). One of those has exactly the right number of photos, the other maybe about 50% too much. I'll let you decide which is which. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Bubba's statement that if a photo isn't used in an article right away, then the effort to take it is wasted.

First, by taking lots of photos, we're documenting the condition of a site. Especially if a site is deteriorating, future historians might want to know how it looked in 2015.

Second, even if I don't write an article or expand a stub, some other editor might want to do so, and that editor might be able to use my photos to illustrate specific points. As long as the photos are there at Commons, that's a possibility.

Third, Commons photos are available for uses other than Wikipedia. A photo that doesn't make it into an article might work for somebody's genealogy page or for a local historical society. Ammodramus (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Saturday the sun was out (which has been rare for here for the last 8 months) so I went to Ware County, Georgia to the seven NRHP sites. One had no picture and the others needed better pictures. I left after lunch, took photos until I stopped for dinner, then took some more, and got home about 8PM. I took 288 photos, although some were not of NRHP sites. I think I've spent well over twice that amount of time selecting which photos to upload (I uploaded only a select fraction - well, I uploaded 53), editing them in Photoshop, giving them a good name, and uploading them to commons. I created some categories and tried to categorize the photos. Plus I created articles to have somewhere to show the photos (except for the PO which already existed and the two HDs). In all, it probably amounts to over a half hour of time for each one I uploaded. A photo that sits in the commons category Downtown Waycross Historic District may never be seen by anyone.(and I have close-up details of several of them, but I'm too tired to upload them.) Taking the photos is the fun part - the rest is a chore. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The editing and uploading and describing and categorizing can get a bit tedious. I'm looking forward to uploading my last 12 photos in Commons:Category:Auburn Historic District (Auburn, Nebraska), which'll bring the total to 81. And that one was relatively easy, because the nom form only gave approximate dates for the buildings, so I didn't have to do date categories.

That said, the photography isn't always that much fun. I spent a piece of yesterday afternoon in the hospital in Tyndall, South Dakota, getting four stitches in my hand after an attempt to photograph an NRHP bridge led to a mishap with a barbed-wire fence. Which meant, dammit, that I didn't have time to hit all the sites on my schedule, so still don't have quite enough photos to bring SD up to 30% photographed. — Ammodramus (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Something similar happened to me last year. I was out to photograph a partial solar eclipse. I had a delicate solar filter on my lens, and it was so delicate that I had an expensive UV filter over it to protect it. I was early for the eclipse so I was walking around looking up at a building. I missed a step and my head hit the sidewalk. I had to get several stitches. It also busted my UV filter and solar filter (and I missed the eclipse). I've stumbled several times when doing other photos but haven't fallen.

I uploaded two more from my Ware County trip making a total of 55 (out of 288 taken). I could upload a total of about 250, but it takes too much time. My photos are about 10MB in size and Commons won't accept more than five or six of them or it stops processing. When that happens I have to abort and start the procedure over with a fewer number of photos. There needs to be an easy way to upload a set of photos to one commons category. For instance, if you could select a group of photos and say upload them to the Waycross Historic District category, start it, and let it go. Then it does it, and gives them generic names such as "Waycross Historic District 1", etc. Just a quick and simple way to do it - then I could upload a lot of photos to the Commons categories that would be too time-consuming otherwise. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I slipped on a rock and fell in a creek at 40.216668°N 78.182902°W / 40.216668; -78.182902 where a bridge was washed out, taking File:Minersville Coke Ovens.jpg. Managed, barely, to keep the camera over my head and out of the water. Twisted ankle, no stitches. Generic1139 (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I was walking around this building 31.14928°N 81.49814°W / 31.14928; -81.49814 (which happens to be in Brunswick Old Town #79000727 - address restricted), not watching my step when I missed a step and hit my head on the concrete. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Watch that wire!

Of course, there had to be some irony involved in my South Dakota episode. The day before, I'd photographed the NRHP-listed veterans memorial in Winner, SD, and thought that the barbed wire by the sculpted doughboy's feet was an interesting enough detail to photograph.

I guess barbed-wire lacerations are better than getting machine-gunned by the Kaiser's minions... Ammodramus (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

My blood on the concrete

I was looking up and missed the top of these steps, and hot my head on the concrete below. That is my blood (a few days later). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we need a Purple Heart barnstar...

Regarding uploading multiple photos to a category, as you suggested above, it's possible to do that from the main "Upload a file" page in Commons. Go through the first step (picking all the photos you want to upload, and waiting for them to upload) and the second (the licensing). Once you reach the stage of writing the descriptions and doing the categorization, you can rename and describe and categorize the first photo; then there's a button like "Copy all information to files below". You can use that to automatically copy the descriptions and categories to the remaining photos. I think it also lets you copy the first photo's name to the others, with sequential numbering, but I've never used that—I've got Windows 7, and that lets you rename multiple files by highlighting them all and then hitting F2; so I name the photos before I upload them.

Once you've copied the information, you can still make further tweaks—for example, adding more categories to selected files, or fiddling with the description of each file. For example, I'll often describe the first file like "Smith-Jones house, at the intersection of First and Euclid Streets in Sedgwick, Nebraska; seen from the". I'll copy that description to all of my photos of the SJ house, then put the direction for each photo in individually. Easier than typing the whole business over and over again. — Ammodramus (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

With my 10mb files, I have to do 5 or maybe 6 at the time, or it locks up and I have to start all over. At least that has been my experience. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of the things you said make it easier, but it still doesn't work right. I selected 26 photos to upload to the commons category "Downtown Waycross Historic District". It uploaded them all, but then it would not finish processing the last one. So I had to abandon that. I've had problems trying to do more than five or six at the time, so I started over and selected the first five and that went OK. Then I clicked on "add more files" and selected the next five. It processed all but one, and wouldn't finish processing the last one. This is the old problem with it not finishing processing more than about six files. So I had to abandon that and start over. I did them in five batches (5/5/5/5/6), which is tedious and time-consuming. Also, I didn't do any cropping or tweaking of the photos as I usually do. And they don't have good descriptions. Perhaps some industrious person will fix the descriptions, but I don't want to take the time... Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ammodramus. See the images in Commons:Category:East Second Street Historic District (not an NR-listed district, just locally created), most of which have similar descriptions — Front and DIRECTION [northern, western, etc.] side of the house located at NUMBER STREET [e.g. 612 S. Fess Avenue] in Bloomington, Indiana, United States. Built in YEAR, it is part of the locally-designated East Second Street Historic District. I took lots of these photos together and uploaded them in batches, but not with the batch uploader: I just prepared the description pages offline, opened a couple dozen browser tabs of Commons:Special:Upload, picked each image to upload in a different tab, pasted the description for each one into the appropriate page, and clicked "upload". This might be a better route with your larger images, since each tab is independent; if it doesn't process one, the rest are still good. Bubba, remember that Commons files can always be renamed after upload; the criteria are generally rather strict, limiting the renames to problems like typos, derogatory filenames, and non-descriptive filenames, but the first criterion is "At the original uploader's request". If you find it easiest, just upload them with numbers and then leave me a note saying "File 1 needs to be X, file 2 needs to be Y, etc." and I'll happily move them. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've had file renamed on Commons, but because of an error or a better or more accurate description. I think it would be easier to name them before uploading rather than after. Also, I think my problem with loading ~10 files of about 10MB each is due to a 100MB upload limit. I've selected the option "upload in chuncks" which does 5MB at the time for a total of up to 1GB, according to what I read (but not tried yet). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I spent 3 hours and 16 minutes in Ware County photographing (not counting a dinner break). I hit all seven HRHP sites (plus a couple more things) and took 288 photos. Over the next few days I uploaded about 81 of them. I think that took at least 12 hours. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I definitely know how that is; see my comments in the previous section regarding Indiana. I've made two trips recently, one to the Detroit area to expand my personal collection (a week ago yesterday) and another to finish off National Register of Historic Places listings in Richland County, Ohio (Tuesday), and even though there's no uploading needed for Detroit, I've still not yet completed the image processing for those ones. And I'm up earlier than normal today so I can get some sites in Columbus and points south (sites that Aesopposea illustrated long ago), as well as going to the Circleville Pumpkin Show for the first time since whenever it was that I took the picture that's in the article. Just digging myself deeper into the hole, making it longer and longer until I get the H. Lauter Company Complex image uploaded. Nyttend (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

In the process, I also created three or four stub articles to hold the photos and created commons cats and linked to them from the county NRHP article - quite time consuming. My hat is off to whoever recently created articles for all of N.C. (I forgot who did that.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Wiki Loves Monuments

The Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) photo contest goes Sept.1-30 and we are not part of it this year. It's fine that we aren't if we aren't going to organize WLM-US for our needs, but this might be a good time to do some review and see if we want to organize something for next year. A short table should do it using some approximate numbers.

Year	Total Photos from contest	%Illustrated 8-31	%Illustrated 10-6	Notes
2012	20,000	44.6%	49.9%	1st year
2013	10,000	57.1%	60.4%	run by Wikimedia DC
2014	10,000	65.5%	68.4%	"Summer of Monuments" not WLM
2015		72.3%	73.3%	no contest

The % illustrated is the % of NRHP sites with at least one pic, Aug 31 is the day before WLM Oct 6 is the date when most WLM pix should be included in the tables (also 36 days after Aug. 31 = 1/10th year)

The first thing to note is that the % illustrated went up by 27.7% in those 3 years, 11.5% was in the WLM period (Sept), 16.2% during the rest of the year. This indicates that September is a very important period (though not all uploads in Sept are WLM). I think probably more important than the gain in September is that several photographers came to the project during WLM and stayed to contribute throughout the year. In that sense, I think we can say that WLM has contributed about half the gain in % illustrated over the last 3 years

The next thing I notice is that we are likely to be at about 79% illustrated at this time next year if we get a 6.8% gain like we did last year. It would be nice to have a WLM next year to help get over the 80% mark. Of course, the closer we get to 100% illustrated, the harder it is to make progress. The unillustrated sites are going to be the ones way out in the boonies, on closed military bases, etc. I wouldn't see much point in having a WLM-US after we get to 80% - we'd just be attracting people to take pix of sites previously illustrated. So next year might be the last year it makes any sense for us to have a WLM.

I would very much like to have 1 last WLM next year, but carefully tailor it to our needs. That will take some work and planning. More on this later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the things we might want to do to tailor the contest would be to have special prizes for the 6 states now below 50% illustrated. We might want to contact state historical societies in those states to help publicize the contest and to donate archival photos. (That's pretty much what Summer of Monuments tried)

We could also have special prizes for the most previously unillustrated sites photographed, get some "edit-a-thons" in those states - not to edit, but on finding sites, reading our tables, and uploading pix.

Other ideas would certainly be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In the boonies? I literally live near the Boone Docks, see File:Boone Dock Road sign in Darien, GA, US.jpg. :-) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I knew there was something special about you!  :-p All the best. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added your pic to the collection of my favorites at User:Smallbones#Positive signs

The sign is in Darien, Georgia. I live about half way between Darien and Brunswick. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Some things that would be nice to have before the 2016 WLM:

In the area of emphasizing that we're looking for photos of currently non-illustrated items...

• Pages/categories of non-illustrated listings
• Something to click on the county list tables to only show non-illustrated listings
• A mod to GeoGroup so that, on the county list pages, it also offers to map only the non-illustrated listings
• Get the Map Tool back up, with a way to only show non-illustrated listings
• Some way to modulate the non-illustrated listings to note address restricted items
• A WLM guide to finding properties, with tips on trip preparation and dealing with the sometimes inaccurate locations in nris and the nomination forms.

And, of course, ErfgoedBot. Generic1139 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ErfgoedBot is working again! So is Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Unused images with 140+ images. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is also a working map at https://tools.wmflabs.org/wlm-maps/#2/0.2/-0.2

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the map pointer. It isn't working at the moment (loading, please wait) but previous iterations also had such transient issues with fetching monument data. Generic1139 (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"Of course, the closer we get to 100% illustrated, the harder it is to make progress. The unillustrated sites are going to be the ones way out in the boonies, on closed military bases, etc. I wouldn't see much point in having a WLM-US after we get to 80%." There are certainly going to be ones we can't get, but I think that is well under 20%. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

break

I've put in the number 73.1%+ for Oct. 6, 2015 (now updated to 73.3%) even though we're not quite through with September yet. This is to emphasize that we'll likely get less than a 1% increase during the 36 day period this year, compared to a worst result of 2.9% when we had some sort of WLM/SoM contest before. As I said above, I think that next year will be the last time it will make sense to have a WLM contest in the US. I propose that we do the following:

• contact @Harej: and the DC chapter to see what they can do to help out for next year, possibly including:
  • coming up with some prize money
  • hiring a part-timer to contact state and local historical organizations who might have photos to upload
• doing many of the things suggested by @Generic1139: above
• getting a planning committee of at least 3 people to work a few things out
• seeing how many folks would be willing to tentatively commit to working about 5 hours per week on this next September. I'd have to limit myself to about 10 hours per week, but don't see much point unless we can sign up at least 5 editors willing to (tentatively) commit 5 hours per week. I'll ping the obvious folks @Nyttend, Dudemanfellabra, Daniel Case, TheCatalyst31, Bubba73, and Magicpiano:, but anybody else who's interested should just note that below.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think I should commit myself to anything for next year yet; it all depends on where I'm living and what I'm doing by that point, since I'm currently looking for work all over the place and don't know what I'll be able to get. I'd be interested in helping, of course. Now aside from that, I'm particularly interested in the idea of presenting people with maps of currently unillustrated sites. If we could do that, it should draw additional attention to those sites (especially useful for people in the under-50% states) and reduce the number of new images from heavily illustrated spots like the Statue of Liberty. If I encounter WLM for the first time and discover a huge list of places that might or might not need images, where am I going to start? Are they just trying to get images for unillustrated spots, or better images for illustrated spots too, or something else? But if I find that WLM people have emphasized just a subset of that list, I'll have a better idea of how I can help, especially once I discover that the subset is the unillustrated spots. Nyttend (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Smallbones:I'd be happy to pledge some time next September (and presumably some would be required before that). As regards last year's contest, it was lacking a bit in follow up, only the top three winners were contacted; I don't think any of the other finalists were, and there was a five month lag between the end of the contest and announcing the winners. Yes, it is all volunteer, but we need to do better next time. I put my 3rd place winnings back into the pot, but some barnstar or other recognition would have been nice for the finalists. The results were posted in March. The project results in the form of a grant report were also posted. One outcome was that there was not much in the way of institutional uploading by March 2015.

If we are going to emphasize uploading images for articles that aren't currently illustrated, I wonder if cash prizes are appropriate - while there are notable gaps, some areas of the country are mined out. One other group task - now that there are more nomination forms available, and we've tagged listings without locations, a pre-September effort to reduce the number of such listings is in order.

Another pre-September thing we would could do is prepackage some trips- I always make a document with capsule description of what and where the target is, and vett the location with google/bing maps if possible. My first year of taking NRHP pics included much frustration as I learned that the locations were not accurate and learned how to actually find these things. Pre-trip prep allows for a much higher success rate.

Generic1139 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I might be willing to devote some time, but I don't know much about the project or what I'd need to do. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Something that would probably be useful both for photo hunters and for us if we make any maps, and that we could start as soon as we want, would be to preemptively check the locations of some of the unillustrated sites and correct the bad location info. I'm not sure we could get through all 25000 unillustrated sites, but we could at least go through some of the larger unillustrated areas (states/counties below a certain percentage, or any obvious blue pockets on the progress map). We could maybe even couple this with gathering a list of more easily-illustrated sites, so we can weed out address-restricted sites and stuff that's not easily accessible too. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if I should make a "formal" commitment, but I will surely be around the entire time, and I am more than willing to help put everything together if I'm needed. I feel like there's probably a lot of automation that can be brought in to lessen the burden and speed up response times as Generic1139 pointed out was a problem last year.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I might be able to help, but I'm not much for organizing, etc. I'd rather be taking pictures, which I continue to do. I usually upload shortly after I take them - I'm not waiting until September. I have some opinions on technical and aesthetic properties of photographs I might share at a later time. But one thing that interests me is getting better photos of places. I know that any photo is better than none, but many we have are absolutely terrible. Digital cameras have changed a lot. I've even gone back to get better photos of some things I took a few years ago (I can give some examples sometime). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This looks pretty good so far. BTW how did I forget to ping @Ammodramus and Acroterion:?

It's clear that nobody can really commit to x hours per week next September, but if we have 5 editor tentatively commit then I think we'll be ok.

Some of the things we'd probably have to plan for include:

• making sure we have a system set up to help new photographers so that we can avoid all the frustrations that they can have, and so that they will stay and submit more photos later. (I think we've been fairly weak on this in earlier WLMs)
• placing the pix in both the lists and in articles (we've been great in doing this so far!)
• coordinating with the international WLM, if we want to get the benefits of working with them (e.g. the banner)
• setting up a jury to judge the final 300 or so pix (I don't think this has been a problem)
• pre-screening for photos that go to the jury (this might be the most time consuming part)
• setting up on off-Wiki website where we can blog and try to motivate photographers, thank any sponsors
• coming up with $ for prizes
• writing introductory material on "How to find NRHP sites" and "How to get better photos"
• finding an easy way to focus on nonillustrated sites and politely say "Sorry, but we really don't need more pix of the Washington Monument or the Statue of Liberty."

I'm sure there is much more, but that's a start.

I think we have at least 3 folks already who would be willing to help organize this, and who can promise to try to move things forward (until the next unexpected life event). We're close to getting another 3 who can promise some early input and labor in September (without actually committing). If we get to that point, I say we should set up a dedicated page here to do the planning.

BTW, we should ping all the founders of WP:NRHP. I'll try a few off the top of my head now @Ebyabe, Clariosophic, Denverjeffrey, Farragutful, and Pubdog:

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

An excellent summation of the thoughts thus far on the 2016 Wiki's NRHP project Loves Non-Illustrated Monuments initiative. I'd be happy to do a straw man for "How to get better photos", which would be a summarized version of Image guidelines, and a smattering of other guidelines, with mostly building-based examples. Generic1139 (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I can more than likely volunteer some time next September to help out, probably even the 5 hrs/week that you suggested above. While my schedule the last several years has been flexible, we're still a little less than a year out, so there is still time for things to change. To be honest I have spent many years organizing projects and I am getting to the point in my life where I am tired of it. One thing I have noted is that contributors often times do not understand how to utilize the categories. That is a task where I am more than willing to help.

A couple of thoughts about the remaining properties. I have photographed NRHP properties in places I know well and places I was passing through. The map coordinates on the Wiki listings are often times wrong, and in some cases they are way off. (I believe someone mentioned that above as well.) The National Register itself lists the wrong address for some of the properties, and are therefore wrong on the Wiki listings. I spent the last year redoing some of my photos of the properties I was not familiar with in my own hometown as I photographed the wrong building because of incorrect information. It also seems the National Park Service has recently uploaded a great many of the nomination forms and photographs of the properties on the NRHP website. That could be a great asset, but I have detected several errors in regards to the photographs. It's as though someone dropped some of the files on the floor and then tried to put them back in order. They got some right and some wrong. Another problem is that several of the properties listed, especially in the 1970s and 80s, have subsequently been torn down and yet remain on the National Register. I have noticed when going through submitted photos that some of the buildings photographed are obviously not the building listed. Recently there was a photo submitted of a modern apartment building that was described as a school. I did some research and found that the historic school building was torn down and the apartment building was built on the same property. Finally, not only are some of the properties in rural areas, but they are located in the middle of the property and in order to get them one has to trespass on private property as they are not visible from the road. I have found this to be true here in Maryland. These are a few more of the problems we are going to face going forward. Farragutful (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I've found that simply waiting for winter has worked in several "middle of the property" cases. You are right about the addresses, but some of those are the town changing its address scheme for various reasons, including 911 rules. As you say, though, detective work is needed in some cases. I hope I have time to do some of that for regions I'll never get to this winter. Maybe we need a "lat/long verified" tag we can add to the county list pages. Generic1139 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I would love to help. My spare time over the next few months is likely to be limited (which is actually a good thing). However, I'll do what I can in 2016. Could we maybe create some routes using Google maps? That's how I planned my roadtrips. Yes, no GPS, me. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Since I've been on the jury for the last few years, and expect to be again, it probably would be problematic for me to get involved in any other capacity. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well Mr. Case, you should be happy to know that I've recently added some pictures from the Lynbrook, New York, East Rockaway, New York, the Hamlet of Southold, New York, the Village of Babylon, New York, and Orient, New York. Yaphank, New York, and one last site in Emporia, Virginia should be on my list soon. For Babylon, it's the old library you mentioned. I want to put all the images into a new category, but I don't want the name to be anything generic like "Babylon Library," or "The Babylon Library." In Orient, I got the Orient Historic District, but I'm not loading any into the article, because I believe the best image for that is the obelisk at NY 25 and Village Lane, and I don't like the angle I took that picture from. I suppose I can try the Oysterponds Historical Society Building when I load images of that up, but that building is on Village Lane, not NY 25. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about a separate article

I visited Sapelo Island today, which has some NRHP sites. One is Sapelo Island Light. Sapelo Island Range Front Light, which is about 600 feet away, is discussed on the NRHP form. The latter article is very stubby. (1) Should it be combined with the former article? (2) If not, should it use the NRHP infobox? and (3) I'm going to upload two photos of it - should they be in the same category as the main lighthouse, or a new category? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

My sense is that individual lighthouses from the 19th century are so few and far between that they are individually notable, so two articles are justified. Note, for example, the seperate articles for Delaware Breakwater Range Rear Light, paired with Delaware Breakwater Range Front Light, and Staten Island Light, paired with West Bank Light. If anyone's monitoring Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses, they might have more informed opinion. If you keep two articles, the range light should get a "contributing property" infobox (set the parameter nrhp_type = cp), and I guess I'd keep photos in the same category, since the Range Light is part of the Sapelo Island Light listing, even if it has its own article. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, and old range lights are rarer than regular lighthouses. This is also believed to be the oldest surviving iron structure (of any kind) in Georgia. Thanks for telling me about the contributing property parameter - I didn't know about that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the NRHP info box and fleshed out the stub some. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been making a lot of fixes to locations lately, some big, some small, and usually to make sure that the map shows the correct house. For many info boxes the location is in DMS format, as this is what elkman's tool emits. The county lists are in DEC format. Fixing the location in both the article and the county list (and the photo in the case where the upload wizard was used) is then much more difficult than need be. It would be easier if the article was in DEC format, and I've started doing that when I make a correction, for example, James S. Lakin House (diff). I'm not advocating a mass edit, just asking, does anybody (or anybot) care about this one way or the other? Unless | coord_format = dms is added, the location in the article now displays as DEC when it had been DMS. Does it matter? Generic1139 (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

When I've photographed a site, I get the coordinates from Google's satellite view, so they come in DEC format. I don't see any reason to change them to DMS. When I use one of the photos to illustrate an article, and find that the coordinates in the article need to be corrected or tweaked, I use DEC rather than DMS. However, I have no principled opposition to DMS: in those rare cases when the NRIS coordinates actually hit the right building, I leave them alone in DMS.

I almost never use the upload wizard from the county list. From Generic's comment, it sounds as though it automatically adds the site's NRIS coordinates to the uploaded file. If so, this is decidedly not a good thing. NRIS coordinates are often a mile or more from the right location, and even if they hit the property, they often hit a corner of the lot rather than the building of interest. I'd like to suggest that the people in charge of the wizard kill this. Better no coordinates than inaccurate ones. — Ammodramus (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, it happens that I've been correcting a lot of coordinates yesterday and today! There are all kinds of problems. I find that many are 100 to 300 feet off - which can put it one or two blocks off in a city. Now if is something like a courthouse, that should be close enough to see it, but not if it is a smaller building or house. Around here, quite a few seem to be about 100 feet off (or 2") in the N/S direction, which may be a result of the change in maps years ago. Sometimes there is a typo. Sometimes longitude is only to the nearest 0.01 degree. Sometimes they seem to have just picked the nearest intersection. I had one that was a kilometer off for some reason. (The old vacuum-tube GPS units must not have been very accurate.) Also, most of the decimal degrees have repeating digits, indicating that they were converted from DMS to decimal degrees. I have seen at least one case of degrees plus decimal minutes. These things get transformed from the Easting & Northing into DMS and then often into decimal degrees. Anyhow, I prefer decimal degrees. I've been using ACME mapper (satellite view - and thamks to the person who told me about that) to get the decimal degrees to 0.00001 degree, which is about 1 meter. That is also more accurate than an integer number of seconds. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's no better out in the country. I'm trying to improve our photo coverage of South Dakota, and a lot of the NRHP listings are barns or country schoolhouses or homesteads. I click on the coordinates, and the map puts me in the middle of a cornfield. Does this mean that the place has been torn down, or just that the coords are badly off? With the older nominations, the addresses are no better: we get things like "North of Highway 52" or "Rural Route 2". Location of these rural sites is often given by TRS1/4, and I've got maps of that for Nebraska, but can't seem to find corresponding maps for SD. I've occasionally found AR or wrong-addressed houses in small towns by sketching the house from the nom form photos, then roaming the streets until I find a house that matches. Think I'll probably wind up doing the same before I can kill off, say, Yankton County... Ammodramus (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ammodramus, check the ACME Mapper in topo-maps mode: you'll be able to see the section number, and if you go far enough along the border between two townships and the border between two ranges, you'll eventually come to the corner of the paper original map, where the township or range number for each one is illustrated. See [2] for a random example; the townships are marked a few pixels to the left of the center of the image. From there, it's easy to figure out the applicable PLSS location. Original question — I'm in favor of using DMS when possible, simply because it's the standard way of giving geocoordinates, unlike the decimals that are largely meant to make simple computers happy. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and Bubba73, have you checked the comment about Florida in {{NRHPGoogleMapFootnote}}? Obviously you're a bit farther north, but that problem should explain what you're encountering; 100 or 200 feet is 1 or 2 seconds (a minute of latitude is a nautical mile, which is about 6,000 feet), so it's probably related to that as well as to the old-style maps. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nyttend—that'll make SD a lot easier. Ammodramus (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Responding to a couple of things, plus a comment: No, I haven't looked at the comment about Flordia, but I will. Second, "I click on the coordinates, and the map puts me in the middle of a cornfield" At least two of the ones I clicked on near here put them out in the ocean! (I fixed them). And in the ones I've checked, quite a few are off primarily in the N/S direction, although over half of them are off in a random direction. And a comment: a big part of the problem is that 20+ years ago, no one anticipated that people would be using personal GPS units to go to a precise location. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Good point. 20+ years ago, they really only needed coordinates in order to supply locations to CRM people and others who needed to know NR site locations for Section 106 checks prior to construction projects. Your ocean sites aren't the only ones; per Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues, the NRIS coords for Casselman Bridge in Maryland placed it on the equator midway between Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands. The equator I can understand (someone simply forgets to enter latitude data, so it defaults to zero), but the longitude was many degrees wrong, and the combination of the two mistakes was simply laughable. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I prefer decimal degrees for a couple of reasons. (1) I use the ACME thing to get the lat/long, and it gives it in decimal degrees, (2) it is easier to put decimal degrees into my GPS. Also, the values given by ACME have five digits after the decimal, which is 27+ times more accurate than an integer number of minutes and seconds (although you can put in decimal seconds). And even four digits after the decimal point is 2.7+ times more accurate than integer minutes and seconds. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. The GPS in one of my cars accepts only DEC for coordinate input, the other accepts only DMS. I always include both now in my pre-trip note taking. Fortunately, the GeoHack app that comes up when you click any of the wikipedia or commons coordinate links gives both formats at the top. Since I haven't seen any technical reason to choose one over the other when editing the NRHP infobox, and since format conversion is an opportunity for error, I'm going to switch over and use DEC for the location in infoboxes I edit, since I've never seen anything else in a county list. I can then more easily propagate the change to list/article/photo edits. Generic1139 (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Over the lawst 2 or 3 days, I've been going through the counties in Georgia of which I'm familiar and correcting coordinates. An hour or two I had a hard time getting the right location of the Pace house. (To make the process harder, my memory was telling me that it was on the west side of the street instead of the east side.) I went back to the NHRP form (2003 I think, so it should have the modern coordinates). Compared to the center of the house, the Easting was off 11 meters and the Northing was off 213 meters. Perhaps someone wrote 3526680 instead of 3526880.

Anyhow, most (by far) of the ones I've changed are in decimal degrees. Almost always only the first three digits after the decimal point are correct, and sometimes the third one is off by 1. So typically they are off maybe 0.0005 degree, which is about 180 yards. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Back in the day, we had to rely on just a topo map and our best estimates. Then we had the Internet and could use websites such as TopoZone, where we could hover the cursor over the item and get the coordinates. Now we have GPS. Einbierbitte (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected probably a few dozen coordinates over the last 3 days. A few are way off (like over 800 feet) but they all seem to be at least 100-300 feet off of the actual building. As I said before, in the decimal ones, anything past the first three digits after the decimal point is garbage. Sometimes the third one is off by 1 or even 2. I'm suspecting a systematic error somewhere in the process of getting the coordinates.

For example, Ashantilly was added this year, so there should not be a problem of the maps using the old coordinate system. But it initially had coordinates of 31.3835, -81.4147. Using ACME mapper, I put it on the building and got 31.381165, -81.413051. So here even the third digit after the decimal was wrong. So, since they are all like this, I think there may be a bug in the calculation from easting/northing to lat/long. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles that are too sad to read

Is it just me, or are there some articles on Wikipedia that are so devastating, they'll bring you on the verge of tears? I often have a hard time dealing with the Anderson Street (NJT station) article, knowing the tragic outcome of that former landmark. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago I read the article about the NRHP bill. It protects things from Federally-funded programs, but otherwise there doesn't seem to be any real protection, just a suggestion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Want to really get depressed? Try Jobbers Canyon Historic District in Omaha, demolished except for one building to make way for an expanded corporate headquarters. It's the largest single loss of NRHP-listed property (although I would qualify that as the largest man-made loss; as the remnants of Hurricane Patricia pass over my region I can recall the losses inflicted by some of our recent storms, which further reminds me of how the Old Blenheim Bridge was swept irretrievably away by Hurricane Irene four years and change ago). Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Not as bad, but I was working on List of Carnegie libraries in Georgia - some of these are on the NRHP. But five of them have been demolished. The Atlanta Main Branch looked like a beautiful building. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Focus KMZ files

NPS has a page that provides google earth .kmz files for NRHP listings up to April 2014. The page says "most of the building locations have been geocoded through a project undertaken with TeleAtlas which generally provided the most accurate locations (these have a "1" in the geocode match field). Locations that could not be geocoded, were plotted from the existing points in the database." I converted these to spreadsheets and looked at the samples from Bubba73 in the discussion on Coordinate errors; in both of the samples I looked at, the spreadsheet gave data that was better that the converted, rounded data in our county list. I'm not sure at this point how we'd easily use this new data to improve our lists. We could walk each NRHP Row, see if the location matches the database elkman used, and if it does, then use the new data if it is different (or build a review page). That would avoid overwriting our tweaked data. While we were bot-ing around, we could compare county list locations with the locations in the matching article and report differences > x feet somewhere. And, at least some of our "coordinates missing" lists have coordinates in the new data. Generic1139 (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

San Bernardino Pictures

This weekend I went out and got a bunch of pictures in San Bernardino County. Among the surprises was the Ontario State Bank Block. It was demolished, probably when Euclid Avenue was lowered under the railroad tracks. Main Street (the corner where the bank stood) no longer goes through

Now an empty lot

Einbierbitte (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

EDIT - so what do we use for pictures? An empty lot? Einbierbitte (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That has been done in some cases. It helps the reader and other editors understand why they can't locate the building when they visit. Jonathunder (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Actualy, this page says it was demolished. I will add it to the article. The illustration of the lot will be in order there.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

While I'm all in favor of adding photos of empty lots to the Commons where an NRHP building has been demolished, Wikipedia is not a travel guide: we should focus on illustrating the significance of the listing, not helping people find the place or understand why they can't. Meanwhile, the nomination photos for this building are in the public domain, and I have uploaded them. — Ipoellet (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

After reading the paragraph on travel guides you linked to, I don't think this would be a "travel guide" problem. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"Not a travel guide" is meant to prevent us from adding things like directions to a site, hours, admission fees, etc. It's not at all meant to illustrate the current location of a site. Given the absence of proof for the claimed PD status for these nomination images, I've nominated all of them for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Coordinate errors

Over the past couple of weeks, I've corrected probably a few dozen coordinates of NRHP sites by finding the building using ACME Mapper and reading off the actual coordinates. (I'm assuming that ACME Mapper is accurate - it agrees precisely with Google Maps.) Anyhow, when the coordinates are given in decimal degrees, almost always everything after the third digit after the decimal point is wrong, and when they are given in D/M/S, they are no better.

Here is an example, from National Register of Historic Places listings in Effingham County, Georgia, the jail. The NRHP form is from 2006, so it should have recent (accurate) data. It gives the UTM of zone 17, easting 470266 Northing 3581760. It looks like it might be accurate to within a meter.

Using this to convert to degrees, it gives 32.372413°N 81.316078°W / 32.372413; -81.316078. The page lists 32.374167N, 81.316111W. Notice that everything past the third digit after the decimal point is wrong, which is typical in the ones I've examined. In this case, the north coordinate is off by 0.00175+, which seems to be larger than typical.

So the first point is that the coordinates given in most places do not agree with the conversion from the NRHP forms after the third digit after the decimal point, which is enough to throw them off a block or two. I suspect that when these were converted from the UTM on the NRHP form, the conversion wasn't done correctly. (I don't know who did these or when.) Does anyone know details about how these conversions were done?

The second point is that the NRHP UTMs are quite a bit off, assuming that the conversion website above and ACME Mapper are accurate. The coordinates given on the NRHP form, converted to degrees, puts the jail out in the woods, whereas I think the center of the building is actually at 32.37413°N 81.31570°W / 32.37413; -81.31570. Using the conversion website, that gives UTM zone 17, easting 470302 northing 3581950 - a difference of 36 meters E/W and 190 meters N/S. (The courthouse is off even more, but its NRHP form seems to be rounded to 100 meters.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Elkman's infobox generator uses a good algorithm, so I wish I had access to it, because the online UTM-to-DMS converters that I've found are routinely badly wrong. I've not yet found a converter that I trust at all solidly. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that there was a significant error in the program used to convert these in the first place. I'm trying to think of a way to check the website I'm using (I think it is from some university so they should know what they are doing.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I checked the website I use for conversions with this one from NGS/NOAA, and it agreed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

One degree of latitude is 111.2km, so .001 of a degree is ~111 meters. .0001 is 11 meters. That is close enough to get to within a house or two, north and south, in an urban area. Close enough to pick out a farmhouse. .00001 is 1 meter, and .000001 is just silly. One degree of longitude is harder to quantify as is depends on your latitude as well. It is ~111km at the equator, but only ~85km at 40 degrees latitude. So, in Pennsylvania, .0001 longitude is 8.5 meters. In DMS, a minute of latitude is ~1.85km, a second is ~31 meters, a tenth of a second is ~3 meters.

Sources of error:

• original determination from topo maps. These were done by drawing two lines from the up/down, left/right sides of the map and interpolating what the northing and easting values are - accuracy depends on how hard the map reader worked at it. Meter resolution is not to be expected, this is why surveyors go out into the field to measure important things.
• Datum - the corrections for the shape of the earth - for the original map, and the digital map you are using. Differences of 10s to 100s of meters are possible.
• Calculation - depending on the original source of the location, by the time it gets to the county list, it might have been moved across different datums, and from DEC to DMS, more than once, with loss of data on each conversion.
• What is being reported on the original nomination. Sometimes, the center of the plot of land is being reported, not the house. The bigger the plot, the more likely this is true. Sometimes, for a large house, the location doesn't point at the middle. Some editors (and sometimes me) tend to try to reduce false precision by shortening the number of digits in the lat/lon of point and click map-determined locations, accepting a shorter number that falls within the boundary of the building.
• What the editor that created the county list used. Sometimes, there is no location in the registration form, or the regestration form is not avaialble, but a street address is. If the editor enters that street address into Google, Bing, or some other online mapper, the result can be wrong - wrong side of the street, wrong side of town. Address schemes change over time.
• And, sometimes, the data is just wrong. Transcription errors, misreading of the original easting/northing registration marks on the map, whatever.

Finally, as has been discussed here, the upload wizard (what you get when you click on "upload image", takes the location from the county list, and copies it into the location information when the image is created in commons. That propagates errors into commons.

So, what am I getting on about? Don't talk about decimal places out to the 4th digit and beyond as "wrong" - the system for generating them, for the reasons above, aren't ever going to match ground truth. What we may need is a "verified" tag - meaning that someone has gone to the trouble of checking to see if the location in the county list is correct - that photos, maps, streetview, whatever is available, have been checked against the location. And, for non-HD listings, the tag says that the location points at (one of the) primary building(s) in the listing, and not the center of a 4000 acre plantation. And, at some point, run a bot that extracts the location in the county list and the location in the article, checks to see if there are within some fuzz value, and makes a list of those that aren't. Generic1139 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm still learning about the technical aspects of the mapping system. But the coordinates are off by a lot more than 0.0001 degrees (~11 meters). They are off several times that amount. I just corrected several in Nassau county, Florida, and they were all off at least a block, and as much as four blocks off (that one was probably a clerical error somewhere). That makes it hard to find a house. Add to that the fact that many houses do not display their street number, so you often can't find them by their address. And many of the NRHP forms are not available, to give you a picture of what to look for. Anyhow, I believe that all of the coordinates listed in the county NRHP were done incorrectly somewhere - the coordinates in the NRHP forms don't correspond to what the county listings have (and usually that is the same one used in the article, if the site has one). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

In Genesee County, Michigan, the coordinates for Atlas Grange Hall were actually the Barn at 4277 Irish Road (which also had the same, correct coordinates). I've always just corrected these on my own; I can't find any actual sources for the coordinates. I understand errors occurring from calculations, conversions, pre-GPS technology, etc, but what I don't understand is where all the coordinates in these tables are coming from in the first place. The pages linked in the tables are useless for Michigan, and the NPS website isn't very user friendly, anyway. kennethaw88 • talk 02:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ipoellet got Swayze Apartments spot on, I suspect that one came from the street address with a tweak from street view to get the right building, maybe they'll let us know in this case. Michigan had, at one time, a web site with information, the older ones could have come from that. The addresses are usually given in the weekly action listings, like this one. And I should have added "cut and past errors" to the list above. Generic1139 (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That is precisely how I did the coordinates for Swayze Apartments: The Weekly List gave me an address, which gave me the location of the building. Google Earth gave me the lat/long coordinates necessary to express the same location in a different way. And yes, I probably used Street View to double-check that the Google address search correctly took me to the right place - their database isn't perfect.— Ipoellet (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware also of a handful of errors in North Carolina listings which I've been meaning to correct, but haven't gotten around to. Sometime soon, perhaps... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The errors are significantly more than 0.0001 degree - I estimate 0.0003 on the average. And the errors are in both coordinates, making the typical error on the order of 150 feet. They are just about always at least 100 feet off and often 300 feet.

The errors make it hard to find the correct house. In one city I had the coordinates and the street address of a house. I got there and couldn't tell which house was the right one. I thought "it must be one of these three" and photographed all of them. When I got back I looked up the NRHP data, and it wasn't any of them.

This is a particularly extreme example (I haven't fixed it yet): the courthouse in Effingham County. The actual coordinates are 32.37416°N 81.31487°W / 32.37416; -81.31487. The county listing gives 32.37548°N 81.31785°W / 32.37548; -81.31785 - 0.0013 degrees off N/S and 0.003 degrees off E/W - roughly 1,100 feet off. Its article gives 32.37722°N 81.31778°W / 32.37722; -81.31778, 0.003 off N/S and 0.0029 off E/W - roughly 1,500 feet off. (The jail is way off too.)

The coordinates given in Taylor Hall (Hawkinsville, Georgia) from the coordinates given (which are 4" north of the NRHP form, which aren't right either). When I was there, I couldn't find it by address (just "Kibbe St" at that time) or the coordinates. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Facts in Wikipedia are supposed to have references, but we hardly ever know who calculated our coordinates. When I correct by Google Earth (which in my experience holds steady for New York City, and often jitters year by year by tens of meters for Pittsburgh) I do not systematically say so. Sometimes the coords of pictures are from EXIF, which minimizes transcription errors but can create large GPS errors. Sometimes the coords for a picture are merely the center of town, even for a suburban object. Occasionally it's the location of the museum that holds the picture of a place far across the sea. Yes, we need some sort of standard or system for reporting the sources of coords. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Since we're sharing...I was in Williamston, North Carolina a few months back, and ended up photographing all of the NRHP sites in town to add to Wikipedia. To do so I looked up images online and then matched them to the Google streetscape. What I discovered was that a handful of the coordinates are off. Three examples: Asa Biggs House and Site (it's listed as being about a block away from its actual site); Martin County Courthouse (waaaaaaay off); and Sunny Side Inn (nearly accurate, and I'd let it slide were it not for the fact that the business is actually on Google Maps as an identified landmark.) Lord only knows how many other errors there are in Martin County alone, let alone the rest of the state. I'm an outsider there; I wouldn't know where to begin beyond fixing the ones I've listed. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It has been the loose recommendation of the NRHP project that locations should be fixed, or adjusted, as needed to point at the object that the article is about, in both the county lists and the articles. But, as Jim.henderson (most recently) reminds us, facts in Wikipedia are supposed to have references. Sadly, one of important aspect of a historic place is "where is that place", and due to all the reasons discussed above, that piece of data is often imprecise, and sometimes flat wrong. Since the project strives to include images for the articles, we're often in the business of finding a place with enough accuracy to correctly identify the object, and with sufficient precision so that it can be picked out of a crowd of nearby similar items. We usually know, therefore, when the original data is wrong. In the normal case, a reliable source is needed for facts, but in our case, we know that the "fact" is incorrect. The whole point of reliable sources is that no one cares about the editor's "facts", just citable source facts. I think the main underpinning of our "go ahead and fix it" philosophy is that the truth of the "where" is ground truth - there it is on a satellite map, or in the case of a demolished property, there it isn't.

We make other types of location changes as well. A 1970 nomination form might give the location as Main Street, but the address in 2015 is Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. We sometimes change the address in the infobox to the new address, we sometimes note the original address, but I don't think we ever cite the local city ordinance that made the name change.

The point is, do we accept google/bing/others maps as a sufficient reliable source (implicit or explicit) and not worry about citing the source for the location? Or do we come up with some sort of tag or parameter in NRHP Row and the NRHP infobox that marks a correction or original placement done by the editor, and cites the method used, such as:

• Street Address
• Satellite Imagery
• Street View Imagery
• Original nomination drawings

Going back over 90,000 or so locations is not likely, but moving forward it would be possible. Generic1139 (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Facts may require citation, but trivially* verifiable ones don't (or shouldn't; if they do, then WP:V is IMHO broken). The location of a building or structure, especially if it is visible from a publically accessible location, is trivially verifiable (by going there). That said, I agree that it would be useful to have a means (in both articles and lists) to inform how a particular set of coordinates were provided, including how, when, from what source, and by whom. This information does not necessarily need to be visible in a normal rendering of the table or infobox.

(*By "trivially", I mean not requiring any unusual tools, knowledge, or access to specialized or restricted documentation. This listing's location is somewhat expensive and logistically complicated to verify in person, but the average person with time and means can in principle do so, and is IMHO trivially verifiable.) Magic♪piano 17:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note - a few of the NRHP forms that I've examined and compared give the coordinates in D/M/S instead of UTM easting and northing. Except for one that was precisely 1' off (probably a clerical error) the other forms that give D/M/S seem accurate enough. That, plus what I've discussed above, makes me believe that there was a serious error in converting the UTM into lat&long. I don't know how the NRHP forms were converted from UTM to lat&long, but if they are in a database, a better conversion can be done. As far as verifiability, a proper conversion from the NRHP UTM data would be verifiable and a lot more accurate than what we have now. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bubba73: please provide some examples where you suspect a flawed UTM conversion, let me see if there is any common factor or other reason to believe there is a systemic UTM to DMS conversion problem. @Magicpiano: I agree that the source of the coordinates need not be visible (without clicking something). Generic1139 (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Generic1139: I feel like you're getting lost in the details. The coordinates and address of a listing are not a "fact" subject to WP:V (at least not the single-point coordinates in lists and infoboxes). The key "fact" is the location of the listing - the address and coordinates are just two of several ways of expressing that location to our readers. Once the location is established with a verifiable source (nearly always the listing's nomination form, AR aside), then it is entirely within the editor's remit to find different ways to express the location that best suit the context and best convey the location fact to readers, just the same way that an editor might reword a fact in a prose paragraph. Starting to offer up citations for every step of adjusting coordinates, updating postal addresses, or re-expressing an address as coordinates I feel is a form of TMI that makes the encyclopedia less useful to readers. If an editor cites a source that gives the location, then takes care to make sure any coordinates or addresses are a valid way of expressing/conveying that location, then that ought to be sufficient.— Ipoellet (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Generic1139: OK, I will by going through my recent changes, but it will take some time. It would be better if I'd kept a record of these. I wrote the UTMs and the actual coordinated down on scratch paper but I didn't write down what object they went to. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Examples

• National Register of Historic Places listings in Wilkinson County, Georgia, the Elam-camp house. The 1982 form says: zone 17, easting:281380 northing: 3640560. This converts to 32.881396°N 83.336899°W / 32.881396; -83.336899. The county article had 32.883056°N 83.336944°W / 32.883056; -83.336944. The actual location (from ACME mapper): 32.88333°N 83.33679°W / 32.88333; -83.33679. The difference N/S is 0.00166 degrees, about 600 feet.
• National Register of Historic Places listings in Effingham County, Georgia - the jail. The 2006 form says: zone 17, easting 470266 Northing 3581760. That is 32.372413°N 81.316078°W / 32.372413; -81.316078, the article gives: 32.374167°N 81.316111°W / 32.374167; -81.316111, off by off by 0.00175 degrees N/S (over 600 feet).

• National Register of Historic Places listings in Effingham County, Georgia - Courthouse. the 1980 form: Zone 17, E470100 N3582100, which is 32.375475°N 81.317854°W / 32.375475; -81.317854. They look like they have been rounded to the nearest 100 meters, but they shouldn't be more than 150 feet off. The article had: 32.376667°N 81.317778°W / 32.376667; -81.317778 - a difference of 0.00119 N/S - over 400 feet off.

• National Register of Historic Places listings in Wheeler County, Georgia, the courthouse. The 1980 form: zone 17, E: 331900, N: 3558080. This is 32.146627°N 82.782394°W / 32.146627; -82.782394. The page had: 32.147778°N 82.7825°W / 32.147778; -82.7825 - 0.00115 degree off N/S, over 400 feet. (Actual: 32.14813°N 82.78230°W / 32.14813; -82.78230.)

I don't know what the cause of the errors is. If they used the old datum, the N/S error should be about 100 feet, but these are several hundred feet off in N/S, and the UTM on the forms is south of what it should be (by several hundred feet). But by 2006 (the second example), they should be using good maps. In these cases, the old lat/long coordinates in these articles are more accurate than the UTM from the forms, so the problem may not be in the conversion from UTM to lat/long, as I thought. But I don't understand where the error is. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of the first two

Here is what I found on the first example, Elam-camp. First, your conversion of E/N 281380, 3640560 to DEC appears to be incorrect, based on the numbers, I think your conversion may have assumed that the input and output were were NAD83. I get 32.881397,-83.336898 when I assume that, a difference of 0.000001, -0.000001 from your numbers. The correct conversion is from NAD27 to WGS84, resulting in 32.883259,-83.336778, a difference of .001863, 0.000121, or 207 meters.

The distance between the NPS E/N (converted NAD27 to WGS84) and your satellite location is 8 meters, which is not bad. I was using this to do the conversions.

But, why does the county list say 32.883056, -83.336944?

The original version of the page gave the location as 32 52 59 N, 83 20 13 W. That is rounded but from what? If you assume that the E/N was NAD27 and the output was NAD27, then you get 32 52 59.21945 N 083 20 12.81303, which, rounded is 32 52 59 n, 80 20 13 w. A NAD27 to WGS84 conversion gives a different answer. I don't know what the orignal assumption was, and am trying to find out, but, 32 52 59 n, 80 20 13 was what was in the original county list. A bot later converted that to DEC, resulting in what is now in the county list, 32.883056, 83.336944.

The maximum rounding error, N/S would be .5 seconds, or about 15 meters.

Summary for Elam Camp: original NPS data, when using the correct datum conversions, is 8 meters off of what you determined. The county list suffers from rounding to the nearest second, and also possibly from using an incorrect datum, resulting in an error of 184 meters, most of it from the possible datum issue 27 meters, some rounding, and some datum.

I'll look at the other two tomorrow. Generic1139 (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Wheeler County Courthouse, similar story as Elam-camp

You have a typo in your example, you gave N: 3558080, the form says 3558030, when I use your data and NAD83 to NAD83, I get your number and a 158 meter error. With E/N converted NAD27 to WGS84 I get 32.148050,-82.782242, 10 meters from your satellite location.

DMS for the converted E/N is is 32 08 52.98N 82 46 56.0712W, rounded is 32 08 53N 82 46 56W. The county list had 32 8 52 N 82 46 57 W, again showing (I think) a NAD27 to NAD27 conversion, and rounding, resulting in a 38 meter error.

I think the larger errors you saw with these two examples are your incorrect conversion of the E/N data. Try again with NAD27 to WGS84 and see if you replicate my results. I see there are a total of 4 example, I'll also look at the other two. Generic1139 (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of the second two

Effingham County, Georgia - the jail

Difference between E/N and orignal county list is 24.6 meters.

Difference between E/N and the Bubba73 update to the county list (32.372413,-81.316078) is 211 meters, but google doesn't show anything at that location - I think you updated the county list with an E/N converted with the wrong datum.

Difference between E/N and where I think the building is (32.374416, -81.316035) is 16.8 meters.

Effingham County, Georgia - Courthouse

Here is one that is further away than it should be.

Difference between E/N and the original county list is 18.7 meters

Difference between E/N and where it really is: 434 meters. Looking at the 1971 topo, the E/N is just wrong. The listing is from 1980, but the E/N could have come from a much older map. Anyway, there is nothing in the ingestion/conversion that would have helped here, the nomination form was wrong. The new GIS data from NPS, however, show a location for this building that is only off from satellite by 17 meters.

Final word from generic1139 on these examples

• Looking at these four, not a large sample for sure, and ignoring the method Bubba73 used to convert E/N to DEC in the examples, the Focus data might have an issue sometimes with datums used for the conversion. That issue will cause larger errors in some parts of the country. Rounding from E/N to DMS to DEC also causes a small error. These errors (15-30m) are large enough to mis-locate buildings in an urban setting, but won't be that far off.
• The source of larger errors is simple bad data in the first place.
• Our policy of adjusting the locations as we find problems is fine.
• Photographers should check the available data before setting out on a trip, locations from the data base, at best, are usually off by at least 20 meters or so, and there are outright errors of varying significant distances.
• NPS is now putting out better GIS data. We might be able to decrease frustration in the photographer ranks by finding a way to use it.

Fini Generic1139 (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've looked through this quickly - I need to go back and digest it (I was out photographing Effingham County yesterday - I corrected the coordinates of the courthouse and jail). I am using the 1984 datam for conversion, instead of the 1927 datam. But why would forms done in the last 10 years use the 1927 maps instead of the 1984 maps (e.g. the Effingham County Jail)? I don't know exactly how much the difference is in this error, but a graph I saw indicated that the difference should be a lot less than what I am seeing. And thank you for that link to the conversion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Using that conversion website, I took a place near me and converted to 1984 coordinates and 1927 coordinates. The difference was 18 meters in easting and 209.6 meters in northing - a lot more than I had thought. The page that someone referred me to said that locations in Florida differ by about 100 feet, and a graph I saw showed Georgia deviations as less than Florida's. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Emporia, VA NRHP list is complete

I'd just like the rest of you to know that I've added images to all NRHP sites in Emporia, Virginia. A few sites could use some additional images, some of which I intend to add, but at least none of the sites are empty now. If nobody has been there, there's a long row of historical markers on Main Street in that city, and one interesting house across the street from the masonic lodge. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Best available satellite photos

Are the satellite photos on Google Maps and ACME Mapper the best ones available? (I assume so.) Sometimes I try to identify a house by its footprint, chimneys, etc, but sometimes the images aren't good enough. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I always shop around if there is a detail I need to see. Google and Bing sometimes have different overhead shots. Google street view and Bing bird's eye will also be useful. Be sure to rotate the birds eye view all four times, sometimes a view from one direction will be much high res, or newer, than the view from another. And sometimes, you just get a processed view of the same overhead shot. In any case, try them all. Generic1139 (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about the bird's eye view - seeing it from an angle can really help. But I was trying to get the location of Taylor Hall (Hawkinsville, Georgia) and that was not sharp enough to tell. However, the western 3/4 of that block goes with the house, and I only see one thing that could be the house, so I think that must be it. (I did not get to see it when I was there - the address and the lat/long together were not enough - but it is way back with no good view from public property.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Fall 2015 NHL meeting

The NPS now has the agenda up for its next NHL meeting, scheduled for Nov. 16–17 at the Charles Sumner School in Washington. The following applications will be considered (Wyoming, our least populous state, seems to be a big winner in this round, with two new proposed NHLs, along with Connecticut).

Along with them are my comments about how well-prepared the associated articles are, if they exist. For most of them we are in good shape, but there are a couple where we'll have to start from scratch.

1. Ames Monument, National Register of Historic Places listings in Albany County, Wyoming. Henry Hobson Richardson-designed memorial to completion of transcontinental railroad near the spot (tracks themselves since relocated). We have an article with a picture. Executive summary and nomination form
2. Athenæum (Das Deutsche Haus), Indianapolis. Well-preserved 1907 Romanesque-Renaissance Revival building that, in addition to being a long-term social focal point for the city's German American community, was home to the first institution for training phys-ed teachers. Article and photo all set. Executive summary and nomination.
3. Gaukler Point, currently listed as the Edsel and Eleanor Ford House, Grosse Pointe Shores and St. Clair Shores, Macomb County, Michigan. Designation reflects the importance/excellence of the estate's landscaping by Jens Jensen. Article and photo already. If it's designated under the name used we might want to consider renaming the article as well Executive summary and nomination.
4. Hell Gap Paleoindian Site, near Guernsey, Goshen County, Wyoming. Only known Paleoindian site at which every Plains Indian cultural complex (save Clovis) has been found. Article exists, though without photo, despite site not presently being listed. Executive summary but no nomination yet; I suspect they are redacting specific location information out of it.
5. Man Mound, Greenfield, Sauk County, Wisconsin. Only anthropomorphic prehistoric monumental earthwork in North America (I wonder if the NPS has its eye on WHS status for this ultimately). Listed, and we have a photo but no article. Probably should fix that before it gets NHL status. Executive summary and nomination.
6. James Merrill House, Stonington, New London County, Connecticut. House of prominent writer who was among the first American writers to explore his homosexuality in print. Would be the third NHL to be designated for its importance in U.S. LGBT history after the Stonewall Inn and Henry Gerber House. Not listed yet but there is an article and photo, although it's grayscale so we should try to take a color one. Executive summary and nomination.
7. Mississippi State Capitol, Jackson, Hinds County, Mississippi. National significant example of Academic Classical Revival architecture by Theodore Link. Article and picture already (if there wasn't, something went seriously wrong a long time ago). Executive summary and nomination.
8. Norman Film Manufacturing Company, Jacksonville, Florida. Rare surviving example of a silent film studio. Not listed, no article or picture. Executive summary and nomination.
9. St. Bartholomew's Church and Community House, New York, New York. St. Bart's, with its Byzantine architecture not commonly associated with Episcopal Church buildings, is one of the few breaks in the high-rise landscape in that part of Midtown. As expected for a church so well-known (take a look at the movies and TV shows it's been used in) in our largest city, we have an article and plenty of photos. Executive summary and nomination.
10. The Steward's House, Foreign Mission School, Cornwall, Litchfield County, Connecticut. We have an article on the school, which was meant to train prospective missionaries of non-European background to proselytize amongst their own but closed down after a few years in the early 1820s. We don't have an article on the building, probably the best-preserved remaining structure (it's still a private residence) specifically. Nor do we have a photo, although this is not so far away from where I live as to give me the idea that it might make a nice excuse to drive to and photograph next month. Executive summary and nomination.
11. Zoar Historic District, Zoar, Tuscarawas County, Ohio. Well-preserved remaining community of German Separatists that is a popular visitor attraction in the area. Listed but we don't have an article; I suppose that although the HD does not cover the entire incorporated village this may be another instance where we have to consider whether the settlement and HD are identical enough to not need one. We do have pictures, though. Executive summary and nomination.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

We have color photographs of the James Merrill House, they're just not being used. Magic♪piano 19:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Couple comments: (1) I would recommend against renaming the Edsel and Eleanor Ford House article as "Gaukler Point" - although the latter may be technically more correct, no one actually uses that name, and the "Edsel and Eleanor Ford House" is generally understood to include the surrounding estate grounds. I've attended several functions at the Edsel and Eleanor Ford House, but none have been in the house itself, just on the grounds or in another building. (2) The Man Mound is cool as hell - I've visited it, and didn't realize until now that it was on the Register, so it's fun to see it being considered as a NHL. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Very surprised that Zoar (rhymes with "lore", if I remember rightly) wasn't already an NHL; somehow I though they'd given it NHL status a few years ago. I've done a lot of Ohio writing (it has the third-largest number of start+ articles), but Tuscarawas County isn't a part of the state where I've done much of that writing; I tend to work mostly with individual buildings/structures/sites, and I've written very few district articles. We might want to look into sources discussing recent flood-protection issues; the nearby river dyke has been thought to be in danger of flooding, if I remember rightly. Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Norman Film Manufacturing Company has an article and some pictures under Norman Studios. If got added to the NRHP on December 29, 2014 as Norman Film Studios. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 05:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I found some time today to write it, so Man Mound has an article now. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Historic Districts on the National Register of Historic Places by state

I propose to continue populating Category:Historic Districts on the national Register of Historic Places by state which I started as part of the new Category:Historic Districts on the National Register of Historic Places that I created. I created these categories to ensure that NRHP historic districts are in a category named as such and are properly placed within the Category:National Register of Historic Places category tree. This matches the high level category structure within Category:National Register of Historic Places where the category names include some form of National Register of Historic Places. Previous to my work, these articles were in Category:Historic districts in the United States by state subcats which included both NRHP historic districts and non-NRHP historic districts. My category scheme will clarity what is what at the category and name level: NHRP districts go into the Category:Historic Districts on the National Register of Historic Places in foostate. Category:Historic Districts on the National Register of Historic Places in foostate is a subcat of Category:Historic Districts in foostate since that is what they logically are: a part of the whole. Districts that are only non-NRHP districts go directly into Category:Historic Districts in foostate. Districts that are both NHRP and non-NHRP go both directly into Category:Historic Districts in foostate and its subcat Category:Historic Districts on the National Register of Historic Places in foostate--as allowed for in the WP categorization rules. Category:Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in Illinois illustrate part of this structure. Of course, categories are based on article text. This plan can do nothing about the general lack of content in article regarding non-NHRP districts. One editor objected to my work; so far, no one else has agreed with his objections. Your comments on my continuing to finish this category tree setup I just described. Thanks Hmains (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Unlike Commons, I don't have much to do with categorization at WP, so I can't really comment on the proposal generally. However, it seems to me that the capitalization should be consistent: "Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places by state" rather than "Historic Districts on the national Register of Historic Places by State." Lowercase the "d" in "districts", and uppercase the "N" in "National". — Ammodramus (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Very true. I saw these last night as I was writing up my statement here, but did not want to confuse things at this point. I will change the capitalization before I add any more state level categories. Thanks Hmains (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As I noted previously, virtually all of our HD articles are NR-listed. Moving the NR-listed ones into their own categories would leave each "HDs in PLACE" category with essentially no contents except the NR-listed HDs category for the same place. This proposal would add an additional layer of category complexity without providing any significant benefits. Finally, note that Hmains cannot be trusted to obey policy: he began this project despite opposition and without consensus in its favor, using the AWB software, despite policy's clear requirement not to use this software to make major/bold changes of this sort without solid consensus. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that Nyttend's assertion that I did anything wrong in using AWB were questioned if not rejected by the editors/admins at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hmains and AWB. Hmains (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a strong opinion on the matter, but I think at this point the question can only be resolved via CfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Added information. Prior discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_62#Issue_with_categories_under_Category:Historic_districts_in_the_United_States_by_state. Other prior discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hmains and AWB. Hmains (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been sorting NRHP articles into type categories (mostly west of the Mississippi so far) and I vigorously, vigorously support Hmains' proposal. This resolves an awkwardness that NRHP HD articles are floating at the top level of state categorization (Category:National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin is a good illustration) whereas buildings/structures/objects can be finely sorted into categories by function (Category:Hospital buildings on the NRHP in Foostate, Parks on the NRHP in Foostate, etc). That there will be few non-NRHP historic districts to populate the higher-level Category:Historic districts in Foostate is consistent with the minimal content in categories like Category:Farms in Foostate or Category:Archaeological sites in Foostate vs the daughter categories Category:Farms on the National Register of Historic Places in Foostate and Category:Archaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Foostate. etc. Plus the few non-NRHP HDs that do have articles will not be falsely categorized under the NRHP umbrella. That seems to me a far greater logical issue than some handwringing about underpopulated parent categories. -McGhiever (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw the open discussion on WP:AN/I regarding Hmains' use of AWB. There didn't seem to be any appetite to sanction him on the basis of the discussion Nyttend cited, and I suggested he open a new thread here, because I thought that the situation might get more tense if it drifted off unresolved, and building consensus here could defuse that. I think this is a better place than CfD to hold the discussion, as it's more likely to attract the attention of knowledgeable editors with relevant experience.

@Nyttend and Hmains: Can you clarify to make sure I understand your respective positions correctly? As I understand it, for a historic district in county, state, Nyttend's scheme would have it classified under "National Register of Historic Places in county, state" and "Historic districts in state". Hmains' scheme would have it classified under "National Register of Historic Places in county, state" and "Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in state", which would be a subcategory of "Historic districts in state".

I admit I'm having a hard time rationalizing any strong preference for either. I think we can all agree with Nyttend that the size of the parent and child categories under Hmains' system would be lopsided, but I'm not sure that's so bad a thing we have to avoid it. But then, why subdivide "Historic districts in state" at all? Well, maybe the answer is that it's a good idea to subdivide "National Register of Historic Places in state", as McGhiever observed, and historic districts seem like natural children when dividing that category. So I guess I'm weakly in favor of the separate districts-on-NRHP categories, but I'm pretty open to persuasion. Choess (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there any appetite for sanctioning him for the lack of consensus? AWB policy demands consensus in favor of any non-trivial action, not the lack of consensus against it. We'll still have plenty of articles on covered bridges, banks, armories, etc. left over after we move the NR-listed ones to assorted useless topical subcategories, but not the HDs. The current setup doesn't cause non-NR HDs and their CPs to be put into the NR tree; it's careless editing that does. What's more, having NR HD categories runs the risk of confusing the non-careless editors when NR-listed places are included in non-NR-listed HDs. Consider the John D. Haynes House of Fort Wayne, Indiana, listed on the NR as a building and comprising its own local HD. Given the existence of an NR HDs category for Indiana, it looks like a categorisation mistake, a situation that needs to be fixed by moving it from (HDs in IN) to (NR HDs in IN), which it isn't. This would be an error, and while it's not a problem we have with the traditional setup, it's a problem we have if we're having NR HD categories, a problem that's unique to HDs and not a factor with farms, archaeological sites, covered bridges, etc. Nyttend (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

PS, why must the NR HDs be floating at the top level? In some states, people have subdivided sites by county (e.g. Category:National Register of Historic Places in Allen County, Indiana), so NR listings of all sorts are moved into those categories when they exist; couldn't you just create some such categories? Nyttend (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support Hmains' proposal.

• Issue #1: Everything under NRHP categories should be on the NRHP, so the "HDs in Foostate" categories should be removed from NRHP categories.
• Issue #2: Everything listed on the NRHP should be in an NRHP category for its location. This requires either separate "HDs on the NRHP in Foostate" categories, or having the NRHP HDs directly under "NRHP in Foostate" categories. I prefer the former. (Of course, where we say "Foostate", it could be one of the US territories, not just the actual states.)

It would be OK with me if HDs that are both NRHP-listed and listed elsewhere were in both "HDs in Foostate" and "HDs on the NRHP in Foostate" categories, as long as there is a notice in each category such as you get by using the template {{Non-diffusing subcategory}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• I was asked somewhere above to further illustrate my work here. Category:Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in California is a good example. All Historic districts on NRHP in California are included here. The category name is no longer confusing: any reader can readily see what is contained here. Of course, this category is a subset of its now parent category: Category:Historic districts in California. Using this latter category allows the user to readily see which historic districts in California are not NRHP. This could not easily be done with the previous set up in which both NRHP and non-NRHP districts were simply jumbled together within Category:Historic districts in California. Any historic districts that are both NRHP and non-NRHPs go directly both in the subcategory Category:Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in California and the parent Category:Historic districts in California. This duel child/parent categorization is allowed within categorization rules. This change of mine puts Historic Districts into the same category structure as found with other NRHP categories. Example: Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places in Alabama within Category:Buildings and structures in Alabama and every other state in Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places by state. NRHP Historic districts category structure was the outlier here; now it will match up and be uniform with the rest of the NRHP structure. Hmains (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• I conclude from the above comments that the consensus is that I continue populating Category:Historic Districts on the national Register of Historic Places by state as I described above in detail. That being so, I will re-start my work here in a few days. Thanks for all the supportive comments. Hmains (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Princeton (NJT station)

Help is needed for Princeton (NJT station). Details are at Talk:Princeton (NJT station). The station is mentioned in state documents are part of an HD, but the HD boundaries don't include it. Because it was marked as part of an HD, it may not have been acted on my the NPS in a thematic nomination. The article keeps bouncing back and forth between on the NRHP but with no refnum, or contributing property. Comments are welcome. Generic1139 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Refnum in infoboxes

Due to a prompt on Template talk:Infobox NRHP about an issue with the recent addition of links to the new Focus, I've now added code to the infobox that automatically places an article in Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup if the refnum parameter does not start with a number. The infobox previously only added this category if the refnum parameter was completely blank. I thought this would only affect the ~50 articles mentioned on the talk page that came up on a search, so it would be easy to clean up, but as the job queue catches up, the category is becoming more and more populated. From a first check it seems many sites in Texas were bypassing the refnum check by just putting a generic NRISref in the refnum parameter, and there are several other random misuses of the parameter. Would anyone like to help cleaning up these articles? Currently there are 56 pages in the category. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that Elkman's infobox generator may have at some time produced infoboxes without refnums (but with {{NRISref}} citation in the refnum field). Magic♪piano 12:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been going through the original set with errors, and the cleanup category. It would be less tedious if NRISref had a way to handle dates past the old cutoff of July 9, 2010, otherwise, it is painful to come up with a weekly list reference. Now that focus returns meta data for entries will into 2014, NRISref or something similar should be able to help out by giving a reference to the NPS focus database. Generic1139 (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ouch. To do my bit for the cause, I started on the bottom of the alphabetical list, with the William J. Bryce House in Ft. Worth, Texas. This was created in April 2012 as an NRIS-only substub; 2 1/2 years later, an IP editor pasted the text of a historical marker verbatim into the middle of it. Between fixing the copyvio and trying to turn it into an article that a reader might actually find useful, I wound up spending about an hour on it. Be forewarned that if my limited sample is any guide, these articles will have lots more problems than just a missing refnum. — Ammodramus (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This is how I stumbled into the Princeton (NJT station) can of worms. Generic1139 (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

How to handle Dinosaur National Monument? Change NRHP infobox to protected area (similar to Buck Island Reef National Monument ? Or add the MRA reference number 64000073 as the NRHP refnum? Generic1139 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Dinosaur NM doesn't appear to actually be listed as a separate entity. It's not in Focus as a separate listing or in the old NRIS database. I'd change the infobox to protected area. Magic♪piano 16:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places in Bergen County, New Jersey

Part 1

Does anybody know the guy described in this article? There's a pretty good chance that he's done something here as well, and I think he could help avoid all the mess that follows below. I've got an (old?) address from the white pages but an e-mail or personal contact would help. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Part 2

Bergen County, NJ has the strangest set of NRHP sites of anywhere I've seen. Consider that one Multiple listing nomination covers 190+ sites. That's more than Minneapolis and all of Hennepin County, MN. There about 280 sites total in a pretty rural area just NW of New York City. It gets stranger. There are at least 18 sites named the Ackerman-Something House, 2 of which are just "Ackerman House." There are about a dozen other family names with multiple houses named just like this. There are also different streets with the same names (and same family names) spread around the county, not to mention streets that change their names in the middle. And many of these colonial Dutch stone houses seem to be partially buried beneath modern additions. And we have confused some info in our articles and tables. Without criticizing anybody, that confusion seems inevitable. Did I mention winding hilly roads with no parking and lots of no trespassing signs?

Roy at Commons is plowing away at this, doing his usual very thorough job, but says he could use some help. Is there anybody who has experience with something like this? anybody know the area? @Jim.henderson, Daniel Case, and Nyttend: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"a pretty rural area just NW of New York City." Really? Have you actually been there? Speaking as someone who was a) born there and b) lives pretty close to it even today, I consider it pretty suburban (only in the very northwestern part does it remotely get rural). It was well-settled at the time of the Revolution ... doesn't surprise me there's so many listed properties. Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey! I found a nearby expert! Any chance you could wade thru the nom and help Roy a bit. BTW, I should have written "a fairly non-urban area just NW of NYC" instead of "a pretty rural area." These things are all relative of course. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Might be a good thing to work on over Thanksgiving ... what specifically does he need help with? I have photographed a few of these Bergen County old Dutch stone houses in the past (Bergen County was particularly hard hit by New Jersey's early 20th century "boroughitis", so it has lots of fairly small communities (small even by the standards of elsewhere in northeastern NJ's Southern California-rivaling suburban sprawl, and each one of these seems to have ended up with at least one of those old houses) but nowhere near even a good chunk. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Roy very carefully researches most of the sites he photographs, e.g. using our articles+, and checking cords. Some of our articles are corrupt, likely due to "corrections" so they are throwing him off. No wonder since there are many names like Haring-Blauvelt-Demarest House, Haring-Blauvelt House, Blauvelt House 1, Blauvelt House 2, Blauvelt House 3, Blauvelt-Demarest House, and Cairns-Whitten-Blauvelt House (7 total), or see the 1st eight entries at National Register of Historic Places listings in Saddle River, New Jersey for just some of the Ackerman houses. So checking our articles against local knowledge would make a lot of sense. Maybe connecting him to somebody else, e.g. a historical society, would help as well.

As far as actual photography or traveling - going through some of the neighborhoods and seeing "do our photographs actually make sense?" might help and taking some pix yourself - it might help to wait until all the leaves fall. Contacting the guy in Part 1 might help. I know I can do it, but he might believe it more if the request comes from a local. I'll send you an e-mail. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Part 3

We *had* very many photos of these sites but they were deleted. They are from the guy in part 1, on the "Historical Marker Database" www.HMdb.org (just search for Bergen County there). HMdb has freely licensed photos, except there's an additional requirement for commercial use that you can't download more than 25% of the photos in 1 area (e.g. in any municipality or county). That exception might seem impossible for us to deal with, except that, for all the sites I've seen in Bergen County, the guy in Part 1, has posted more than 4 photos. So if we limited ourselves to 1 photo from each site, mathematically we'd have to be below 25% in any area. Yes, there would be some additional issues to consider, like how do we make sure that only 1 photo per site isn't uploaded by multiple editors. The photos were deleted at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_October_17 by folks who didn't seem to understand the issues or consider the math (on both sides).

I'm throwing up my hands here and just asking "what can we do?" Any help appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)