Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 67

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
Latest comment: 4 years ago by WilliamJE in topic Categorize by year of establishment in state

Gas station drive

Latest comment: 5 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion
 
Fixer-upper Shell Gas Station in CA, pic by Mirokuofnite
 
Ammodramus pic for Shady Bend one in NE

We're down to the bottom of the barrel on some categories of NRHPs needing coverage. Here's a small category:

  1. Allen Tire Company and Gas Station, Prescott, Arizona
  2. Ambler's Texaco Gas Station, Dwight, IL
  3. Atlantic Gas Station, Miami, FL (NRIS-only)
  4. Belvidere Cafe, Motel and Gas Station, Litchfield, IL (looked like a redlink, just needed a redirect though)
  5. Colonial Beacon Gas Station, Stoneham, MA
  6. Ferguson Gas Station, Marshall, AR
  7. Gas Station at Bridge and Island Streets, Rockingham, VT
  8. Jameson-Richards Gas Station, Bald Knob, AR
  9. John Osterman Gas Station, Peach Springs, AZ
  10. Kreinbring Phillips 66 Gas Station, Lowden, IA
  11. More Mileage Gas Station, Jennings, LA
  12. Narcissa D-X Gas Station, Miami, OK (redlink 1)
  13. Pure Oil Gas Station, Saratoga Springs, NY
  14. Shady Bend Gas Station, Grocery, and Diner, Grand Island, NE (redlink 2)
  15. Shell Gas Station, La Grange, CA (redlink 3)
  16. A. C. Smith & Co. Gas Station, Quincy, MA
  17. St. Johns Signal Tower Gas Station, Portland, OR
  18. Wadhams Gas Station, West Allis, WI
  19. Wittsburg Store and Gas Station, Wittsburg, AR

Some of the above have really good articles already! These are all the hits on "gas station" in NRIS version 2013a. Just three redlinks and one NRIS-only. --Doncram (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

There are also a number of gas stations listed under "service station", "filling station", "gasoline station", and other similar terms; you may want to factor those into the list, though it will probably make it a fair bit longer. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, hmm, yes i see now there are more "service station" ones and others besides "gas station" ones in Category:Gas stations on the National Register of Historic Places and subcategories (which don't list redlinks of course). More than I was bargaining for. :( Okay, looking for more redlinks:

"Gasoline" ones:

  1. Drumright Gasoline Plant No. 2 (not a filling station), Drumright, OK (redlink 4)
  2. Hy-Red Gasoline Station, Greentown, IN
  3. Liebler-Rohl Gasoline Station, Lancaster, NY
  4. Spur Gasoline Station, Cynthiana, KY (redlink 5)
  5. Standard Oil Gasoline Station:

"Filling" ones:

  1. Continental Oil Company Filling Station, Kalispell MT (redlink 6)
  2. Gardner and Tinsley Filling Station, New Cambria MO
  3. Hale's Filling Station and Grocery, Bainville MT
  4. Langdon Filling Station, Hot Springs AR
  5. Magnolia Company Filling Station, Fayetteville AR
  6. Marland Filling Station, Hominy OK (redlink 7)
  7. McDougal Filling Station, Vinita OK (redlink 8)
  8. Mount Ida Cities Service Filling Station, Mount Ida AR
  9. Oatman Filling Station, Eau Claire WI
  10. Walter Patterson Filling Station, Clinton AR
  11. Pioneer Oil Company Filling Station, Grinnell IA
  12. Roundtop Filling Station, Sherwood AR
  13. Schauer Filling Station, Houston TX
  14. Seaba's Filling Station, Chandler OK (redlink 9)
  15. J.H. Smith Grocery Store and Filling Station, Dragoon AZ (redlink 10)
  16. Spearfish Filling Station, Spearfish SD (redlink 11)
  17. Standard Oil Company Filling Station, Bowling Green KY (redlink 12)
  18. Texas Company Filling Station, Victoria TX (redlink 13)
  19. Threatt Filling Station, Luther OK (redlink 14)
  20. Trapp Filling Station, Hartland WI (redlink 15)
  21. Henry and Johanna Van Maren House-Diamond Filling Station, Pella IA
  22. Warner's Filling Station and House, Geneva NE (redlink 16)
  23. Westland Oil Filling Station, Minot ND
  24. Wolters Filling Station, Davenport IA

"Service station" ones:

  1. Wallace Adams Service Station, Texarkana AR
  2. Airplane Service Station, Knoxville TN
  3. Avant's Cities Service Station, El Reno OK
  4. Baxter Springs Independent Oil and Gas Service Station, Baxter Springs KS
  5. Beam's Shell Service Station and Office, (Former), Cherryville NC
  6. Bridgeport Hill Service Station, Geary OK
  7. Bristow Firestone Service Station, Bristow OK (redlink 17)
  8. Canute Service Station, Canute OK
  9. Cave Creek Service Station, Cave Creek AZ (redlink 18)
  10. Central Service Station, Rosalia WA (redlink 19)
  11. Cities Service Station, Afton OK (redlink 20)
  12. Cities Service Station #8 or Cities Service Station No. 8, Tulsa OK (redlink 21)
  13. H. Earl Clack Service Station, Saco MT
  14. Copeland & Tracht Service Station, Phoenix AZ (redlink 22)
  15. Deerfield Texaco Service Station, Deerfield KS
  16. E. W. Norris Service Station, Glen Elder KS (redlink 23)
  17. Ellis Service Station Garage, Nashville TN (redlink 41)
  18. Embassy Gulf Service Station, Washington DC
  19. Freitag's Pure Oil Service Station, Monroe WI
  20. Gloe Brothers Service Station, Wood River NE (redlink 24)
  21. Gulf Oil Company Service Station, Paragould AR
  22. Roy T. Herman's Garage and Service Station, Thoreau NM (redlink 25)
  23. Hughes Conoco Service Station, Topeka, KS (redlink 26)
  24. Huning Highlands Conoco Service Station, Albuquerque, NM (redlink 27) Thanks, Camerafiend! --Doncram (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  25. Indian River Life Saving Service Station, Bethany Beach, DE not a gas service station
  26. Jackson Conoco Service Station, El Reno, OK
  27. Jenkins-Harvey Super Service Station and Garage, Tyler, TX (redlink 28)
  28. Henry W. Klotz, Sr., Service Station, Russell AR
  29. Lee Service Station, Damascus AR
  30. Lindholm Oil Company Service Station, Cloquet MN (redlink 29)
  31. Lundring Service Station, Canby MN
  32. Magnolia Service Station, Texola OK
  33. Marathon Oil Service Station, Fordyce, AR
  34. Master Service Station, Waterloo IA (redlink 30)
  35. Miami Marathon Oil Company Service Station, Miami OK (redlink 31)
  36. Midway Service Station, Kenna NM
  37. Murfreesboro Cities Service Station, Murfreesboro AR
  38. New Ulm Oil Company Service Station, New Ulm MN
  39. Price Produce and Service Station, Springdale AR
  40. Provine Service Station, Hydro OK
  41. Pure Oil Service Station (Hartwell, Georgia) (redlink 40)
  42. Pure Oil Service Station (Lavonia, Georgia) (redlink 39)
  43. Other Pure Oil Service Station ones, non-nrhp-listed
  44. Rison Cities Service Station, Rison AR
  45. Rison Texaco Service Station, Rison AR
  46. Sayre Champlin Service Station, Sayre OK
  47. Shell Service Station (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)
  48. Sinclair Service Station, Tulsa OK (redlink 32)
  49. Soulsby Service Station, Mount Olive IL
  50. Spraker Service Station, Vinita OK (redlink 33)
  51. Spring Street Service Station, McMinnville TN (redlink 34)
  52. Standard Oil Red Crown Service Station, Ogallala NE (redlink 35)
  53. Standard Oil Service Station, Plant City FL
  54. Samuel P. Taylor Service Station, Little Rock AR
  55. Teapot Dome Service Station, Zillah WA
  56. Texaco Service Station, Bristow OK (redlink 36)
  57. Troy Lasater Service Station, New Blaine AR
  58. Tuomy Hills Service Station, Ann Arbor MI
  59. Utah Parks Company Service Station, Bryce Canyon UT
  60. Westside Service Station and Riverside Motel, Eureka KS (redlink 38)
  61. Weyl Service Station, Trenton NE (redlink 37)
  62. Y Service Station and Cafe, Clinton OK
--Doncram (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Add "Tire" ones which may be service stations, at least to create articles for and check for inclusion into list-article and categories:
--Doncram (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
That yields 41 or so redlinks, more than i wanted, but still can be articled out. My point was going to be that we're near enough to be able to article out anything.--Doncram (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Number 25 is a coast guard facility, not a petroleum retailer. John from Idegon (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Master Service Station (Waterloo, Iowa), #34 above (redlink 30), was written with a different article name. I also did a spot check and "Sinclair Service Station" is Sinclair Service Station (Tulsa, Oklahoma) on the Tulsa County NRHP listings page. The reason is that Sinclair Service Station (Ridgeland, South Carolina), which you don't list, already exists. You might want to check your list to make sure your article titles are all correct. Otherwise we may end up with duplicate articles that need to be merged. Farragutful (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for those notes! Okay, Master Service Station is now a redirect and Sinclair Service Station is now a disambiguation page. I really am not enthralled about this topic area, but I guess there should be a list-article capturing this info properly, so watch List of historic filling stations (okay, now started, corresponds to Filling station article) to cover the U.S. and European gas stations covered in Category:Historic filling stations plus to cover the redlinks identified in this exercise. And I'll start articles for the redlinks to finish this up as a topic in NRHP--I'd be happy if others would join in to create some of these. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Farragutful, you're right about potential for duplicate articles to be created. One possibility was just avoided by editor McGhiever creating a redirect to make connection for the Lindholm one in Minnesota. Also before I create one of these I am using "what links here" to go back to the NRHP county list-article, in order to get a photo if any and to get any coordinates which may have been improved. If the NRHP county list-article linked to somewhere else, I would figure that out and create a redirect, too. User:Camerafiend and any others creating articles probably will be doing the same. Another view is that the NRHP list-articles should have been linked to the NRHP listing name, which could be as a redirect, rather than pipelinking to some other name for an article. Anyhow this is getting sorted by creating the articles, and doing any mergers necessary, and we are all completely sorted in a slowly growing number of counties and states. :) Georgia got over 50% recently, by the way. --Doncram (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You might also be interested in Massachusetts Avenue Parking Shops which is something like a very early strip mall in the "colonial style" with a gas station included. To tell you the truth (or at least what I remember of it), I was put off that somebody (APK) took a photo of a Phoney Colonee building to represent a NRHP site. When I got there, just after sunset, I discovered that the whole set of shops looks just like that. Due to darkness, I never did get a good pic, but I seem to remember needing to take great pains to avoid getting the gas station in the photo. :-) C'est la vie. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I put that into Category:Motor vehicle buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places though that might not be quite apt. I recall there are a fair number of historic districts about early/first suburbs designed around auto usage, too, not sure what category name would work for auto-related development of restaurants, stores, housing, etc. E.g. Swiftcurrent Auto Camp Historic District in Montana. --Doncram (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
"Auto" and "Car" ones including some candidates for service stations/filling stations, and other auto-related places:
  1. 1901 McGee Street Automotive Service Building, Kansas City, MO (redlink 45) (added to list-article and to Category:Auto dealerships of the United States
  2. ABC Auto Sales and Investment Company Building, St. Louis, MO (redlink 46) dealership added to category and list-article
  3. Art's Auto, Pawtucket, RI --> was originally a gas station in part, so included in List of historic filling stations
  4. Auburn Cord Duesenberg Automobile Facility, Auburn IN
  5. Auto Coach Building Kansas City, MO (redlink 47)
  6. Auto Freight Transport Building of Oregon and Washington, Portland, OR
  7. Auto Hotel Building, Evansville, IN --> hotel perhaps serving people with cars
  8. Auto Rest Garage, Portland, OR --> dealership added to category and list
  9. Autocar Sales and Service Building, St. Louis MO (redlink 48)
  10. Automobile Alley Historic District (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)(redlink 49)
  11. Automobile Club of Buffalo, Clarence, NY
  12. Automotive Historic District, Birmingham, AL (redlink 50)
  13. Aztec Auto Court, Albuquerque, NM
  14. Beck Barns and Automobile Storage, Paris, ID (redlink 51)
  15. Louis P. and Clara K. Best Residence and Auto House, Davenport, IA --> not a business, just a carriage house-like garage at a residence, as noted by Farragutful below
  16. Bohn Motor Company Automobile Dealership, New Orleans, LA (redlink 52)
  17. Branscombe Automobile Machine Shop, Anaconda, MT (redlink 53)
  18. Buick Automobile Company Building, Kansas City, MO (redlink 54)
  19. Cadillac Automobile Company Building, St. Louis, MO (redlink 55)
  20. Carolina Power and Light Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage, Raleigh, NC
  21. Claremore Auto Dealership, Claremore, OK (redlink 56)
  22. Clemens Automobile Company Building, Des Moines, IA5
  23. Cobbs Creek Automobile Suburb Historic District, Philadelphia, PA
  24. Collins Manufacturing-Jackson Automobile Company Complex, Jackson, MI (redlink 57)
  25. Colman Automotive Building, Seattle, WA. --> Expanded its article: dealership cat and list-article, also car repair and also served gas.
  26. Corbett Brothers Auto Storage Garage, Portland, OR
  27. El Vado Auto Court, Albuquerque, NM (redlink 58)
  28. Finstad's Auto Marine Shop, Ranier MN (redlink 59) --> boat repair shop
  29. Griffin Auto Company Building, El Dorado, AR
  30. Jennings Ford Automobile Dealership, Springfield, IL
  31. LaSalle Street Auto Row Historic District, Aurora, IL
  32. Leeman Auto Company Building, Denver, CO (redlink 60)
  33. Locust Street Automotive District (and boundary increase), St. Louis MO (redlink 61)
  34. Lombard Automobile Buildings, Portland, OR
  35. Louden Monorail System in the Auto Repair Shop, Fairfield, IA
  36. Maxwell-Briscoe Automobile Company Showroom, Chicago, IL
  37. Modern Auto Court, Albuquerque, NM (redlink 62)
  38. Modern Automotive District, Bowling Green, KY (redlink 63)
  39. Moore's Auto Body and Paint Shop, Richmond, VA
  40. More Automobile Company Building, St. Louis, MO (redlink 64)
  41. Mountain View Auto Court, Ogden, UT (redlink 65)
  42. Old Fellwock Auto Company, Evansville, IN
  43. Pence Automobile Company Building, Minneapolis, MN
  44. Pence Automobile Company Warehouse, Fargo, ND
  45. Peoria Automobile Club, Chillicothe, IL
  46. Plant Auto Company Building, Richmond, UT (redlink 66)
  47. Rising Sun Auto Camp, St. Mary, MT
  48. Rose City Electric Automobile Garage, Portland, OR --> auto showroom and auto repair, include into List of auto dealerships and repair shops
  49. Salem Avenue-Roanoke Automotive Commercial Historic District and boundary increase, Roanoke,VA
  50. Union Auto Company, Eau Claire, WI
  51. Vesper-Buick Auto Company Building, St. Louis, MO (redlink 67)
  52. Weber Implement and Automobile Company Building, St. Louis, MO (redlink 68)
  53. Weber Implement and Automobile Company, Old, St. Louis, MO (redlink 69)
  54. Wright's Automatic Machinery Company, Durham, NC
  55. Yingling Brothers Auto Company, El Dorado, KS (redlink 70)
  56. Zip Auto, Missoula, MT --> was never a gas station, always auto repair only
  57. 1907 Dorris Motor Car Company Building, St. Louis
  58. Ashby Street Car Barn, Atlanta GA
  59. Bay E, West Ankeny Car Barns, Oregon
  60. Berry Motor Car Service Building, west St. Louis, MO (redlink 71)
  61. Capital Traction Company Car Barn, Washington DC (redlink 72)
  62. Chattanooga Car Barns, Chattanooga, TN (redlink 73)
  63. Climber Motor Car Factory, Unit A, Little Rock AR
  64. Cole Motor Car Company, Indianapolis, IN
  65. Dayton Motor Car Company Historic District, Dayton OH (redlink 74)
  66. Dorris Motor Car Company, St. Louis
  67. HCS Motor Car Company, Indianapolis IN
  68. Herring Motor Car Company Building, Des Moines IA
  69. Packard Motor Car Showroom and Storage Facility, Buffalo NY
  70. Paige Motor Car Co. Building, San Francisco CA (redlink 75)
  71. Saxon Motor Car Store, Georgetown, TX (redlink 76)
  72. Third Street Motor Car Company Building, Newport KY (redlink 77)
  73. Universal Car Company, Louisville, KY (redlink 78)
  74. Wachter Motor Car Company Building, St. Louis, MO (redlink 79)
  75. Walla Walla Valley Traction Company Car Barn, Walla Walla, WA (redlink 80)
  76. Wethersfield Avenue Car Barn, Hartfort, CT, a trolley barn

categories and auto dealers and tires and more

Unfortunately there gray areas; I would like to hear comments about how to organize this stuff. For example there are garage/mechanics shop vs. other automotive related places including tire sales places and auto dealerships. I am thinking that Bristow Tire Shop in Oklahoma is pretty clearly originally a filling station, having had gas pumps. But what about Firestone Tire and Rubber Store in Indiana, which is maybe more tire-oriented and I don't know yet if it had gas pumps, and what about Peck Bros. and Bartle Tire Service Company Building in Oregon, which looks more like a showroom/dealership and appears to have done servicing but probably never had a gas pump? Can places that seem more showroom-like be included into a List of automobile showroom buildings (redlink) or List of motor vehicles-related dealership buildings (redlink) or the like, perhaps allowing for tire dealerships to be included? What about automobile company buildings which may be headquarters or may be manufacturing plants and/or have dealership space? I personally care a bit less about categories than what list-articles make sense, but maybe existing categories can help guide what to do, and some places can be in multiple categories and lists.

Comments/suggestions welcome. This seems hard to organize, maybe I should just focus on creating individual NRHP articles and leave it to categories specialists to make groupings. But list-articles are really helpful. --Doncram (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe these can be done as:
  • 1a If also was a repair shop, then put into Auto repair shop category
To implement the above:
  • Do a category rename to move all the "gas station" ones to "filling station" new categories instead? to be consistent with worldwide treatment?
--Doncram (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Updated. With articles created for 50 out of 80 redlinks so far. Continuing. --Doncram (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Updated. With all 80 former redlinks now created as articles. Developing List of auto dealership and repair shop buildings. Continuing to process items above into Category:Auto dealerships of the United States or other categories, and into list-article. --Doncram (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I just happened upon this again. The "Auto House" in the Louis P. and Clara K. Best Residence and Auto House listing is analogous to a carriage house. Its the place the family kept their automobiles with living space for the chauffeur above. It is in no way an auto-related business, and in my opinon, does not belong on this list. Farragutful (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Eh, sure, okay. Noted in above worklist, won't be included in auto dealership list-article or category. I doubt I made any errors in what I positively put into list-articles or categories so far, but there are omissions as I didn't process through all of the candidates above for those purposes. I am pretty much done with it all.
I wonder if covered bridges on the NRHP would be more interesting to complete out? There are about 50 NRHP-listed ones needing articles. --Doncram (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

help wanted on Knight's Ferry Bridge issues

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A "redirect with possibilities" was in place, but somehow we never had a separate article before, for National Historic Landmark Knight's Ferry Bridge in California, which is the longest covered bridge in the United States, undisputedly so since nearly-same-length Old Blenheim Bridge was slain by Hurricane Irene. It became NHL in 2012 and was then also individually listed on the NRHP, but its county list-article linked to historic district Knight's Ferry instead. Questions:

  • NRIS version 2013a includes it only with listing code "DR", i.e. it seems to be questioned whether it is actually NRHP-listed. What does that mean? There used to be a key for such listing codes, perhaps at wp:NRHPHELP, but I can't find it anywhere now. I found its Weekly listing entry which I think should be definitive, but was it delisted?
  • Are all the old NHL summary listing pages gone from NPS?
  • Where is an NHL or NRHP nomination document for the bridge?

I am failing badly in my searching. Help would be appreciated. :) --Doncram (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

There is this, but it's marked in the title as a draft nomination. Chris857 (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"Historical District" vs. "Historic District"?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Project members are invited to weigh in at Talk:Williamson County Courthouse Historical District re: "Historical District" vs. "Historic District", both of which are used in sourcing. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not too helpful to have debate about best term, when there are not decent sources in the article to inform the debate. Two of three references go to nothing, and it is unclear what is the nature of the third one, it is a text document without proper identification of what it is. Could you please follow guidance at wp:NRHPHELPTX to find your way to the NRHP documents for the district, either via Texas Historical Commission or via National Archives) and put them into the article. There is an original listing NRHP document and a boundary increase NRHP document to use. --Doncram (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The two words are easy to confuse, and in fact may sometimes be synonyms. For our uses however, I'll suggest
  • Historic adjective describing something from the past, e.g. a historic house or district.
  • Historical adjective describing something related to something historic, e.g. a discussion about history would be a historical discussion.
That's my take in any case. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Smallbones. Doncram, you seem to not like anything I do on Wikipedia. I went ahead and moved the page. I'll let other editors decide if "Historical" should be changed to "Historic" at National Register of Historic Places listings in Williamson County, Texas . Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

WLM 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I was surprised to see Wiki Loves Monuments - US is going again this year. See Commons. They say they've already got about 1,000 photos. Some of these might be showing up at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Unused images though there are lots of "I dunno's" clogging up that page already. I guess any help we can give them would be appreciated, and I know that any help they can give us - especially for sites not previously photographed - would be very much appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately they have now changed the format of the page, and even if there are several photos of the same monument only one photo is shown. This makes things complicated, I would not know how to find all of them to choose the best one.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I can warmly recommend opening the list pages, and then using Dudemanfellabro's tool to assign the right picture. That tool offers choice between the tagged photos, but also photos that are in a tagged category. effeietsanders 20:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks Lodewijk. Do you have a link to the tool? I have similar problems with other lists.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: User:Dudemanfellabra/AddCommonsCatLinks - it doesn't work for all countries, but here on enwiki it works for most. effeietsanders 21:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Btw, be careful: the category tags on Commons are in ~10-20% of the historical district wrong: they are on the wrong level (i.e. a commons category about a single building is tagged with the ID of a district). It requires some fixes on Commons to do it properly. What I like about this script, is that you actually find those errors by doing it manually but assisted. effeietsanders 21:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try. It will not solve similar problems on the Russian Wikivoyage, but I guess we can not just solve everything at the same time.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Covered bridges

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Here are all of the NRHP-listed covered bridges lacking articles, as far as I can tell: about 50 redlinks, out of about 500 listed. These are highly deserving of coverage, IMHO, more so than auto dealership buildings, say, but no one has been trying to complete out our coverage, at least not recently. More in Ohio than anywhere else; also Georgia, Kentucky and scattered others.

These are all the hits on "covered bridge" in NRIS version 2013a which are redlinks, plus others found by review of lists of NRHP bridges in each state. This possibly misses a few newer listings or ones both without the explicit term "covered bridge" in their NRHP name and without any indication of type of bridge in NRHP bridge lists such as the PA one. No changes since a month ago, when I developed out this worklist, working here. Perhaps a push could be done to finish them out? --Doncram (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Plus I added a number of redlinks from List of covered bridges in Ohio, which I had reviewed and decided were not NRHP-listed, but which I want to confirm are not NRHP-listed. These probably deserve articles anyhow, which might be created in the process of developing info about them. There aren't NRHP nomination documents available for the Ohio NRHP ones, although many of the Ohio ones are covered in the Ohio Historic Places Dictionary (see wp:NRHPHELPOH). However the online version of that book gives only selective previews for me. It would be great if anyone with the book could develop out some of these articles more. For both NRHP and non-NRHP ones in Ohio, there are an assortment of Bridgehunter and blog sites and even some Youtube videos, though. --Doncram (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
California
  1. Knight's Ferry Bridge, Stanislaus County, California
  2. Glen Canyon Covered Bridge, Santa Cruz CA
Georgia
  1. White Oak Creek Covered Bridge, Alvaton GA
  2. Kilgore Mill Covered Bridge and Mill Site, Bethlehem GA
  3. Cromer's Mill Covered Bridge, Carnesville GA
  4. New Salem Covered Bridge, Commerce GA
  5. Kesler Covered Bridge, Homer, GA
  6. Ruff's Mill and Concord Covered Bridge, Smyrna GA
  7. Auchumpkee Creek Covered Bridge, Thomaston GA
  8. Elder's Mill Covered Bridge and Elder Mill, Watkinsville GA
  9. Red Oak Creek Covered Bridge, Woodbury GA
Kentucky
  1. Bennett's Mill Covered Bridge, Greenup KY
  2. Mount Zion Covered Bridge, Mooresville KY
  3. Oldtown Covered Bridge, Oldtown KY
  4. Switzer Covered Bridge, Switzer KY
Missouri
  1. Burfordville Covered Bridge, Burfordville MO
New Jersey
  1. Covered Bridge Historic District, Delaware Township NJ
Ohio
  1. Barkhurst Mill Covered Bridge, Chesterhill OH; Marion Township, Morgan County, 1872, also known as Williams Covered Bridge
  2. Belle Hall Covered Bridge, Croton OH
  3. Bennett Schoolhouse Road Covered Bridge, Minford OH
  4. Blackwood Covered Bridge, Athens OH
  5. Bowman Mill Covered Bridge, New Reading OH
  6. John Bright Covered Bridge, Baltimore OH
  7. Buckeye Furnace Covered Bridge, Wellston OH
  8. Byer Covered Bridge, Byer OH
  9. Helmick Covered Bridge, Blissfield OH
  10. Helmick Mill Covered Bridge, Malta OH
  11. Hizey Covered Bridge, Pickerington OH
  12. Johnson Road Covered Bridge, Petersburg OH
  13. Kidwell Covered Bridge, Truetown OH
  14. Kirker Covered Bridge, West Union OH
  15. Knowlton Covered Bridge, Rinards Mills OH
  16. Martinsville Road Covered Bridge, Martinsville OH
  17. Newton Falls Covered Bridge, Newton Falls OH; also known as Arlington Boulevard Covered Bridge (the second oldest covered bridge in Ohio)
  18. Otway Covered Bridge, Otway OH
  19. Palos Covered Bridge, Glouster OH
  20. Parker Covered Bridge, Upper Sandusky OH
  21. Parks Covered Bridge, Chalfunts OH
  22. Reed Covered Bridge, Marysville OH
  23. Rinard Covered Bridge, Marietta OH
  24. Roberts Covered Bridge, Eaton OH
  25. Rock Mill Covered Bridge, Rock Mill OH
  26. Salt Creek Covered Bridge, Norwich OH
  27. Scottown Covered Bridge, Scottown OH
  28. Swartz Covered Bridge, Wyandot OH
Additional Ohio redlink ones to check from List of covered bridges in Ohio, which might not be NRHP-listed ones, which failed in earlier searching to match with NRHP names)
  1. Armstrong Covered Bridge, Cambridge, Guernsey County, 1849, also called Clio Covered Bridge, NRHP-listed?
  2. Baker Covered Bridge, West Rushville, Fairfield County, 1871, also called R.F. Baker Bridge, NRHP-listed?
  3. Bay Covered Bridge, McArthur, Vinton County, 1876, also known as Tinker Covered Bridge, NRHP-listed?
  4. Brown Bridge, New Hope, Brown County, 1880, over the White Oak Creek, NRHP-listed?
  5. Buckeye Covered Bridge, Millersport, Fairfield County, NRHP-listed?
  6. Charlton Mill Road Bridge, Wilberforce, Greene County, 1883, over Massies Creek. NRHP-listed?
  7. Christman Bridge, Eaton, Preble County, 1895, over Sevenmile Creek. NRHP-listed?
  8. Dixon Branch Covered Bridge, Lewisburg, Preble County, 1887, Moved from Salem Road (1/4 mile south) over Twin Creek. NRHP-listed?
  9. Glen Helen Covered Bridge, Yellow Springs, Greene County, 1886, also called Cemetery Road Covered Bridge, moved to Little Miami River in 1975. NRHP-listed?
  10. George Miller Road Covered Bridge, Byrd Township Brown County 1879 Over the West Fork of Eagle Creek. NRHP-listed?
  11. Germantown Covered Bridge, Germantown, Montgomery County, 1865, Bowstring suspension bridge of iron over Little Twin Creek. NRHP-listed? Formerly NRHP-listed.
  12. Hanaway Covered Bridge, Madison Township, Fairfield County, 1901, also called Clearport Covered Bridge, over Clear Creek. NRHP-listed?
  13. Harshman Bridge, Eaton, Preble County, 1894, Over Four Mile Creek. NRHP-listed?
  14. Hartman Number Two Covered Bridge, Lockville, Fairfield County, 1888, also called Lockville Park Covered Bridge, Over the Ohio Canal. NRHP-listed?
  15. Johnston Covered Bridge, Revenge, Madison Township, Fairfield County, 1887, Howe truss over Clear creek. NRHP-listed?
  16. Jon Raab Covered Bridge, Colfax, Fairfield County, 1891. NRHP-listed?
  17. Lockport Covered Bridge, Lockport Williams County 1999. NRHP-listed?
  18. McCafferty Road Covered Bridge, Vera Cruz, Brown County, 1877. NRHP-listed? Apparently not NRHP-listed.
  19. McCleery Covered Bridge, Lancaster, Fairfield County, 1864. NRHP-listed.
  20. Mink Hollow Covered Bridge, Madison Township, Fairfield County, 1887, Over Arney Run. NRHP-listed?
  21. New Hope Covered Bridge New Hope, Brown County, 1878, Replaced the 1872 bridge over White Oak Creek. NRHP-listed?
  22. North Pole Road Covered Bridge Ripley, Brown County, 1875, also called Iron Bridge, over Eagle Creek. NRHP-listed?
  23. Roley School Covered Bridge, Lancaster, Fairfield County, 1899, at the county fair ground. Not NRHP-listed.
  24. Scofield Covered Bridge, Brown County, 1875, Multiple kingpost with arch over Beetle Creek. NRHP-listed?
  25. Shreyer Covered Bridge, west of Baltimore, Fairfield County, 1891. NRHP-listed?
  26. Stevenson Road Covered Bridge Xenia, Greene County, 1877, Over Massies Creek. NRHP-listed?
  27. Walter F. Ehrnfelt Bridge Strongsville, Cuyahoga County, 1983, Over East Branch of the Rocky River in the Mill Stream Run reservation of the Cleveland Metroparks. NRHP-listed?
  28. Warnke Bridge, West Sonora Preble County, 1895, Over Swamp Creek. NRHP-listed?
  29. Zeller-Smith Covered Bridge Pickerington, Fairfield County, 1906, also called Sycamore Park Covered Bridge. NRHP-listed?
Oregon
  1. Thomas Creek-Gilkey Covered Bridge, Crabtree OR
  2. Irish Bend Covered Bridge No. 14169, Corvallis OR
  3. Thomas Creek-Shimanek Covered Bridge, Scio OR
Washington
  1. Manning-Rye Covered Bridge, Colfax WA

--Doncram (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It turned out there already were all the Oregon ones, thanks User:Finetooth, though not at the exact NRHP listing names. Thank you User:Bubba73 for helping a bit at Ohio University Lancaster historic bridges, which combined two Ohio bridges that had both been moved, and I think nicely sorts out their original and current locations. Created all the missing NRHP ones in California, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio. And I went on to create every other one as well.  :) Okay, done, well enough.   Done --Doncram (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Embedding

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion of potential interest to members of WPNRHP is taking place at Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#Embedding. — Ipoellet (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Salt Lake City now fully illustrated

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

I just added the last 7 photos to National Register of Historic Places listings in Salt Lake City. That's 218 out of 218 illustrated. A lot of people have worked on this one over the years. Ntsimp (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that is quite an accomplishment! I've worked with counties with as few as four NRHP sites, and have one that is unobtainable. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Well done! No small accomplishment with how many listings Salt Lake City has. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, great job! It seems you are lucky or really good somehow, in getting photos for all. It has gotten harder to completely illustrate big list-articles, where there are cases of demolished-but-still-listed properties, as happens once or a few times for the nearby Utah County list-article, where no historic pics have yet been found for one or a few cases. Or maybe you have successfully dug out historic pics in some such cases? (I see a historic pic used for Frederick A.E. Meyer House.) Or, hmm, I think I recall you recently mentioning having corresponded with the state SHPO to get demolished places delisted, and having that actually work, eventually. Wow then, completing out this list-article is all the more to your credit. :)
P.S. I bet it has been helpful to have a linked "map of all coordinates", in process of getting to all the places in the area. :)--Doncram (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Salt Lake City's near-cartesian grid plan makes latitude and longitude less important, but the grouping into neighborhoods definitely helped with some of my planning. Again, this is a big group effort; I just finished it. Ntsimp (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good except for the over-exposed photo for Altadena Apartments. Chris857 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Outstanding! Congratulations. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

yellow boxes access

Latest comment: 5 years ago19 comments2 people in discussion

A (probably unrelated) problem I am having is that the wp:NRHPPROGRESS-associated yellow boxes (i.e. that let you see which items in a NRHP county list-article are the NRIS-only ones, etc., for those who have [enabled it in their account, as described at wp:NRHPHELP#NRHP stats reading) are not coming up for me. And this [is also required for me and others who perhaps have more script stuff installed] to access to the "update" button at wp:NRHPPROGRESS, too.This has long not worked reliably in Chrome, but it also is not working in Microsoft Edge browser. If it was working, I would run the script to update wp:NRHPPROGRESS, which i and a few other editors update occasionally.--Doncram (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The yellow boxes and the NRHPPROGRESS script are working for me now in Microsoft Edge browser. Who knows what is different today. I do have to purge the page to get these to work on any given page (which can be done by clicking on a clock gadget (described now at wp:NRHPHELP#NRHP stats reading; also was discussed at wt:NRHPPROGRESS). --Doncram (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
My version of the script works somewhat more reliably than Dudeman's. I suspect it has to do with changes in Javascript that have deprecated some of his usages. Magic♪piano 22:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I noted the option now wp:NRHPHELP#NRHP stats reading. Switching to that makes the difference now for me to be able to get access to the NRHPPROGRESS script (after i purge the wp:NRHPPROGRESS page, in Microsoft Edge) .... err, it did for a second, but when I went away and came back, it doesn't work. I don't know if that was intended/expected to fix yellow boxes display in NRHP county list-articles. Right now it is not working to get the yellow boxes to show on one of those. Argh. --Doncram (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't had access for weeks now. User:Magicpiano has updated the wp:NRHPPROGRESS page several times since 1 September, and they have also updated the maps, but I think it is working out to be less often than when they and I both were occasionally updating the page and the maps (though I did the latter less often). To partially address the problem, I would like to make request at wp:BOTREQUEST and perhaps elsewhere for a bot to run the NRHPPROGRESS update script daily. And perhaps for it to generate the maps daily too, which surely a program could do. Another request there would be for programming support to enhance the system so that the yellow boxes work again, which is a different issue. Further requests there could be for a programmer to move on to other enhancements of the system, e.g. perhaps to track the number of coordinates which have been verified by editors as opposed to being provided by NRIS2013a (which would involve making another column in the NRHPPROGRESS system). Or for programmers to consider alternative approaches delivering the same functionality, perhaps different than the yellow boxes system if there is some fundamental flaw in that (I am not that much of a programmer to know). I think we could use some additional programming support. Magicpiano, others, would that be okay to ask for some specific help plus additional, general help? --Doncram (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why these statistics need to be updated daily; seems a lot like overkill, unless I see a groundswell of support for the idea. And when you say "I haven't had access", what exactly are you referring? (Yellow boxes? progress updating? map updating? Please be specific which things are and aren't working for you.) Magic♪piano 16:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't had access: the "update now" boxes at wp:NRHPPROGRESS doesn't show for me in Chrome or in Edge browser, so I can't run either the main updating script or the script that updates map material. Also the yellow boxes don't show for me anywhere, so it is harder for me to find "NRIS-only" articles to fix up. It's my impression that no one is getting access, basically. If it is a bot running it, I don't see why the main updating shouldn't be daily, like other bots do, e.g. wp:Daily Disambig, running presumably on some server with plenty of capacity for it, in the middle of the night. I myself was fairly often been running the updater on a nearly daily basis, partly for my own sake in seeing whether i had brought various counties over 40% articled or quality thresholds, say, when privately campaigning to fix up a given state; i figure it is likewise useful feedback for anyone else who has just made an effort, to see the numbers change.
An alternative to the yellow boxes system, at least for finding NRIS-only sites to fix, would be to have a bot put in state-specific categories (it could be an entirely separate bot than any in the current system). Originally when the system was set up I thought it would be obvious we'd have such categories, but there was inexplicable-to-me conflict about having them. But also one can run Petscan, e.g. this application of Petscan to Oklahoma which currently finds 30 NRIS-onlies. A Colorado campaign between me and another editor, informed by Petscan report, just finished getting rid of all of Colorado's NRIS-onlies, by the way. I am not sure about other functionality of the yellow boxes system that is important to anyone, e.g. whether anyone uses it to identify stubs needing improvement to start or not. With some attention paid to possibly creating other county-specific categories, perhaps it would be feasible/sensible to get rid of the yellow boxes system altogether, i.e. maybe it is not worth trying to make it work any longer, I am really not sure. --Doncram (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
First: I do not have access to Edge, so I cannot directly diagnose your problems there in detail, unless you (or someone else with access to Edge) can run tests for me with the developer console open and report on its contents. As a general rule, there are several factors that I am aware of at play. Things have been changing in the Mediawiki framework API that is needed to make some of these functions behave, and browsers are also changing behaviorally. I know these have affected Firefox, Chrome, and Chromium, which I use, particularly in the means by which the controls (the yellow box and the buttons for activating things) are manifested. (These systemic changes, by the way, will eventually irrevocably break Dudeman's copies of these scripts, so anyone who cares should switch to using mine.) If you repeatedly reload a page, do the controls eventually appear? Magic♪piano 01:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Reloading and purging, repeatedly, make no difference. I have also completely turned off my computer and have cleared Chrome browsing history and so on, a few times in the last few weeks. I simply cannot get yellow boxes or those "update now" boxes to show, in Chrome and in Edge (which tended to work more reliably in the past). There was another script which I would occasionally run, too, the one counting and listing NRIS-only articles by original author; this has failed to work for a longer time, several months at least, when I have tried occasionally. --Doncram (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I have made a change to the NRHPstats script that may change the behavior you see. Please open an NRHP list page in Chrome. If you do not see the yellow box, open the web console (it should be on the browser main menu->Web Developer->Web Console), press reload, and report the console contents. (You can try the same thing in Edge, but I don't know how to get to its console.) Magic♪piano 03:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Right, okay, in Chrome at a list-article, i hit purge, i still see no yellow box, and I look for that. There is no Web Developer in the browser. I look under "Settings" and also under "More tools". Under "extensions" in the latter I toggle "Web developer" to ON, see nada, toggle it back. Trying Google Chrome Help, i search on "where is Web console" and find it is apparently part of Chrome DevTools package, and i worry that is something i will have to install. Per this, apparently in Windows hitting "ctrl-shift-J" will open a console, and it does. Okay, i saw something like that before. Okay, going back, I find that in fact under "More tools", there is in fact "Developer tools", which opens up with the "Elements" panel displayed, and I can click on "Console" panel to get to the same place that ctrl-shift-J gets to. Anyhow, the console panel shows the following error message:
Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'addPortletLink' of undefined
   at <anonymous>:1:206
   at domEval (load.php? debug=false&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector:11)
   at runScript (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector:13)
   at enqueue (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector:11)
   at execute (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector:14)
   at doPropagation (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector:8)
The message actually includes display "National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Brooke_County,_West_Virginia:1 Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read" too, but that doesn't copy-paste together with the rest.
--Doncram (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Please try again. (It should be sufficient to just shift-reload the page with the console open.) Magic♪piano 20:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, here it is, now while I am at this list-article, again after purging. The first line below was shown the other time too, but i didn't copy it, it doesn't seem to indicate an error.
JQMIGRATE: Migrate is installed with logging active, version 3.0.1
VM178:1 Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'addPortletLink' of undefined
   at <anonymous>:1:206
   at domEval (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector:11)
   at runScript (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector:13)
   at enqueue (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector:11)
   at execute (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector:14)
   at doPropagation (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector:8)
This time there is display of "VM178:1", all underlined, which doesn't copy-paste with the rest, and it doesn't display the name of the list-article this time. --Doncram (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again. I'm wondering if this might be caused by something else in your vector.js or common.js. Can you at least temporarily reduce the content of these files to only load NRHPstats? Magic♪piano 20:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, golly gee, it works now, I can see yellow boxes, after deleting all other contents of common.js and vector.js.
Perhaps the conflict was most likely with stuff I had in my vector.js about a linkclassifier, from User:Anomie, I am guessing because one line shows the "addPortletLink" term mentioned in error message. Those lines were:
LinkClassifierOnDemand=true;                 //LinkClassifier mentioned at DPL bot by JaGa --this is skin-specific
importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js'); // Linkback: User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js
importStylesheet('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css'); // Linkback: User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css
mw.util.addPortletLink('p-cactions', 'javascript:LinkClassifier.onDemand()', 'Link Classifier');
Nope, when I restore the other stuff, the yellow boxes don't work, so the linkclassifier stuff does not appear to be the problem. And I see the "addPortletLink" term appears elsewhere, too, in my commons.js usage of User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js. Okay trying now again with just deletion of dudeman-related stuff in my common.js, i.e. leaving out
mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=User:Dudemanfellabra/UpdateNRHPProgress.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');   // try NRHPprogress updater, 5/27/2017 per , yay it worked in Microsoft Edge, took 17 minutes to run.
mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=User:Dudemanfellabra/NRHPmap.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');   // try NRHP map maker, guessing 5/28/2017, from finding NRHPmap.js file
mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=User:Dudemanfellabra/NRHPProgressHistory.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); // try NRHP progress history to generate datafile for line graphs
mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress/NRISonlyEditors.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); // try NRIS-only author reporting
which plausibly competed with the Magicpiano item in my vector.js
importScript('User:Magicpiano/NRBot/NRHPstats.js'); // Try just Magicpiano's update version instead, per wp:NRHPHELP NRHP stats reading
Hmm, not working, but I am unsure if I need to restart browser, will try that. --Doncram (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, with further trial and error, it seems I need to eliminate both the LinkClassifier and the Prosesize items (which both used "addPortletLink"), for the yellow pages to work, and happily the yellow pages now seem to work in Chrome reliably, knock on wood (at least if I push "purge"). And it seems that everything else i was using, e.g. DYKcheck is okay with respect to yellow boxes. In this process i never found the wp:NRHPPROGRESS "run me now" type scripts to be available, and I am stopping now with the above dudeman items back in. Please advise if any of those should be changed to a Magicpiano version. Thank you for your persisting to solve the yellow boxes aspect at least, here. --Doncram (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
P.S. The wp:NRHPPROGRESS "update statistics" and "generate SVG output" buttons now work for me in Edge, tho not Chrome. And also for the "which editors created these?" at User:NationalRegisterBot/NRISOnly/All, but now I recall the problem there seemed to be about getting the script to finish, i.e. getting an output window to open up, when it would be better if the script would just write the results to a page. Yeah, I think the script "finished" but gives no results there again now. --Doncram (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Good to know your troubleshooting unearthed likely culprits (although I have no problems with Prosesize in my usage). As I mentioned above, Dudeman's script are eventually going to break, due to their use of Mediawiki methods and techniques that are deprecated now, and by behavioral changes in browser implementations that affect script invocation. I've made copies of most of his NRHP-related code at User:Magicpiano/NRBot, and have gradually been updating code that is affected. These should be preferred to Dudeman's versions. Magic♪piano 02:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, using that NRBot page's mentions I have now updated my UpdateNRHPProgress.js and NRHPmap.js to your two versions of those, and I find that I can see the "update me now" buttons for both of them at wp:NRHPPROGRESS using Chrome now, yay! Just noting, not complaining, that your NRBot page does not address, from dudeman's scripts that I know about, NRHPProgressHistory.js (which would retrieve info from NRHP progress history to generate datafile for line graphs of progress) and NRISonlyEditors.js (wikiblame for NRIS-only authors). The first never finished for me, the second did finish a couple times, and both were trying to generate output to a new window that would never open, I believe. Both seemed interesting. I wonder if the NRIS-only blame one might be adapted to report positively on Start level achieved or upon coordinates improved; I do think editors respond positively to getting credit for their positive accomplishments (and sometimes they don't mind getting negativish reports on what they've done too), but doing anything with them would be for someone else, not me. --Doncram (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Judges needed for WLM-US 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi folks - I'm Kevin, one of the organizers of Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States. First, wanted to say you all do amazing work on Wikipedia, and WLM-US wouldn't be very fruitful without all you project members who both upload and place photos on Wikipedia during the campaign. With that being said, WLM is wrapping up and we're about to enter our judging period that lasts through the month of October, and I figure it's fitting to invite members of WP NRHP to help judge if they're interested.

We had a great turnout this year, with over 1,900 individuals uploading over 10,000 photos through September. Our judging process involves 3 rounds of judging by community members; an overview of the timeline can be seen here.

Before judging begins, there's a pre-jury process where the organizers quickly cull several thousand lower-quality images, unexceptional images of commonly photographed sites, images of signs, things like that. After that, Round 1 of judging begins, which involves each judge judging a good chunk of photos over a ~2 week period (last year was ~1,700 photos per judge - hoping to bring that number down this year). It sounds like a lot, but it's a quick yes/no to each photo on whether or not it should continue to the later rounds. When broken up over time, it's not too bad - and the more people that pitch in for Round 1, the less work it is for each person. Round 2 is more refined, with each judge reviewing < 500 photos on a 1-5 scale. Finally, with Round 3, judges rank the top few dozen photos to determine the top 10.

We're especially in need of folks to help out with Round 1, but we invite project members to be a part of Rounds 2 and 3 as well (judges can participate in multiple rounds). All judges will receive some swag (t-shirt, stickers). If you'd be interested, please respond here or reach out to me via email - we'll get you set up and send you more details soon. Thank you very much! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Worth mentioning, judges naturally won't be eligible to win the contest if they have submitted photos. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I entered a few photos, but I don't think they're realistically in the running anyway. I'd love to help. Ntsimp (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ntsimp: Great, thank you! Our jury communication takes place via email, so I've gone ahead and sent you one. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

North Coast Casket Company Building

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should North Coast Casket Company Building be moved to the "Former listings" section of National Register of Historic Places listings in Snohomish County, Washington? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Demolished buildings remain listed until they are formally delisted. (You might propose to the Washington SHPO that it be delisted.) Magic♪piano 21:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

RS

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looking for more input at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#National_Park_Service, about a source for Falcon Rest, a historic house in Warren County, Tennessee. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Template bug

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If someone experienced in template scripting could please take a look at {{Address restricted}}, it would be greatly appreciated. For some reason, if the template is invoked multiple times on a page such as a list article, it is setting different content for the <ref name="ARCombinedNote"> tag it creates causing the "References" section on these pages to bleed red with errors. Fortguy (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Destroyed and rebuilt

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

When something is destroyed and rebuilt, does it generally stay on the NRHP? I noticed that the Old Blenheim Bridge was destroyed and rebuilt - it is on the NRHP but listed as a former National Landmark. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The relevant weekly list says "NHL STATUS REMOVED" instead of the usual "REMOVED". Does that mean it's actually still listed on the Register? I'm not sure; I kind of doubt they would do that for a destroyed structure. Ntsimp (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I photographed a house on the NRHP in Georgia a few years ago that had burned and rebuilt as close to the original as they could. The bricks of the front stairs looked like they were the same. It was still on the NRHP. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
SHPOs have to be prodded to delist destroyed properties. They usually don't even know. In this case, they know the bridge was destroyed. Newly-built properties don't get listed, and the new bridge wasn't even started until two years after the NHL status was removed. I think it's no longer on the NRHP. Ntsimp (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it is still listed, if the Weekly listing announcement said the NHL status was revoked but nothing about NRHP status. The SHPO definitely knew all about the destruction and then the long planning and mega-zillion dollar investment. They coulda/shoulda/woulda explicitly delisted it when the NHL status was delisted, if they were going to, but they knew historically compatible replacement was going on. Covered bridges do require replacement of their wooden members; how would you draw the line about percentage of wood replaced? I do know that some/many covered bridges lost NRHP status when they were dissassembled and reconstructed, especially if done by amateurish types and if they were moved to a county fairground or other non-suitable setting. The two Ohio University Lancaster historic bridges encountered in recent covered bridges drive (one covered, one uncovered) were moved post-NRHP listings, but moved very nicely and sympathetically to cross a creek on a college campus, and retained NRHP status. But, the NYS SHPO has not been contacted much, AFAIK, about updating the wp:NRIS info issues NY in their NRHPs. The fact of NRHP listing or not could be checked by working with the SHPO. --Doncram (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparent typo in property name

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It looks like whoever filled in the registration form for the Fabrishous and Sarah A. Thomas House made a typo in the name field. The house is correctly called the "Frabrishous and Sarah A. Thomas House", as you can see in the continuation sheets. Should we rename the page to the correct title, or keep at the incorrect title because that's how the name appears in the listing? Smurrayinchester 13:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

We usually correct obvious typos in article names and titles. Magic♪piano 16:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Smurrayinchester 19:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red October meet-up on Club Women and Clubhouses

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

In October 2018, Women in Red is focusing on clubwomen and their clubhouses. Both inexperienced and seasoned editors are welcome to join us in creating articles. Numerous women's clubhouses are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and all of these are deemed wiki-notable. There is the List of women's club buildings with some redlinks, as well as the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Clubwomen. I hope you take a look find an interesting building and/or club to write an article about. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

different Texas regions split

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

There has been sluggish discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Harris County, Texas#Split about re-splitting the Harris County NRHP list-article, to use split set up previously by User:25or6to4, which achieves division into three portions: downtown houston's 38 listings, houston outside of downtown 215 listings, and 13 being the non-Houston portion. This is somewhat better than the current 279 listings all in one list-article. This note to call for any further comments there at the discussion. If there's not I'm ready to go ahead and implement the re-split, and that will involve some updating to wp:NRHPPROGRESS tracking system, so User:Magicpiano (who commented in support of split already) needs to be involved in completing the implementation if I can't do it all, which I think i can't. --Doncram (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually the 215 can be further split, approximately equally, into Houston Heights vs. other, it seems (see the discussion). The main reason for doing the splitting, as for other regional reorganizations of Texas and other area's list-articles, is to improve reader experience ultimately. I expect that separate list-articles focused on downtown Houston and on the Houston Heights area and on the other areas, as coherent sensible areas worth talking about, can each be understood better, and can and will be developed better with descriptions of the sites in the list-articles and so on. --Doncram (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Followup: This involved constructive participation by Oldsanfelipe, Magicpiano, Fortguy, WhisperToMe, TheCatalyst31, and 25or6to4 (thank you to all of you) and resulted in split as per the following table:
Area # of Sites
1 downtown Houston 43
2 Houston Heights 121
3 inner Harris County 85
4 outer Harris County 30
(Duplicates): (0)
Total: 279
Knock on wood, I think the process of discussion at the Talk page worked well, and the split is fully implemented (with some future modifications to the area of Houston Heights section still possible, depending on what development of future articles discovers). --Doncram (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

West Virginia merger of county list-articles

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's been discussion to somewhat of a consensus at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in West Virginia#Regions of West Virginia, towards combining the 55 separate county list-articles into 8 regional groupings. This was result after considering a 9-region grouping that had one other tourist region defined. The discussion led to clarity, I think, that every NRHP county list-table would be saved, and that county-oriented navigation will continue to work seamlessly.

This would result in groupings like Draft:National Register of Historic Places listings in Mountain Lakes region, West Virginia, which shows seven separate county list-tables, for seven counties that form a coherent region. This is one of 8 regions defined by WV state Department of Arts, Culture and History, and allows for use of extensive report on historic ethnic settlement/associations in each of the regions. Thus for the "Mountain Lakes" region the lede can be developed to discuss the "Scots-Irish and German farm culture" heritage in the region.

The point, as for other mergers and splits, is to improve readers' experience, so that like items are grouped together and allow for coherent discussion, as well as ensuring that "map of all coordinates" are meaningful instead of being downright misleading and unhelpful. Please do join discussion there. --Doncram (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Fire stations

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Please see new List of fire stations, which covers about 300-500 notable fire stations world-wide found from categories of existing articles, and from NRIS. It includes about 115 redlinks for all the NRHP-listed places named "Fire Hall" or "Engine Station" or "Hook and Ladder Company" etc. which I could find. This replaces a pretty poor List of fire stations of historical significance in the United States which had been formed in 2016 by changing over a disambiguation page about places named exactly "Fire Station No. 2" and similarly, without any attempt then to round up all the differently named ones.

Hey, I'd like to complete out this topic area, at least create short articles with NRHP documents for all of these. Please see if there are redlink items in states of interest to yourself which you could start up. Also, the list is incomplete, because among NRHP-listed places there are probably oddly named buildings that I didn't find. And I have so far found only a few fire stations in historic districts. If you know of any contributing building ones to add, please do! --Doncram (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This has been huge and interesting and is not finished yet. With some help from Australian editors who hang out at wp:AWNB, about 48(!) down-under fire stations got identified, about a dozen having articles to start, now about 36 having articles and the rest in progress. Some notes on how to access Australian heritage register databases are now at wp:HSITESHELP. A lot of the U.S. ones turn out to have hose towers for drying their firehoses (still a redlink, early draft is here) but I don't see that practice elsewhere, while historic ones in towns in Australia got built with five-story-or-so fire watchtowers adequate for looking out over all buildings in their areas (presumably flat). The first operating telephone in the world was between Ballarat East Fire Station (1858) and Ballarat Fire Station (1860); Alexander Graham Bell came to beg for info how it was done i think.
Thank you to User:Packerfansam (1) and User:Jeff the quiet (about 4 so far?) and Andrew Jameson (3) for creating new articles in Wisconsin and Michigan.
 
Hope Hose Co. No. 6 and Fellowship Engine Co. No. 29, HABS, does this building exist?
Out of about 115 redlinks in U.S. to start, still remaining are:
And two in Wisconsin.
This effort has also produced about 30(!) disambiguation pages like Fire Station No. 8 (disambiguation), Fire Station No. 9 (disambiguation), etc., linked at List of fire stations#See also, along with a few spinoff lists of other fire department facilities, of firefighting memorials, etc.
Also a whole lot of edits adding/fixing categories, avoiding dab links, etc., have been accomplished. --Doncram (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I meant to say that a project like this is now feasible and fun, but obviously depends upon the accomplishments of NRHP editors who have created so much now-available knowledge, e.g. all the 300-400 NRHP fire station articles previously created everywhere (with biggest numbers of fire stations being in Massachusetts, New York, Washington DC, perhaps). This project seems big to me right now, but in truth it is merely filling in some gaps. --Doncram (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Texas Panhandle merger of county list-articles

Latest comment: 5 years ago38 comments9 people in discussion
 
Uppermost 5 rows of Texas counties had 84 NRHP listings in total, in Texas NRHPs map last updated January 1, 2016

Hey I plan to proceed to merge 26 currently separate list-articles for the Texas Panhandle into one National Register of Historic Places listings in the Texas Panhandle. They mostly have very few NRHP listings, and are better covered in one list-article where the GeoGroup linked map will show all their locations together. And readers will be well-served by a substantial list-article with a decent intro, etc., instead of disappointed to find nothing useful. Some time ago I spent some time trying to figure out a Texas-wide partition to make more groupings of its 252(?) counties into fewer list-articles, e.g. I think I considered using the state's economic development regions, but I failed to find a partition that would work well. Some groupings would include just too many NRHP listings. Perhaps only the panhandle is very clearly defined by wide consensus and is useful to merge for our purposes. Another option would be to merge all the singleton NRHP counties, and perhaps the doubleton ones, back into the Texas-wide NRHP list-article, but I think it is better to keep to coherent geographic regions as we do for our splits of big cities out of too-big counties elsewhere.

Note that the Texas State Historical Association defines the panhandle exactly the same, in its article in the Handbook of Texas online. Despite linked images there showing a bigger area, the text clearly defines it as exactly the 26 counties, specifically with the southern border of Swisher County, Texas on the bottom.

Pinging User:Magicpiano, about the fact that this will affect the operation of the NRHPPROGRESS updating script. I will plan to proceed by making the merger and then updating the Texas top-level list-article and the wp:NRHPPROGRESS page, and then I will let you know, and I understand it could still require some tweaking so the script still works. Let me know if I should do anything differently. Thanks by the way about updating the NRHPPROGRESS maps just now. --Doncram (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we've had a lot of discussions on this page about this sort of thing, and have never quite settled on a consensus for how it should work. We should at least have another discussion about it if you're planning on going ahead with this, since as far as I know this would be the only list that groups listings within a state by geography. It seems reasonable enough in this specific case, just because Texas has so many small counties with few to no listings, though I'd at least leave Potter County separate. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this should be discussed (more). I'm not opposed to it, but TheCatalyst31 is correct that this would be the first sub-state multi-county list. I don't believe this will have a significant effect on the progress page updating script, but it might have some unexpected effect on NationalRegisterBot, whose script has encoded some of the hierarchical structure of the list pages. If this goes forward, I would recommend creating the Panhandle list with only a small number of counties at first, after which I could work through the scripts for consequences. Magic♪piano 01:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay about discussing more. Sure, discuss away. The previous discussion about economic development regions of Texas was all me, no other commentators, at Talk:List of RHPs in TX.
I am not sure about whether there are other grouped listings extant or not in our list-article system. In fact I think there are numerous state list-articles which include the small-numbers-counties, unless adamant splitters have arrived and done their will everywhere. There used to be Georgia split alphabetically, e.g. into groupings of counties A-C, D-H, etc., which was unaesthetic as it grouped counties that were far away from each other, but those got split out to individual counties eventually. Hmm, List of RHPs in MN is one example with small counties included in the state-wide page. That is not perfectly optimal; it is in effect a grouping of geographically scattered counties.
I do believe there was a previous merger of NRHP list-articles for boroughs and census districts/non-boroughs in Alaska's panhandle. If I recall correctly there was contention / edit-warring there. I think I was supportive of the merger, but was not in the thick of the dispute, and I don't recall what argumments were put forward either way, except a bland, arbitrary-seeming-to-me assertion of "we don't ever do this" being made, if I recall correctly. I briefly looked for any discussion of that just before posting the above but didn't find anything to link to.
Here, for Texas panhandle, it comes up because I have been making some effort to create the articles for the one-listing counties, and it would be far more natural to be developing out a single list-article for the panhandle. And it is very well-defined. I think it can comfortably include Potter County, the one that has 32 current listings. --Doncram (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
P.S. The previous Alaska panhandle discussion seemed to me to be at consensus (or near-consensus) to group that way, per User:Reywas92's arguments, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 35#Individual county articles. User:Nyttend noted "By the way, note that Hawaii also goes by a structure that's not based on its counties, but there we split by island due to its unique geography and its unusual county government structure, where (with one exception) all islands are located in exactly one county" and commented "Finally, if these end up being merged somewhere, would someone please update the Skagway link at [list of fully illustrated articles]. Seems to me there was not adamant opposition to merger from anyone. But at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in the Alaska Panhandle, there is statement "This has been open for ages. No clear consensus for the merge so I undid it. --Multichill" which appears to me to be a practical decision at the time about the fact that incomplete implementation had left duplication in place, and User:Multichill was focused on technical aspects of fixing up the list-system and translating it to the German Wikipedia etc. Seems to have been the last word AFAICT; it seems unfortunate that Reywas92 implemented it imperfectly and was in effect rolled back. --Doncram (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Regional lists are simply a horrid idea. This is why we have statewide lists: either a county list should be freestanding, or it should be placed on the statewide list. Don't put it at some other place where people won't be expecting it. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, hmm, I hoped there would be no objections, oh well.
I do agree that reader surprise, what people expect, matters, as part of designing overall reader experience. Unfortunately in the current system there is negative reader surprise when arriving from the Texas state-wide list-article to a county list-article like National Register of Historic Places listings in Childress County, Texas, which has just one item plus a lot of bureaucratic overhead like a statement that "The locations of National Register properties and districts may be seen in a mapping service provided", etc. Ugh. And the reader is probably surprised about the bureaucracy and about the fact they have to click again to get to the article on the one listing, i.e. to get to anything useful.
There might be bad ways to organize a Panhandle grouping approach, too. But please see this version of how the table of the state-wide list-article can work, with a new "region" column having just "Panhandle" entry for 26 relevant rows, and see how it links for, say, the Childress County item to its link target in the NRHPs in Texas Panhandle list-article. I think any reader arriving there would be just as happy as readers are arriving at any of List of RHPs in MN's sections for its small counties. Please scroll up and check out the "Map all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap" feature, which nicely shows the 84 or so listing locations (and happens to reveal that the coords for one listing are awfully wrong). Note I started a lede but it could be developed with some more overview comments. Arriving readers are happy to find useful context, to be able to compare Childress's one entry vs. other nearby ones.
On the other hand, the List of RHPs in MN readers will have a negative surprise when they click on their "Map of all coordinates" and puzzle out, perhaps, that it covers only listings in scattered counties, when they would naturally expect it would show all the NRHPs in the region (the state). They might be disgusted in fact if they figure that out how they were deceived. Not nearly as useful for seeing what is near what, e.g. for a possible photos contributor or anyone else interested in visiting listed buildings. While Panhandle visitors will be pleased at what they see. And someone could get around to making a map to include directly into the Panhandle list-article, like was done for the List of NHLs in TX, too. I think compact geographic organization makes a lot of sense to strive for.
Does this development address your concern about reader surprise, or could you possibly please expand on what else would be "horrid"? Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm actually less convinced that this is a good idea after looking at the plan for the statewide list. Having a region column that would be blank for 90% of the state's counties looks really weird visually, and is going to make the reader wonder why the Panhandle is getting treated differently from the rest of Texas. (This is especially true when other parts of Texas have lots of small counties with few listings too, but don't fit in well-defined regions.) As for what you said above, that seems like a better argument for splitting out the rest of MN's small counties, or looking into ways to improve the "Map all coordinates" template, rather than merging the Texas counties. One- and two-listing articles aren't ideal, but in huge states like Texas they still feel like the best option. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
This could become a monumentally bad schema. Consider Oklahoma, West Virginia, Idaho, Vermont, Kentucky, etc etc etc. The schema proposed will be very confusing to the average reader because every state in some way will have a region, or panhandle etc etc. Why not just keep it per county and give the average reader a chance to follow a pattern that the majority of states will have? Just my observation, nothing moreCoal town guy (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks to several for your civil comments. Hey this is one specific proposal, it is not a general assertion that all states should be presented in regions; there simply are not generally accepted regional breakdowns of all states. Maybe a case for breaking out some states could be made, but let's just consider this Texas situation. So far, I think my proposal here with draft for the statewide list and for the Panhandle region is pretty good for readers. I am almost as much concerned for making it a better experience for editors. Texas is one of the states with least development, percentage-wise, I think because it is very frustrating/difficult to work on. I myself would have cruised through the Panhandle counties, if it were possible to see which ones they were. It is difficult for any reader or editor to get a handle on what the NRHP listings in the area are like. Unlike other states where counties have dozens or hundreds of listings, you can't browse through the nearby listings to see what kinds of things are historic and to work on all the, say courthouse ones, in any given area.
About the statewide list, I don't necessarily agree that readers would be bothered about the region being named for only one region. But, I suppose it could be better, given reaction/feedback. I think the draft state-wide table can be better developed to include regions for all the counties. I will develop it more using the econ development schema and will post again here soon. --Doncram (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Texas is one of the least articled states, but I don't think that has anything to do with how the lists are formatted. A lot of other southern/southwestern states with fewer counties are right down there with them and have been since WP:NRHPPROGRESS was created: New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, Mississippi, etc. I think that's more a function of where article writers live than anything else. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Everything we edit, falls in a data schema, example, US, US State, US State County, US City etc etc. A region is another name for a locality. AND as TheCatalyst31 states, it is where people live. AND since we have people everywhere, that is precisely how they would define a locality. 5 people, 5 definitions..Thats bad. That is a train wreck. Those 5 people would know the state, the county and the city and the town etc etc. BUT once you discuss localities, good luck. Data will be anywhere, there is no agreed upon definition of locality. Please, why shake the dice any further? We are here for ALL of the sites, not just Texas etc etc...Again, just my 2 cents. AND BONUS, if you make the regions, how many new editors will want to edit or understand our schema, ZERO. It will chase away folks.Coal town guy (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I continue to support merges of any sort. There is no reason to have separate articles for counties with a very small number of sites, and even those with more sites do necessarily require splits. It is less reader-friendly to have content split between several short lists than to have them consolidated in a more useful longer list. Reywas92Talk 01:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thats swell, why dont you tell me all of the peoples names and addresses who will easily understand it? OH and by the way, whats your source on how to do the regions?Coal town guy (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Reywas92, and, hey, please hold the dismissals a bit until a proposal is more tangible. After further thought and browsing, I am leaning towards adopting the Texas Historical Commission's partition of the state into 10 regions. Per this webpage and this PDF map. The regions were originally defined by the Texas State Dept of Transportation back at time of Texas' 1968 World's Fair. Then adopted by the THC in the 1990s. These are very simple to understand: the state is partitioned into 10 regions by groupings of counties. The state produces brochures of its historic sites by region, e.g. this Plains region brochure for "Plains" which is somewhat larger than Texas Panhandle definition I was using. If we organize our coverage by these 10 regions, then it can match up to coverage of the rest of Texas' historic sites (their Texas Historic Landmarks and plaques and so on0, organized the same way. I notice the state-wide map and region brochures emphasize cities, not counties. No one wants to present this stuff narrowly by counties or even to show counties, besides us; I think few readers including few Texans know their 254 counties. I need a bit more time before I have a decent draft table for the statewide NRHP toplevel list-article and for one or two regions. But there is nothing difficult to understand about a grouping of counties. --Doncram (talk)
I doubt even most Texans, let alone non-Texans, are familiar with some of those regions. A few of them are well-known (like the Hill Country), but most of them seem like THC neologisms. South Texas is more desert than tropical, some of the names are very generic geography, and "Independence" just seems to mean the parts of the state where important events in the Texas Revolution happened. At least with counties people are likely to know the bigger ones and the ones in the regions they care about, and possibly more if they're into geography or travel. Nobody is going to know most of those regions. And I definitely disagree with the notion that nobody presents stuff by counties; the NPS lists properties by county in its weekly listings, which is why we do it in the first place, most maps still show them, and county lines are signed on major highways. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
AGAIN, the typical person from any of the lower 48 or Alaska or Hawaii will not know any of the regional attempts. Has the pellet yet fallen that because a few like the idea, it does not mean its a good idea?...It will be a bad idea that will confuse the average editor. The list will NOT be the same, thats why its a change because its not the same. The idea is horrible the implementation of a bad idea is usually worse. Sadly, your idea is not how everyone else will see it. Too bad so sad.Coal town guy (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey, if a reader knows the county they will use that and their experience will be identical to before. They will select the county name and jump to the county list-article. That just may be a section in a bigger list of all the county list-articles within a region. Just like the reader could arrive at a short county's list-article section on a statewide page. But now if they use the "map all coordinates" feature they will be pleasantly surprised/able to see all the NRHPs in the general area, not just the one or few in the county they drilled in on. And, many other readers will choose to arrive at the regional list-article coming from articles about the regions or otherwise deliberately arriving. I would be inclined to make 10 categories such as Category:National Register of Historic Places in Plains Trail Region, Texas (currently a redlink), and so readers would finally be able to navigate from a given article to see others in the region and to see the list-article for the region. Also on the state-wide list-article, the reader can sort by region and see what counties are in the region.
Right, few will know exactly those regions, but the regions are instantly understandable from the map. The map is currently available in THC's PDF file and in each of the 10 regional brochures, but I would count on the statewide map of regions and individual maps for each regions being produced and used directly in articles in the future.
Please recall that basically few readers know about counties' borders. Most people know cities and maybe rivers and highways and state borders, but not county borders. And we have never questioned whether readers are confused by subdivisions of counties, in the many list-articles we have for neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Denver, other cities. We do have other combinations of articles which have not been questioned: the Hawaii state list is not organized by counties but rather by island groupings, and the Puerto Rico's 78 municipalities are grouped into six tourist regions (which were set up once mostly by me with consultation with locals, perhaps originally in 4 regions if I recall correctly, then later modified by another local who found a more official regional breakdown to use).
Here, the Texas 10 regions are a pretty good breakdown of the state into coherent areas, understandable at a glance. In a breakdown that has been used for 50 years by the state already. And which is specifically chosen by the state historical association for purposes of explaining the state's historic resources (rather than chosen for economic development or more general tourism purposes). The historic preservation professionals there find it useful, and it seems to match our needs, and it is is really pretty good to have this partition available. --Doncram (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively the small counties could be merged to into National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas, just like National Register of Historic Places listings in Colorado and some of the other main state pages. Just because Texas has far too many counties doesn't mean having the counties with <=5 sites or whatever being on the state page would make it too big. I do like regions better though, like the Alaska Panhandle list I was trying for way back then. Reywas92Talk 05:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
After looking at the arguments made here and at other related talk pages, I believe regional lists would cause more problems than it would solve. Doncram favors dividing the state into regional divisions based upon how the THC divides the state which are based on a system of highway tourist circuits the Texas Dept. of Transportation established half a century ago. TxDOT long ago abandoned promoting these routes other than maintaining their signage (page 153) and never grouped surrounding counties into regions around these routes. These travel trails were essentially set up as thematic short-vacation jaunts to encourage auto travel within the state, they never caught on with the public, and they are no longer marked on official TxDOT maps. Sites recommended by the THC within these regions do not necessarily represent NRHPs or even RTHLs but only sites open to the public including museums or park statues regardless of whether they are listed on any heritage registry whatsoever.
As TheCatalyst31 points out, the THC regions bear no semblance to how the general public would regionally define the location of a particular town or county, and the names are often ridiculous. Let's take their "Lakes Trail Region" as an example. This THC region is centered on the Dallas-Fort Worth metro and contains the state's largest lake, Texoma. Most of the other lakes are highly urbanized and surrounded by real estate developments. The state's largest natural lake, Caddo, is in the "Forest Trail Region" as are most of the state's larger reservoirs in relatively natural settings such as Sam Rayburn and Toledo Bend. The Lakes Trail Region also doesn't include the very popular Austin-area Highland Lakes such as Travis and Buchanan. The two lakes that are NPS recreational areas, Amistad and Meredith, aren't in the region either.
Although largely based on county lines, the THC rips Bexar County and San Antonio in half in order to find a way to include the Alamo in the "Independence Trail Region" while otherwise keeping them in the "Hill Country Trail Region". The state's best preserved/restored fort is Fort Davis Nat'l Hist. Site which is nowhere near the "Forts Trail Region". Indeed, if we are trying to use THC-defined regions for NRHP lists to somehow avoid confusion for readers, I think that users will instead wonder why settlers required Army protection from Native American conflicts in only a small portion of the state and why most of the historic places in such a list have nothing to do with forts.
Furthermore, there is no statewide consensus as to how to divide the state into regions within the general public or across state government. Besides the THC, TxDOT has their own map, the Comptroller's office has their map, the state tourism board has their map, and the Dept. of Public Safety has different maps for highway patrol divisions and for Texas Rangers. I wouldn't be surprised if the Treasury, Dept. of Agriculture, General Land Office, and Railroad Commission all have different maps.
WikiProject:U.S. Roads tried in the past to divide Farm to Market Road lists by region, too, based upon this map. Although those regional lists were never completed due to the difficulty, they still remain even though the project has chosen to list them numerically instead (see List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas). Similarly, a discussion about regions at Wikivoyage has been an unresolved can of worms. Please scroll the whole page as there are several threads about regions and subregions on that talk page. Apparently, Wikivoyage editors are living for the time being with a really crappy map by any standards even though they have a far greater need for regionalization than we ever will here at Wikipedia. Another problem with regional listings is there is invariably a large imbalance in the number of listings in each regional scheme. As a general rule, rural eastern counties have many more historic sites than rural western ones.
Many here don't like the idea of listing counties with only a small number of NRHPs on the statewide page because of the limited map it would create. Although I would settle for this as a compromise, I'm not keen on the idea for the same reason.
The last option seems to be to do nothing and leave each county with its own list article even if it has very few NRHPs. This is the option I prefer for now. If a county has only one NRHP presently, so what? An example used above was National Register of Historic Places listings in Childress County, Texas with the claim that the info before the site table "has a lot of bureaucratic overhead". I don't buy it. The article lead is only three sentences, and if the GeoGroup template with the statement about locations being available in provided mapping services are too much, then simply remove them with HTML comment tags so they can be restored when more NRHPs are locally designated. They're not needed since the table already has linked coordinates. Please note that in the map at the top of this discussion thread, Childress County is shown as having no NRHPs since the map is over two years out of date. If you want more regional context to the page then add a navbox to surrounding counties such as at the bottom of National Register of Historic Places listings in Guadalupe County, Texas. In the case of the previously mentioned Potter County, I would not object to an Amarillo list article for more context since the Potter-Randall county line bisects the city which has NRHPs in both counties.
Most of the NRHPs in the state fall into certain basic categories: residential or commercial historic districts, some settler's log cabin, some businessman's ornate Victorian or Queen Anne-style home, or a Revival-style commercial building, church, school, or government building. These are universal and don't require any local context. If a site needs to be grouped with related sites outside the county, we have list articles such as List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Texas or National Register of Historic Places listings in Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Speaking specifically to the Panhandle, WP:U.S. Roads has a U.S. Route 66 Task Force intended to extend the scope of its coverage beyond the former route to also include historic sites, towns, people, and culture related to the route. Such a multi-project collaboration seems to me a much more meaningful way to incorporate local sites in a regional context than arbitrary "regions" that no one agrees upon or understands. Fortguy (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

So now that I'm late to the party, I'll add in my thoughts on this whole discussion. I've always felt the state lists holding the counties with smaller NRHP site counts would the best way to go. It saves on bulk and consolidates traffic more into one location versus splitting traffic into many smaller pages. The issue with the map showing a piecemeal grouping of sites can and has been worked around before. See the Wiki Loves Monuments map [1]. It doesn't discriminate by page, piling all sites into one map, which can be pared down to sites with and without images. I've felt that this map should be the default map for all the pages, but it's maintenance hasn't always been a priority.

Now grouping sites back into geographic location seems like an interesting proposal, but, as a Texan, I would also agree that the naming convention varies too much to be useful to anyone except those that know the local terminology already. My example here is the National Register of Historic Places in Jefferson County, Kentucky. As someone that's never been to Kentucky, I have no idea what the divisions for that county's subgroupings look like. I've worked on adding new locations to that county before, and it took considerable research to first find out what each section represented and then taking the new location and hopefully plugging it into it's proper subpage. Someone just perusing the subpages for sites would find it useful, but someone trying to find, for example the Quitaque Railway Tunnel, would be hard-pressed to know if its in the Texas Panhandle, the Texas South Plains, the Llano Estacado, the Caprock Escarpment, or something else (FYI it's in the last 3, and 3 miles from a Panhandle county).

On one final note, @Fortguy has been going through all the Texas counties, updating the lead wording, and adding updated notation and Texas historic declarations to all the sites, and doing a wonderful job! I would suggest waiting with Texas until they are finished with the updates, so we're not tearing apart their work. And once I'm back from paternity leave, I will update the Texas map with the correct numbers. 25or6to4 (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yea! It's so good to hear from you again, 25or6to4! Congrats on your new bundle of joy. When you do get around to updating the map, please let me make this suggestion. SVG allows path elements to have id and class attributes just like HTML/XHTML. If you could assign class attributes with county names as values to the individual paths that define the boundaries of each county (it would have to be classes as ids can't be used if a county contains more than one path such as coastal counties with islands) and then use a CSS style declaration in the head section of the SVG file, that would be enormously helpful. An example would be <path class="Fort_Bend" ...blah... /> with the fill attribute defined in the head element's style sub-element. Then the style element would contain a list of each county such as #Fort_Bend {fill:#[legend color]} and include in that style declaration the number and number-position of the NRHPs of each county. This would allow the map to be much more human-editable without the need of special applications like Inkscape to keep it updated. An example of such an easily editable map is File:Same-sex marriage in Mexico.svg although that map doesn't have any positioned text such as the numbers on our map. I would hope that this could be a solution that would help the map be updated much more frequently. Your thoughts on this? Fortguy (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Reywas92, User:Fortguy, and User:25or6to4 for your considering the issues here and offering your relatively more Texian views, but I feel I oughta say that what you contribute really results in a shitty impasse which hurts development of Texas coverage. In generalities which might not be perfectly fair, y'all have shown preference for local familiarity to disdain any decent geographical system. I don't particularly care about the THC system, which y'all have ridiculed. Fine, whatever, there. But it is a matter of professional editing for any Texas tourism guidebook or any other coverage of Texas by any other purpose, to divide it in some way other than by 254 counties. Check out any Texas guidebook. Traveltexas.com, for example, breaks it into 7 regions, which might or might not survive your impulse to ridicule. But they and every other professional presenter of information about Texas (which does not include WikiVoyage IMHO) finds it necessary to adopt or impose some regional breakdown of the state, because it is effing unreasonable to "break it down" by 254 counties. And dividing the counties alphabetically, as has been done so far by List of Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks, is effing ridiculous. Likewise effing ridiculous is to divide the state for NRHP purposes by "those counties having just 1 (or 2)" vs. individual counties at the current moment having more than 1 (or 2) NRHPs", which surely will not match up at all to some approach for dividing the Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks into counties having 1 or 2 or whatever. Right at this moment, I am not sure about any way forward. Thanks anyhow for sabotaging one decent approach forward. I sincerely don't mean to imply that y'all don't have good intentions. :) Perhaps a way forward might be some Texas oriented RFC that is less bound to Wikiproject NRHP. --Doncram (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
You are most welcome that we cant understand a really bad idea or data schema to abide by what you want. Look again, this is not about loaded language or sabotage, this is about an approachable system to edit. Is the schema good,sure....to you. Disagreement is not sabotage. Nor is the backhanded shit eating grin of course implying we have good intentions. Sorry to let you downCoal town guy talk 14:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I think you misinterpret me as being sarcastic about good intentions. I am absolutely sincere that I believe the various participants here as being honestly well-intentioned. But here, as with many group decisions in WikiProject NRHP and in many other organizations, there is a collective failure. That is really pretty normal for organizations. Right, I am disappointed, because I put some effort into figuring out a decent, workable system which I think would benefit all, but it looks to me that I "lost" this particular discussion because of, in effect, sand kicked up. I do hope that a properly organized RFC with involvement of, well, uninvolved editors, might work better, sometime.
Coal town guy, about your specific objection that regional list-articles would not be "an approachable system to edit", I see that as entirely incorrect. It would be far more approachable, especially for any reader or editor interested in the more remote locations. It is very impractical for anyone to figure out which are the most remote, isolated places now, while a regional map would expose them very directly. If you think that there would be any more work involved in maintaining the system, that is entirely not the case. It would provide essentially no change for an editor who was and remains county-focused. It would be welcome and helpful for any editor/reader who has any interest in the geographic locations, e.g. for possibly considering whether to drive and get photos for a bunch of them. --Doncram (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I get where you are coming from but I will; agree to disagree. I know of NO map that says hey, this is remote. I know maps that have place names and depending on their age, you get to figure out how accurate they are. As to determining what might be better to get pics of in remote places, I always find this old technology called an Atlas to be mighty handy. Once you calculate a route with a direct route and most hits, you travel. Been there and done that. To the best of my knowledge, we are here to be an encyclopedia, not replace google maps or tell the world whats better or help a few editors do whats better. Its about our community of editors who may or may not know. In all candor, I have never relied on Wikipedia for a specific geographic mapping location, I use maps. Its alot faster and if you are actually remote, NO CELL, BAD SATELLITE etc etc use a map, they do work.Coal town guy talk 20:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
System of editing, as to data schema, this is a chimp on acid in a red room chasing a chicken coated in mercury. Sorry, this effort is being done to make certain editors do what they believe to be good and pretty much tell the community at large they suck and you dont...You have to formulate an idea that all users can use. Otherwise, it sucks. AND you will be told that by many many peopleCoal town guy talk 20:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, the "map of all links" in the drafted Panhandle/Plains region NRHP list shows clearly that Hutchinson County Courthouse and Lipscomb County Courthouse and Plainview Hardware Company Building and Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad are located very remotely from one another and from any other NRHPs in the big region. While the "map of all links" in National Register of Historic Places listings in Hutchinson County, Texas and all other single-coordinates "list-articles", provides zero, zip, nada information about their site's relationship to any other NRHPs. It could be relatively easy to get a pic of the Route 66 Bridge, if you knew about it from a regional map, because it is just off I-40, but you wouldn't know about it or any other locations hidden away in single- or few-coordinates "list-articles". About use of an old-fashioned atlas, yes, sure I am marking one up now before heading off on a trip through some remote areas, because my phone won't work there, but it sure is a big help to have the "map of all coordinates" available for some big counties (big in number of NRHPs as well as geographical area) that I am going through. Too bad for Texas. --Doncram (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
This focus on mapping confuses me, because this is an encyclopedia, not a mapping application. When I want to map disparate listings together, I use a mapping application (Google My Maps) to functionally merge KML files exported from individual WP lists into a single map. This is a technique that works without regard to how WP groups things (or how you think it should), and is not something I expect WP to facilitate more than it does today. Anyone who really wants to know what things are near each other can do the same. (I've used this technique to create maps for trips from 500 to over 5,000 miles, spanning nearly the width of the lower 48 and containing hundreds of points.) If mapping is the only reason to do this sort of merging, I don't really see the need; it won't help me. Magic♪piano 23:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Magicpiano, can you possibly please expand on this, because I think it sounds useful for me and other NRHP editors. Perhaps we could put some tips into wp:NRHPHELP about how to do whatever you do.
But, based on what you say, you have to get KML lists, which I see one can download from any "Map of all coordinates". For a drive through the Texas panhandle/plains region, that would require you know all the Texas counties there and go to each separate page, many with just one or two items, and get a separate KML list, which is crazy. It would be highly reasonable to go to one Texas panhandle/plains page for that. So it seems that this would help you. And there's no reason the NRHP list-article system can't be allowed to support this application that you suggest. --Doncram (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
For a drive across the country (or 3/4 of its width, as I did last year, touching 15 states), you have to download lots of KML files no matter what. Regardless of WP's organization, you still have to figure out which lists to download; this is a basic mapreading skill. While it may seem like more work in rural places, I have an obvious bias to guide decision making: I choose counties that have a low percentage of images as places to try to focus on, for which the progress maps come in handy, and on those near major roads. Downloading KML files is not hard, and you only have to repeat it when the list content changes. Loading them into Google My Maps is not hard: create a layer, import it into the layer. If you're worried about large numbers of layers (My Maps I think has limits, other similar tools may not), combine the content of some of the KML files in a text editor first. The latter requires a basic understanding of the structure of KML files, which you can read about elsewhere, and is not logistically complex for someone versed in XML. All of this is a fraction of my prep time for such a trip; most prep time is spent making sure I have descriptions and reasonably accurate geolocations for listings I may drive past, and identifying non-NRHP things to add to the map.
An arguably useful item would be a tool that takes multiple articles and combines their geolocation information into a single KML. This would have broader application than just this project. Magic♪piano 15:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, it seems that User:Bubba73 is about to drive from Lowell Observatory in AZ to somewhere near Savannah, GA, which would bring them through the Panhandle/Plains region. Only there is no mainspace list-article showing the geolocations of NRHPs in the region, and it is hardly likely they will figure out that Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad is right there on the I-40 south frontage road they will zoom right by. Because who will be checking a userspace page covering the region, with a great "map of all locations" link. Oh well. Not that i am a sore loser or whatever. :( --Doncram (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

We are driving from Brunswick, GA, down to north Florida, go along I-10, through Dallas, Flagstaff, to the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, several other things out in that area, back through Oklahoma City, Birmingham, and back home. I'm NOT going to have very much time for NRHP, but I might could get a couple of places if they are pretty close to our route. I think we are going on I-40. I have not been following this discussion. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Bubba73 for being a sport about being called out here. :) Actually the Plains/Panhandle area is pretty well illustrated already, with not many known locations still to photograph, as can be seen in the region draft list-article, or in the wp:NRHPPROGRESS "illustrated" map. The Texas contributors seem to be taking care of things pretty well, even without convenient use of a region list-article in mainspace.
But hey, if someone is going to create a tool, one feature it should include is to differentiate between places having a pic vs. not having a pic, presumably by putting them in different layers, and perhaps including a layer for further photo requests where someone has bothered to use the photo request tool to request a detail or different view. The "map of all coordinates" feature cannot support anything like that, AFAICT. --Doncram (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 
a pic of the Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad which was uploaded 11 September in the Monuments drive. Can someone get a pic of the structure itself?
We actually have a tool that does that, thanks to WLM. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
That's wonderful (it takes a while to load the locations). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This loads so slowly that it wouldn't load any locations on my cellular phone. What would be great is an app like this for the cellular phone that would get your location. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Neat. Loading on a PC happens a lot faster if you zoom in pretty far, so it's not loading a large area. My smartphone loads fine, oh that is with wifi connection on. Switched off wifi, and it still works, just slower, but still fine, when browsing around the Panhandle/Plains area, using my smartphone and my phone service anyhow. YMMV.
Neat. Hmm, the WLM thing shows there is a pic for the Route 66 bridge next to the I-40. In fact there were two pics uploaded September 11, one from each direction, but none from side or below that would show the bridge's structure. Pic of just the bridge deck is not so helpful. One could make a photo request for different pics at the Talk page, after creating an article for the bridge. Would this Monuments system notice that? --Doncram (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I got some photos - they are in the Commons Category [Category:Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad]. I got down between 66 and I-40 to the north. It would have been better if I could have gotten down to the south side, but it looked too steep for me. I didn't have much time (I spent 6 minutes - it took a lot longer than that to upload them) - we were on the way to the Stafford Air and Space Museum and needed to get there in time to see it before it closed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Reassessments of NRHP articles (Downtown Houston)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Done I occasionally look at the WikiProject NRHP's progress reports. There are several stub class articles and two start class articles on the National Register of Historic Places listings in downtown Houston, Texas which warrant re-assessment:

Since these reports are based partly on article-ratings, catching up on re-assessments will help to update the progress reports. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Railway roundhouses

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This seems like a relatively easy topic to complete out. Prompted for me by creating an article about one in New Mexico just now. See working list at List of railway roundhouses in the United States, a section in worldwide list of railway roundhouses and sites of former roundhouses. There are currently 16 in Category:Railway roundhouses on the National Register of Historic Places. Searching on "roundhouse" but excluding a few non-railway-related places (in AK, CA, VT), there seems to be need for:

And wherever there is or was a railway turntable there was a roundhouse, apparently, and so search on "turntable", too, yields 7 with articles plus:

Some of the NRHP-listed places are covered, some are not yet, in the existing list, organized by state, which will get filled out. Some of the NRHP sites to be mentioned in the list should get the roundhouse category.

Do you know of any turntables or roundhouses, perhaps in NRHP historic districts? Perhaps new links from the list to coverage in historic district articles could be added. Or more recently listed roundhouses, so not in the NRIS2013a database? --Doncram (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 
There's a roundhouse/turntable at Greenfield Village, which is a NHLD. I don't see it mentioned in the article, but there's a few pics of it on Commons, including the one at right. Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
...which now I notice is in the list article, so I guess the suggestion isn't as useful as I thought. :(
Well actually it wasn't treated well IMO in the Michigan section of the roundhouses list; is this revision better? Its article is confusing, too. The article is The Henry Ford, to which Greenfield Village redirects, and there is an infobox for Edison Institute, which shows "Added to NRHP December 21, 1981" and "Designated NHLD December 21, 1981". Hmm, it seems the NHL is "Edison Institute" (per List of NHLs in MI. But what about the NRHP, "Greenfield Village and Henry Ford Museum", listed in 1969 (per Elkman NRIS2013a), which doesn't show? I think the "added to NRHP" date is wrong, and should be October 20, 1969 instead. This combo edit by me just now makes that change, and puts the NRHP name as a second name below the NHL name in the infobox, and mentions both names in the lede now. Does this fix look okay? Perhaps there's too much about NRHP and NHL in the lede now; it would be fine by me if some is moved down further below, I'm not sure where it would go though. Andrew Jameson, please feel free to revise there, and thank you for your attention to this. --Doncram (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
And, actually, I am done, I think. Easy-peasey, and fun to make a significant improvement to the list-article and Wikipedia's coverage on the topic. The effort added two to the count in the NRHP roundhouses category, and it added numerous links now from the list-article items to already-existing or new NRHP articles. For sake of convenience I used a worklist that was temporarily in mainspace marked by an "under construction" tag and happily no one had a cow, and at the end I moved the notes to Talk page. An outstanding issue/question is whether the list-article should cover railway turntables as well as roundhouses, because wherever there was a roundhouse, there was a turntable, and there are relatively few notable turntables without roundhouses. Leaving that open in "discussion" between myself from 2009 and User:Niagara in 2009 and myself in 2018 at Talk page. I added a note at Category:Railway turntables about how ridiculous it is that there are only a dozen or so in the category, while obviously the much-larger category of roundhouses are items all of which had turntables. --Doncram (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

One county-equivalent getting missed in map update

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I'm thoroughly ignorant of how the progress map gets updated, but the map for St. Thomas in the US Virgin Islands is still light blue (for 40-50%) although at 52.4% illustrated it should be yellow. Ntsimp (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The script that updates the map groups St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix into a single US Virgin Islands group. Since the progress on USVI is only 44.8 percent, they all keep the 40-50% shading. 25or6to4 (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Both the list page and the progress page appear to treat the three islands as county equivalents. I think they should be colored separately on the maps. Ntsimp (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Just so you know, this is probably a non-trivial piece of work, and I (as what passes for the current maintainer of the codebase that supports this) don't see it as a particular priority. If someone else conversant in Wikipedia-related Javascript wants to tackle it, I can point them in the right direction. Magic♪piano 03:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't look trivial. The map file [:File:NRHP Articled Counties.svg] is an adapted version of public domain file "Usa counties large.svg", itself an adaptation of a U.S. Census Bureau file. It uses FIPS county codes which I think (am not sure) have not been extended to refer to the 3 separate islands of VI. The map file includes stuff, like, within its Wyoming section,
      /* 90% Articled */
       .c56007, .c56029, .c56035 {fill: #D73027; }
which is about assigning the color denoted D73027 to three counties using their FIPS codes. The map was adapted to include in a small U.S. state map without counties, and later adapted to add the Puerto Rico, VI, Guam, Mariana Islands box in the same state-level mode. The coloring of those "states or state-equivalents" is controlled by stuff like
      /* 50% Articled */
        .CA, .TN, .WI, .PR, .VI {fill: #FFFFBF; }
which assigns color FFFFBF to California, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands.
So while the wp:NRHPPROGRESS page uses "county or county-equivalent" terms, and there is sufficient info there to assign a color to each of the islands, the map files don't have the vocabulary to accept that, as far as I can tell. For VI, the map file can only hear one "state-equivalent" color. It doesn't know about any FIPS codes, if they exist, or other codes, for coloring the VI islands. Probably there is some other public domain map for VI that allows color-coding for its 3 main islands, and a public domain map for PR that allows color-coding for its municipalities, which could be adapted and brought in here too, ... but that sounds like a bother, and I myself am certainly not the one to do it. I think it's not worth it to make a fuss about it.
Hey note that there are only 87 NRHPs in VI, fewer than many regular counties, e.g. Harris County, Texas has 279. There's just been an effort to "break apart" Harris county, but that was only for purpose of making separate list-articles for four sections. There still will only ever be one color, in one cell for the county in the maps.
How about our working to develop articles for the Virgin Islands NRHPs lacking them? At least where NRHP docs are available. I did a bunch myself, a while back, and found them to be interestingly different topics than usual. :) --Doncram (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I get it. I agree that it's not worth all the trouble. Thanks. Ntsimp (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Please reassess these stubs

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

There a few articles at the National Register of Historic Places in Galveston County, Texas which could be promoted from stub-class:

  •   Done Bruin2 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Andrew Jameson for looking at the last batch.

Thank you, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Andrew Jameson (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

S.C.

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

South Carolina has joined the states in which each county is at least 50% of the NRHP have photographs (with the addition of many photos to rhe Darlington County listings). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting refnum

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Harper Standpipe is a individual nomination in Kansas with refnum 100001288, which matches this. For some reason the refnum link in the infobox doesn't bring up the nomination form, but the link in ref#2 does.

Listed in National Register of Historic Places listings in Franklin County, New York is Lady Tree Lodge under refnum SG100001288 which is a bluelink that goes only to the NPS landing page. Removing the SG in the refnum doesn't make any difference.

The stub Lady Tree Lodge uses the same refnum SG100001288, which the infobox says is invalid. Removing the SG turns in into a valid link which again goes only to the NPS landing page.

Lady Tree Lodge does also cite a MPS, and this may be one of the almost 200 properties considered historic, but I see no evidence this lodge is listed. Can anyone shed some light on this? MB 20:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Lady Tree Lodge was listed on March 12, 2018, refnum 100001288. Harper Standpipe was listed with the same refnum on July 10, 2017. It seems like the NPS has screwed up. (Refnums do not have non-numeric prefixes; those only really have meaning in the weekly lists. Feel free to remove them when you see them.) Magic♪piano 20:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I do remove the prefixes when I find them occasionally. But this time I couldn't confirm it was a good refnum without the prefix (especially since it was used twice - I assumed one was incorrect). Thanks for the help.MB 21:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
? Lady Tree Lodge is refnum 100002188, while Harper Standpipe is refnum 100001288. Andrew Jameson (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
My eyes must be getting old. Magic♪piano 21:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

CFD: NRHP architects etc

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have proposed at CFD that 4 hidden categories within the scope of this project should be either converted to WikiProject tracking categories on talk pages, or deleted. I prefer converting them, which will involve modifying the project's banner template {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places}}.

The categories are Category:NRHP architects, Category:NRHP builders, Category:NRHP engineers, and Category:NRHP artists. .

The discussion is at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 13#NRHP_occupations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Re-assessment request

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have made improvements to Courtlandt Place, Houston. I would like to request an evaluation against a B-checklist. Thank you, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

archinform

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone know anything about this site. My feeling is that it is not an RS and probably is pulling data from WP and other places. MB 00:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it should not be used as a reliable source - it was founded as a German student project, but seems to have worked itself up to a pretty good site. It does take (most of?) its material from Wikipedia. I checked out their index for Philadelphia and the numbers look very familiar as well as the subclassifications. The only real text I got thru to is taken from Wikipedia. There is one subclassification that is definitely out of place in Philadelphia, de:Kunstpavillon Heringsdorf (no, it has nothing to do with Fishtown). Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-NRHP images without reference numbers

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Two images have been frequently turning up as needing NRHP reference numbers which aren't on the National Register of Historic Places. One was taken by me, and the other was taken by Jim.henderson.

The image below was taken by me and leads from Cold Spring Metro-North station to the West Point Foundry Archeological Site;

 
The trouble is, it's not actually part of the historic site itself.

The next one was taken by Jim Henderson is located at 161-21 Jamaica Avenue on the corner of 162nd Street in Jamaica, Queens, and was mistaken for the J. Kurtz and Sons Store Building, until some other user told him it wasn't. Even though it was made way back in 1908, I don't believe this was even a New York City Landmark.

 
If this building isn't on NRHP, I'm going to remove that category.

So how can we prevent the bot that keeps tagging these images this way from doing so? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You might consider removing the NRHP category from the files? Farragutful (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. I should have done long ago. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

merger to reverse recent split

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please consider Talk:Bank of American Fork (financial institution)#merger to reverse recent split. --Doncram (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Humanities published first article

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The WikiJournal of Humanities is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's humanities, arts and social sciences content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group along with Wiki.J.Med and Wiki.J.Sci. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Editors

  • Invite submissions from non-wikipedians
  • Coordinate the organisation of external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

If you want to know more, please see this recent interview with some WikiJournal editors, the journal's About page, or check out a comparison of similar initiatives. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

As an illustrative example, Wiki.J.Hum published its first article this month!

  • Miles, Dudley; et al. (2018). "Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians". WikiJournal of Humanities. 1 (1): 1. doi:10.15347/wjh/2018.001. ISSN 2639-5347.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 09:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

towards use of consensus-building processes, and about courthouse name disambiguation

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Hi, there is Wikipedia:ANI#Doncram,_2018-11-28 (a section title which I think is prejudicial and unhelpful, but whatever) to which you might comment. There has been some long-running disagreement about naming of NRHP-listed county courthouse articles, on whether to use (City, State) disambiguation as used for every other type of NHRP-listed thing, or to use (State) disambiguation because it is felt that the county name conveys enough about the location already so that City should not be used, or to continue with a peaceful compromise of letting existing articles be and reversing any new moves either way. Opinions may differ because perceptions about the public's general knowledge about county name awareness varies.

It might be helpful if NRHP editors would comment there about how they think a new consensus for disambiguation of NRHP-listed courthouses should be decided. I personally would like to get the help of "outsiders" experienced in running big RFCs. If you are not aware, there have been horribly long and huge disputes about place naming and disambiguation in the past, not specifically connected to NRHP places, and there is potentially huge interest from parties not otherwise interested in NRHP places. --Doncram (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Since the ANI thread is actually about your behavior, I'll ask the content question here: what is your evidence that there is significant disagreement that (State) is an adequate disambiguator for many county courthouses? I ask, because my observation (in the absence of specific policy guidelines, and probably mirroring Nyttend's view) is that the status quo appears to be broadly accepted, or at least acceptable. Previous relevant discussions suggest a certain indifference by most commenters except yourself: [2] [3] Magic♪piano 15:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The examples listed by Power-enwiki seem to show there is no "standard" practice: "Special:PrefixIndex/Washington_County_Courthouse and Special:PrefixIndex/Jefferson_County_Courthouse suggest that current usage is not unanimous; many of those pages have a move history." MB 15:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Going through the Washington County Courthouse listings shows that a number of the ones with (State) dab were the subject of a move by Doncram in 2016, apparently as part of a campaign on his part, because these moves also appear in other county names. Some instances of these moves were reversed in 2017 by Nyttend, presumably just because he spotted them; some have not been reversed. The number of other moves in this particular set were for the most part before 2016, and typically for other reasons; a few were by Nyttend to move (Place, State) to (State). If I had to guess, about half these articles were created either with (State) or (Place, State), with the balance created under other names and then moved. The most common creator of (Place, State) articles appears to have been Doncram, including this year; other editors, including Nyttend and other NRHP editors, tend to use (State). Magic♪piano 16:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
In every single case, without exception, at both of those links, every title in the form Courthouse (City, State) was either created by Doncram or moved to that title by Doncram. Station1 (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There's an RfC going on about this here; this conversation should probably move there to avoid duplicate discussions. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Grand Central lede image

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion that may interest members of this WikiProject, concerning the lede image of Grand Central Terminal: [4] . ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Status of properties within NRHP districts

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I have a question about the status of individual properties within NRHP-listed districts. Some of these properties were listed independently of the historic district and have their own reference numbers. These are the easy cases. Others are characterized by the nominators as contributing properties. Is a contributing property within an NRHP-listed district strictly speaking an NRHP-listed property? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they are listed as a contributing building, structure, object, or site in the historic district's nomination. If they are listed as non-contributing than no, they are not. In general, many properties are not considered historically significant on their own (an individual listing), but when they are considered within the context of the surrounding area (a historic district) they are determined to be historic. Note that they are all individually named in the nomination, and that becomes their listing on the NRHP. There are also properties that fit both, individually significant and therefore individually listed, and contributing to the historic character of a district. Farragutful (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 
It is certainly true that the owners of many of these properties consider them to be NRHP-listed. For example, see the plaque at right which I photographed recently. It's on a Neel Reid designed house in Macon, Georgia whose only appearance in NRHP docs (that I can find) is where it is called out in the paperwork for the Macon Historic District (Macon, Georgia). I've seen several other similar plaques or signs for contributing properties in my travels. --Krelnik (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
It's even more complicated than this. Usually, individually listed properties within districts predate the districts nomination. Normally, being previously listed as a contributing property precludes a property from being individually listed unless it has historic interest outside of the district's stated period of significance. Also, keep in mind that the whole concept of contributing properties did not exist in the early years of the NRHP program, and earlier districts often just individually list "representative properties" or some similar verbiage while stating that a much larger number within the district are somehow "contributing", "significant", or "compatible" without listing them nor without there being any definitive norm as to what those may mean. Fortguy (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Status of a property

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I found Anatok (Bardstown, Kentucky), created this summer by a SPA. This one has some issues.

  • 1. Unnecessary disambiguation in name. It should be either Anatok or Anatok Mansion.
  • 2. Article claims it is listed on the NRHP, NEB-107. No ref provided. Does anyone have any idea about NEB-107? I find no evidence it was listed.
  • 3. There is a Bardstown Historic District nearby but this is NOT a contributing property. I found the house on google street view (it matches the photo in one of the refs and the address is 309 W John Fitch Ave, Bardstown, KY 40004 which is about two blocks outside the HD. The HD nomination form even lists the address of every property in the district!
  • 4. Google maps says it is a "National Landmark", whatever that means?
  • 5. The article, written in 2018 draws on historical information only and neglects to mention present status. And I'm not sure what that is. I found this and this from mid-July 2013 that say it was going to be torn down in a few days for expansion of the high school. Then I found this from Dec 2016 that says "The ongoing effort to save the Anatok mansion" which implies it is still there. (The google street view is from Jun 2013). Also from 2016 is a anoynmous blog post that says it was still standing.

Can anyone confirm or add to anything? I think the article can be expanded, but I don't think it is within this project. MB 02:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Update
@MB: I wouldn't ascribe much importance to Google Maps calling it a "National Landmark". The info in Google Maps is either scraped from other sources or crowdsourced directly to volunteers just like this wiki. Either way, whoever wrote may well have been mistaken and Google is just echoing their mistake.
Googling "anatok site:nps.gov" turns up this PDF which is the documentation for the Cottage Grove Historic District which is #91000390 and among National Register of Historic Places listings in Nelson County, Kentucky. The mention is in "Footnote 3" which is a list of buildings nearby that have certain attributesl It does mention "NEB-107" and other similar codes. Hope that helps. --Krelnik (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I already knew about that document (see my last bullet above). I was wondering if anyone had any insight into "NEB-107" before I edited that article to say is was not registered. MB 00:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
It does not appear to be NRHP. I suspect that it is listed on the Kentucky Historic Resources Survey and that "NEB-107" is the site number on that survey. However, I can't confirm this as the state's preservation office does not list their non-NRHP historic sites on their website nor provide a spreadsheet. I would suggest removing all references to the NRHP, use {{Infobox historic site}} on the article page ({{Designation}} doesn't support Kentucky), and replace the WP:NRHP template on the talk page with WP:Historic sites. Fortguy (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Memorial to the six million in Fulton County, GA

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

About National Register of Historic Places listings in Fulton County, Georgia, memorial to the six million:

  1. Reading the NRHP form, one page linked there, it was demoted from national significance to state significance. Doesn't that mean that it is no longer on the NRHP?
  2. most of the time, my browsers (I tried 2) show the image as rotated - why? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
As I read it, it is still NRHP listed significance at a state level is still part of the NRHP domain.MrBill3 (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
It says "... was nominated at the national level ... consideration of significance at the national level does not appear justified at this time." (First paragraph in Section 8.) ... "... the nomination is hereby amended to list the property at the STATE level of significance." (last sentence, emphasis in the original), i.e. state and not national, therefore not NRHP as I read it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The Supplemental Listing Record clearly states the property is listed, it has not been delisted. Note item five where the keeper has checked "entered into the national register". It can be a bit confusing but being significant at a state level is within the criteria for listing on the national register. MrBill3 (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
What does it mean by "...consideration of significance at the national level does not appear justified at this time."? And why is that the only form, instead of the full NRHP non form? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC) {outdent}

OK, [5] NPS lists it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it means that the property's national significance is not substantial enough for consideration of national significance as a listing criteria. Properties that are significant at a state or local level can still qualify for listing. It is not a register of nationally historic places but a national register of historic places. The historic importance does not have to be national, the place has to be within the nation and historically significant. Hope this clears it up some. As for why the original nom form is not on the NHRP website, I suspect that is has not been digitized yet. Best.MrBill3 (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
OK. Just about all others in Georgia have been digitized, except for "address restricted" places. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
There are actually three options for significance: national, state, and local. (National tend to qualify for NHL, while others tend not to.) If I understand rightly, it's more of a matter of demonstrating eligibility for listing; for example, if you claim national significance for a place and then only demonstrate how it fits into local history, your writeup's likely to be rejected, while a nomination demonstrating statewide significance may well have an easier time being deemed eligible than a place demonstrating local significance. It's probably more for SHPO use than anything else. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Take a look at National Register Bulletin 15. https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb15.pdf . pages 9 and 10 explain the contexts. Einbierbitte (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Shelton House (Raymond, Mississippi)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've left a comment at Talk:Shelton House (Raymond, Mississippi), in case anyone is able to find out who Judge Shelton was.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox NRHP for contributing properties

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

{{Infobox NRHP}} can be used on articles about contributing properties, although of course they need to be notable some other way, since contributing properties aren't ipso facto notable. Do we have any guidance on how to write the infobox? Obviously we should have | nrhp_type = cp and | partof = and | partof_refnum = , but otherwise I'm not clear, and I definitely don't know what to put in the | name = field. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Name is the name of the property just like always. You can fill out as many of the other params as you have the information, just like any NRHP infobox. Baker_City_Tower is a straightforward example. MB 01:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, but now I'm more confused. In your example, where does "Baker Community Hotel" come from? Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the NRHP nomination calls the building the "The Baker Hotel," which is what I think the name on the infobox should be. Like all NRHP properties, its name on the Register is the name that should appear on the infobox even if it's not the name of the article. In the case of a contributing property, it seems to me, the name is determined by its listing on the historic district's NRHP nomination form. I looked at the article's history and the infobox was added by Ipoellet with "Baker Community Hotel" as the building's name, so it appears to have been that way since the infobox was added to the article. This building, however, does appear to be a good example of a contributing property having its own article, although the article needs work and the name on the infobox corrected. Farragutful (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Farragutful and Nyttend: When I added that infobox in 2007 (apparently, 'cause I sure don't remember back that far) I most likely relied on some SHPO publication or other for the name. As of today, the SHPO's historic sites database uses "Hotel Baker" as the historic name. But I agree with other commenters in this thread that standard usage for cp's in the NRHP infobox should be the name from the NRHP nomination (or most recently accepted additional documentation). — Ipoellet (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
It isn’t uncommon for the name in the infobox to be different from the name used for the article title. Names can change over time. When this happens, the one in the infobox should be the one used by the NRHP when the building was listed (call it the “historical name”)... and the one used for the article title should be the one most commonly used today (call it the “modern name”). Adding a section that explains the history of the building can clarify the various name changes. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Blueboar, are you agreeing with the idea of using the name appearing in the nomination? I'm not clear if you're just offering a general opinion, or offering more reasoning why we should use the nomination name, or disagreeing and suggesting some other standard. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I think I misunderstood the question... I thought it was asking why the name in the infobox was different from the name used in the article title (and my answer was to explain how that can happen)... I now realize that the question was about something else (whether the name in the infobox was accurate to the NRHP listing). You can ignore my comment. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I corrected the infobox to change the name from "Baker Community Hotel" to "Baker Hotel" which matches the HD nomination form (although there are some references to "Baker Community Hotel" in sources not used as refs.) This property was originally a hotel, but was later converted to apartments, hence the article name "Baker City Tower". (Its official website uses "Baker Tower", although it's located in Baker City and "Baker City Tower" (the article name) is also used in other sources; I think Baker Tower is more common usage and the article should probably be moved.) MB 16:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, as it is a contributing property not individually listed on the NRHP, i'd use the parameter |designated_nrhp_type= rather than |added=. I believe the "added" parameter should only be used if the property is both a district contributing property and individually listed. If the property was added to the district in a boundary increase, make sure to use the date and refnum of the boundary increase rather than the original date of the district. Also, if the building is notable in its own right, such as holding corporate offices of a major company or being a prominent structure within its own municipal environment, consider embedding {{Infobox NRHP}} within the bottom of {{Infobox building}} which would allow the incorporation of other non-NRHP parameters such as building height, number of floors, etc. as well as the non-NRHP current name of the building. Fortguy (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Fortguy, I picked this article as a random example of an article on a not-individually listed CP and as a result went ahead and expanded it. I agree with both your points and have incorporated them into the article. Thanks. MB 00:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@MB: "Baker" and "Baker City" are both in common usage as names for the town, and often the same individual will use both in different contexts (e.g. to distinguish Baker City from Baker County). I believe the legal corporate name of the municipality is "City of Baker City". — Ipoellet (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Ipoellet, the only question here is what is the common name for the building, Baker City Tower or Baker Tower? I realize they are both used and I haven't determined definitely that one is significantly more common than the other. But the owner uses Baker Tower which to me breaks the tie. The first version of the article from 2007 was named Baker City Tower even though the two refs in that version called it Baker Tower. So I think it has always been wrong. MB 00:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Dudley Jones House

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
 
Nice house, but...

...is anyone able to read this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. (PD, I believe, as published 1978-1989 w/o copyright notice).Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I will work on it later today.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I created it. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  Resolved
Text of nom form

The central two-and-a-half story mass of the Dudley Jones home is essentially unchanged since its construction c. 1907/1908. Town historians place the construction after 1905 ^nd before 1910, after they and the rest of the townspeople watched its predecessor burn. The new house apparently retained most of the Queen Anne features of the old, being frame construction set up on brick piers and fronted by double-level wrap-around porches. The porches have been replaced within the last 40 years by the rectangular, box-columned porch shown in Photo #1. The rectangular mass of the house is embellished by the multi-gabled, hipped roof, featuring projecting lateral bays at both rear sides a truncated, shingled turret on the southwest corner, and a third bay on the northeast corner of the facade.

Exterior details include double-hung, single light windows, with the following decorative exceptions: semi-circular or "fanlight" windows in the shingled bays; multi-paned windows in the turret, and triple-paned, double hung windows on the corner under the turret which would have allowed circulation onto the original wrap-around porch. Entry doors, including a side door in one of the projecting lateral bays, feature applied carving and oval beveled glass lights. The main entrance is defined by a rectangular transom and sidelights surrounding the oval-glassed door.

The interior central hall plan has been maintained in the inter- ior. Modifications have included the addition of a bathroom and sun- porch at the rear, the complete remodeling of the kitchen addition, and the conversion of an upstairs back bedroom into a master bath. (See Photo # 2 for details of additions to the rear.) Many of the original interior features of the house remain intact and unaltered. The open-well, two-flight staircase that rises through the central hall features open-string stairs sith ornamental brackets, turned balusters, and simple handrails and newels -- the latter with applied carving details. An oval window on the landing of the stairs former- ly held, a stained-glass window. This decorative window is in the hands of the home's new owner and is to be repaired and replaced into its proper setting. (See Photo #3) Two bedrooms with original moldings and mantlepieces open off the left side of the central hall. Both rooms originally had access to the wrap-around front porch: the front room through the unusual tall windows, the rear through a bevelled-glass door.

Particularly outstanding interior features are found in the double parlors to the right of the hall. Both the front parlor (See Photo #4) and the back parlor (See Photo #5) feature fine mill- work in the moldings, the columned archway dividing the rooms, and unusual mantlepieces around the original coal-burning fireplaces. Tilework on the face of Hie fireplaces appears to be original, but tilework on the hearths may be modern material. Lighting fixtures in both parlors, ornate, cast-brass chandeliers with tinted metallic trim paint, appear to have been converted from gas, and are alleged to be original to the house by local historians.

A garage has been built adjacent to the rear. It is the only out- building.

A drawing of the house plan will be found on the continuation sheet. The Jones hom is particularly significant because it represents a major architectural resource from its era for the town of Terry. The central mass of the house, with its hipped and multi-cabled roof, has been maintained much as it was built about 80 years ago. Its interior work, unpainted and unaltered, offer Terry Resi- dents a unique glimpse of fine interior millwork and house furnish- ings manufactured at the turn of the century. The quality of its design and finish are unusual for a small Mississippi town, being more representative of urban tastes throughout the country at the time.

More important for Terry residents is the fact that the house was built by msssbers of one of the town's "pioneer" families, and that most of the other "big houses" built by early town fathers have been lost to fire and other disasters. (Lynn Redding history of Terry, Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Archives amd Hostory, Jackson.)

The house apparently passed out of the Jones family's hands in 1926, when it was bought by a LauraA., Frabiani (Deed Book 181, p. 418) It later passed into the hands of the descendents of the town founder, Bill Terry, where it remained until 1970, when it was sold by George E. Terry to Gordon Ellison (Deed Book 1876, p. 622). The new oeners are the sixth set the house has had (Deed Book 2974, p. 571).

Copyright Question

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

commons:File:Facade of Zante from NRHP application.jpg is apparently scanned from the NRHP application. What copyright status do these applications have? Agathoclea (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

They are the work of the author, and aren't public domain. The application was prepared by an employee of South Carolina - only works by federal employees are (mostly) automatically public-domain. The file isn't free content. Acroterion (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Since it was published before 1989, if it meets the conditions listed at Template:PD-US-1989, it might still be public domain based on its age. (If it was published in 1976 when the property was nominated, rather than 1978 like the upload says, it could fall under Template:PD-US-no notice instead.) That being said, that photo is from the state SHPO, so finding the exact details may be trickier and it's probably best to just delete it. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 14:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
See also commons:commons:Hirtle chart for guidance on copyright issues. I've always assumed that NRHP applications are "published" (according to the rules set forth in the copyright law), but IANAL. Magic♪piano 15:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The works by my state (Georgia) are also in the public domain. But the people at Commons would not accept that, even though I forwarded them an email saying so. They said that the state people would have to fill out the GPL forms. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

What map should the infobox pointer be set in?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there any guidance for what map level locmapin= in the infobox should be set to? Does it depend on the level of significance of the property, or other factors? Right now I've been choosing the state, which is functional but arbitrary. Kim Post (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

It usually depends on whether there's a good map at the local level, especially since you can include multiple maps. I usually include local#state#USA if there's a local map, and state#USA otherwise. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Unlisted property

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Apparently Glencoe station was considered eligible for listing on the NRHP in 1991, but this wasn't done because of opposition from its then-owner, the Chicago and North Western Railway. The article notes this, but still includes various NRHP elements. The given number, 91000569, is skipped in the official NRHP spreadsheet and the supporting documentation isn't on the NRHP website. I'm curious if there are other properties in this situation, and how they've been treated. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The article itself is fine. All of the NRHP elements, i.e. the embedded infobox, categories, and navbox, should all be removed. The station would have been issued an NRHP reference number when its nomination was accepted, but it is not effective at this time because the property was not listed on the register. Should it be listed in the future, that will probably be its reference number. Farragutful (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Listing of undetermined status

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

On the local list article National Register of Historic Places listings in northwestern Worcester, Massachusetts @Ipoellet has added a place called "Robinson and Swan Blocks" as item #82 on the list with references and a note but no refnum. Could editors experienced in Massachusetts resources and those familiar with the NPS' NRHP program policies please help determine the validity of this listing? Fortguy (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have experience with Massachusetts resources, but I do have experience with Federal resources. From what I can tell, this property was part of the larger Worcester MRA study that was done c. 1980. According to a 1983 note appendaged to its nomination form found on the National Archives website, the Massachusetts SHPO reviewed the nomination for the Robinson and Swan Blocks but "because it was not on their list of properties, it did not get listed on the Federal Register list." It then goes on to ask how it can be listed. Obviously, it was not listed in 1980 as the local list article states, nor was it listed up to November 17, 1983, when that note was written. It's apparent that up to that point the National Register had not received the nomination. I was not able to access the "Weekly Lists" to search for it, as that part of the NPS website appears to be down and may not be fixed until the government shutdown ends. I also noticed that the various individual properties listed at the end of the MRA were listed on the NRHP at different times from 1984 to 1990, which is typical. The Malvern Road School, for example, was listed in 1984 and its reference number is from that year.
I did a search on the NPS website and came up with nothing. (Their website does work, at least in part.) I also googled the name and all I came up with is the local list article for northwestern Worcester, Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Historical Commission lists it as "Nat'l Register Individual Property (03/05/1980)", but as stated above, it was not listed in 1980. Because the National Archives has the nomination suggests the NRHP received the nomination at some point. If so, and it was listed, it should appear on one of the "Weekly Lists" with the date listed and its reference number. At this point, however, the listing's validity cannot be determined, and it probably should not have been added to the local list without verification from the NRHP. Farragutful (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
There were a series of 1980s-era nomination documents that were apparently lost or mislaid (by NPS),[[ that were later rediscovered. Those listings have refnums that are not consonant with their original listing date -- instead of 85xxxxxx (for something listed in 1985) they have numbers beginning with IIRCt 99, since the refnums were assigned in 1999. Is it possible that this is one such listing? It might also be useful if @Ipoellet could explain how they know about this listing. Magic♪piano 21:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
An archived copy of the relevant weekly list is here on page 78 of the PDF. The archive is on private servers not affected by the government shutdown. This weekly list is cited in the edit I made. Sorry about causing concern. I had been planning to discuss it here rather than putting it straight into the list, because I felt that the weekly list and MACRIS sources alone were kind of thin. But when I saw the handwritten notes that Farragutful refers to (they are here), I was sufficiently convinced that I didn't think further discussion was necessary. I hope the citations and explanatory footnote I put in the list article are sufficient to document everything. — Ipoellet (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I was concerned that this would be a matter of confusion by Ipoellet, but if it made the Weekly List, it's on the NR by definition, unless it's been delisted since then. NRIS is merely a compilation of data for listed (and unlisted) properties, not the official list, but the Weekly List is published as part of the Federal Register and is the final word on which properties have NR protection. We need a special citation, since it's obviously not part of NRIS, but as long as a good citation is given, the property definitely belongs on the NW Worcester list. Nyttend (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, there are some sites in Baldwinsville, New York, which may be New York State registered historic sites, but I fear they maybe a case similar to what we had with Casa Basso nearly nine years ago. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Argh! I'm convinced that this is an NRHP property, but what frustrates me is I can't find a refnum for it. In addition to the sources Ipellet has provided, it is also among the properties in the Historic Resources of Worcester MRA and part of the Oxford–Crown Historic District. This property's lack of a refnum threw the list page in a maintenance category that was previously empty. I would love to see this category be resolved and emptied again. Fortguy (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
According to the NARA page for this listing, it has refnum 16000208. Due to the current unavailability of the weekly listings archive (thank you govt shutdown), I was unable to determine if that number has been documented there; it does not appear in versions archived in the Wayback Machine. The preceding and following numbers both appear in our listing pages (in Napa County CA and Sheridan County WY, listed in April and May 2016), this one does not. This suggests an error may have been noticed at NPS and rectified in one place, but not propagated to the NRIS database. Magic♪piano 14:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Missing Commons category links

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi everyone, I noticed Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Missing commons category links has gotten rather large. On User:Dudemanfellabra/AddCommonsCatLinks you'll find a script to make it quite easy to add the missing links. Maybe some people want to help to add the missing links? Multichill (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I used to add the links with that script, but unless it's been updated recently, the script doesn't work with most of the missing commons category links. The script assumes that a commons category that needs to be added has the NRHP reference ID included on the page with the {{NRHP}} template. This was the case until a few months ago, but the bot now also identifies categories that have the NRHP reference ID on Wikidata, which the script doesn't pick up. Unless the script is updated, those will have to be added manually, which is quite a bit more work. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Zottman House

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Not sure if anyone is able to find enough information about the Zottman House to create it? No NRHP pdf and nothing on Newspapers.com either!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

See National Register of Historic Places listings in Scioto County, Ohio.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Nomination form is here: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/71991253 — Ipoellet (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
It won't work, possibly because they haven't restored their website yet since the end of the shutdown?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Chicago school / Commercial architecture

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

There are currently three categories titled "Commercial architecture in <State>" for Illinois, Iowa, and Commercial architecture in Wyoming. These categories are currently a mix of buildings with elements of Chicago school architecture, which is also known as the Commercial style, and buildings that are categorized as "Commercial" or "Early Commercial" in the NRIS despite not having any apparent Chicago school influences. User:Grutness has recently begun splitting up Category:Chicago school (architecture) by state, which leaves the question of what to do with these three categories. If they're for Commercial style architecture, they should probably be merged into the new structure to match the parent category, but if they're for buildings the NRIS lists as Commercial or Early Commercial regardless of their actual style, then I'm not sure if we need them at all. @Farragutful and BrownHairedGirl: pinging you since you created these categories, and might have a better idea what their purpose is. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 15:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

As I recall, Commercial architecture simply comes from the NRHP designation. I was thinking for some time now that they should be changed to Chicago school, but have done nothing. I have no objections to changing them to match the others. Farragutful (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Quite a few of the buildings linked from their articles as "early commercial style" certainly don't appear to be Chicago school, though most are. It might be worth merging the categories and then winnowing out any which don't belong. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I eventually began to notice that most of these redlinked categories in American architecture were the work of @Doncram, so investigated that angle more. There was some odd stuff happening there, which eventually led to my blocking Doncram (see User talk:Doncram/Archive_29#November_2018). I subsequently CFDed an odd set of "private" categories which Doncram had created (see WP:CFD 2018 Nov 13). There have been several other CFD debates about categories which Doncram has created, and in several cases re-created (see e.g. WP:CFD 2017 Sept 19).
Leaving aside Doncram's WP:IDHT approach to consensus, the substantiveissue is that Doncram appears to simply try to replicate the NRHP's labelling system as en.wp categories. I can see a case for doing that, but AFAICS, repeated CFDs have preferred to categorise only by more widely-recognised genres of architecture and rejected the NHRP's loose groupings of buildings which don't fit into those wider genres. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey, that comment amounts to a personal attack IMO, seeking to denigrate me and going into other random stuff not having to do with Commercial or Early Commercial architecture categories. I will reply elsewhere about the personally-directed aspect. --Doncram (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no personal attack, just an account of the history. Take some time to read WP:NPA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the Wyoming category only contains one building, and that building doesn't really seem to have much Chicago-school influence. Given that there are a lot of Iowa buildings which could well use a Chicago school category, I'm going to create that - if needs be the Commercial style category can be taken to cfd later. Grutness...wha? 10:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think "Early Commercial architecture" is a valid thing, should be used for categories going forward.
    • About categories for Commercial architecture and Early Commercial architecture in the United States, it has been my impression that there were a bunch of such categories by STATE, which came about from the fact that Early Commercial architecture is indeed coded by the National Park Service into the NRIS database. I and many other NRHP editors have created U.S.-level and state-level architectural categories corresponding to the NPS's categories, and these are automatically suggested to be included into articles by the NRHP infobox generator that is used by all or almost all NRHP editors when creating new articles. It is a helpful feature of the infobox generator to generate those suggestions that has populated categories of Shingle Style, Stick/eastlake, Queen Anne, Greek Revival, Italianate, and many other architectural styles, which has been a good thing for development of Wikipedia in this area. And it has been good for educating me and other NRHP editors about these styles by osmosis, even when we (or at least I) didn't know that each of them really was a thing, when we started.
    • Looking at Category:Early Commercial architecture (currently a redlink), I see that it was deleted by User:BrownHairedGirl with reference to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 18#Early_Commercial_architecture discussion. I wasn't active in 2014 and didn't participate in that, I don't think I was aware of it. Hmm, I see I did create Category:Early Commercial architecture in the United States (which has 64 direct members) in 2017, while the CFD decision went with Category:Buildings designated early commercial in the National Register of Historic Places (which has 160 direct members, plus it includes Category:Early Commercial architecture in the United States as a subcategory). As editors here are aware because I reported it on it here, during the last year I created all the missing fire station articles, e.g. 1908 Clovis City Hall and Fire Station, for which Category:Early Commercial architecture in the United States is suggested and which I didn't change. A bunch more articles in the category were created by me similarly following the suggestion, and a bunch were put into the category by other editors too.
    • I dunno, could this discussion be ended easily by just all agreeing to use "Category:Buildings designated early commercial in the National Register of Historic Places"? If so then I believe that could be implemented easily by just redirecting the other category/categories to that (in which case if a new article is created using the suggestion, then a bot automatically changes it over).
    • However "Category:Buildings designated early commercial in the National Register of Historic Places" sounds kind of bogus/weak to me, like setting it up to be nominated for deletion in a CFD at any time. It seems to me that it would be better to establish that Early Commercial architecture really is a thing, i.e. wholly encyclopedic.
    • Early Commercial is a style name used in practice, is my understanding, and it does not mean only skyscrapers and Chicago style; it is what properly describes a whole lot of one- and two-story one or two-part commercial buildings in towns across America. Usually flat-roofed, with parapet, made of brick, with storefront/big windows on the first floor. Probably most people generally would not know of Early Commercial style being a thing, but it stands to reason when you think about it that it is. It had to start somewhere, sometime, because Colonial era America did not have it. Once there were no big windows at all, and there certainly weren't any flat-roofed parapeted stores in colonial Plymouth or Boston or anywhere; I think the stores then looked just like houses. Some sources from Google on "early 20th century commercial architecture" yields, for example:
      • Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission's Architectural Field Guide on "Commercial Style 1890 - 1920", discusses Chicago skyscrapers first but emphasizes:

        While the purest description of Commercial style buildings best fits early skyscrapers, many much shorter buildings are sometimes described as Commercial style. These one to four story brick buildings date from the same era, were designed for commercial use, have large pane windows on the ground floor and flat roofs, often with decorative parapets. Early car dealerships and repair shops often take this form with large windows or garage door bays on the ground floor. This subtype of the style is a more vernacular version that is more prevalent in Pennsylvania than the true high style Commercial style skyscrapers.

      • "Early Twentieth Century Commercial style (1900-1930)" By Francis R. Kowsky. (Separate from linked coverage of "Chicago School Commercial Style / Last quarter of the Nineteenth Century") Includes

        This style became popular because of its adaptability to a variety of building types, especially the new one-story, flat roofed commercial building, which appeared in the City of Buffalo in the early 1900s. / The character of the Early Twentieth Century Commercial buildings is determined by the use of patterned masonry wall surfaces, shaped parapets at the roofline that were often uninterrupted by a project cornice and large rectangular windows arranged in groups. / The “Chicago window,” a three-part window with a wide, fixed central light flanked by two narrower double-hung sashes, is a common feature. / Identifying features of this style include a plain, flat appearance that is relieved by the use of panels of brick laid in patterns and sparingly used inset accents of tile, concrete, limestone or terra cotta. / The Early Twentieth Century Commercial style is well represented on Broadway, where buildings are typically two-part commercial blocks, ranging from two to five stories.

        :And goes on about Two-part block and One-part block subtypes.
      • Georgia HPD and Georgia Alliance of Preservation Commissions' Historic Preservation Commission Training: Commercial Architecture: Styles and Types appears not to use the "Early Commercial" term but rather just uses "Commercial" and covers subtypes
        • Community Store, "Common between 1890 and 1930"
        • Corner Store, "Common between 1900 and 1940s / Typically angled corner entry oriented toward street intersection / Sometimes detached, though often part of commercial streetscapes
        • Multiple Retail and Single Retail, "Common between 1880 and 1950s / Typically with three-bay façade / Typically with a front parapet and a flat roof sloping toward rear
        • Retail and Office "Combination street-level retail with rental office space above / Common between the 1880s and 1930s / Found in cities, towns, and even some crossroads communities / Typically two to four stories tall with flat or gabled roofs
        • Office Tower, "Combination street-level retail with rental office space above / Common between the 1910s and 1920s / Almost always architect-designed and with discernible style / Typically six or more stories tall
        • About the Georgia ones, I think it would be appropriate good for us to interpret Georgia as talking about "Early Commercial", because they clearly limit it to pre-1950, while using simply "Commercial" should be used as a more general term, e.g. including any of today's commercial architecture such as big box stores, Walmarts, etc.
      • The above-linked webpages are secondary or tertiary type sources available online, which I think suffice to establish notability of "Early Commercial". More scholarly architectural history books and articles could/should be dug up for better formal development of "Early Commercial architecture" as a Good- or Featured-class article. Anyhow, IMO "Early Commercial architecture" is a thing. :) --Doncram (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Iff that's the case, then parallel categories would be necessary, though it'd also be worth checking which articles belong where. It's also worth noting that Commercial Style redirects to Chicago school (architecture), so a separate article would also be needed. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

AFD about historic properties in Williams, Arizona

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please consider contributing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historic properties in Williams, Arizona. --Doncram (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

First Presbyterian Church (Cookeville, Tennessee)

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is anyone able to find the info about this church on the NPS website please?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any NRHP document being available for it at NPS website, but i found mention of a manuscript about it, please see Talk:First Presbyterian Church (Cookeville, Tennessee). --Doncram (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

G. A. Hanssen

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have created G. A. Hanssen. Please ping me if you are able to find other NRHP-listed buildings he designed. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zigzig20s. Besides the Yuma County Courthouse, in Yuma, Arizona, which you already identified (which is also associated with / credited to Ralph Swearingen), he is associated with four more NRHP listings (with attribution as appears in NRIS):
The above was from running this search using the http://elkman.net/nrhp/'s "Query by architect". Checking also for any having a likely spelling variation in NRIS, I see there are some other "Hansen" sites in Iowa, but these appear not to be related. These are:
Hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Also the John C. Schricker House article says Hanssen "was also responsible for the rectory at Sacred Heart Cathedral and the Central Fire Station". And perhaps the NRHP documents provide more, e.g. the Buffalo school one mentions his opening his Davenport office around 1890, and about two draftsmen/architects he worked with, etc. --Doncram (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Could you please move this to Talk:G. A. Hanssen?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, it was fine for u to ask the question, and i think it was fine for me to respond (eventually) with some detail, and there is no shortage of space/electrons here, but sure, okay. :) --Doncram (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Architects to be created

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Could we please start a subpage with a list of NRHP architects to be created? I occasionally have some free time and I'd be happy to look up their obituaries on Newspapers.com and start a new article.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course that can be done, feel free to go ahead. And it could/should be linked from the "things to do" type box on this page. I think some needed articles could be identified by browsing in state-specific encyclopedias, e.g. Place Makers of Nebraska: The Architects, Colorado Encyclopedia (search on "architect" there), etc.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Architects2009a exists and was a workpage listing all NRHP architects, builders, engineers having 5 or more associations with NRHP places in the 2009a version of NRIS database. It guided towards the completion out of about 900 architect or builder or engineer articles, which went a long way towards solving broad conflict about articles that included "architect=NAME" in their NRHP infoboxes (where NAME was sometimes not an architect). You could insert a new section at the top of that page where more articles needed could be suggested. Or at least link to it in a "See also" type way from any new workpage.
Also related/link-worthy is Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/architect vs. builder etc cleanup, about recently created new issues in NRHP infoboxes (where editors have relatively recently systematically replaced "architect OR builder=NAME" (which displays nothing) by "architect=NAME" (which makes a factual assertion), resolving a hidden maintenance category issue but sometimes introducing factual misstatements). --Doncram (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
About Colorado, Colorado Encyclopedia: Architects, Engineers, & Planners and other C.E. pages suggest:
Also there is History Colorado's "Architects of Colorado - Biographical Series" which lists about 80(?) architects having bios (some Wikipedia-covered, some not). --Doncram (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
--Doncram (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Abdou Building: No dot on the map

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Does anyone know why there is no dot on the map please?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a dot, it is off the left side of the photo. This means the coordinates are wrong. I added a US map and the dot shows near the Canadian border. The given coordinates are not in Texas. MB 22:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
OK yes, the Elkman tool gave us the wrong coordinates for some reason, but I have just changed them with the ones on the National Register of Historic Places listings in El Paso County, Texas, and it looks fine. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  Resolved

Many new listings

Latest comment: 5 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

The Park Service on Friday published an aggregated list of new NRHP listings here, covering the period of the government shutdown. I estimate there are more than 120 new listings - help clearing this backlog would be appreciated. Magic♪piano 17:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the new listings in general. I don't know all the steps involved (are there step by step instructions somewhere?). For what it's worth, I just added the Chatham County, GA item and added the Clarke County, GA item, including putting in coordinates that I figured out from Google maps. I left them numbered "6.5" and "37.5". Hope this helps a little bit anyhow. --Doncram (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
For the purposes of catching up, the following guidance applies:
  • Find the correct list for a given listing. For some cities, some counties, and the District of Columbia, this is not always easy, and may require mapping the listing first.
  • Add the listing in the alphabetically correct place (not at the end, please). This is best done by copying an adjacent entry, and then modifying all of the fields.
  • It is not necessary to provide lat/lon unless you want to, or to place a correct numerical value in the first column; if you don't add lat/lon, blank the fields.
  • The refnum field should contain only the numeric portion of the reference number field in the weekly list (omitting leading "SG", "MP" or other prefixes).
  • If the name of the listing seems like it might be common, check that it isn't already in use; add disambiguators to the article field if it is.
  • Make sure you update the count of listings at the top of the list to reflect the number of listings you added.
  • If an article already exists on the subject, add the {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places}} template to its talk page, with appropriate class and importance=low. Add geographically and subject-appropriate NRHP categories at the bottom of the article, and mention in an appropriate section that it has been listed.
  • If the listing is a removal, I will take care of it.
  • I will take care of making sure lists get properly numbered (if you don't), and I (or someone who's done this before) will make sure statewide counts get updated.
  • If you do an entire state (or know that it is completely caught up), please update the date for that state in Template:NRHP date for lists/dates. (You can look there to see which states are already up to date.)
Magic♪piano 22:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I copy-pasted that, then edited it slightly, to live at wp:NRHPHELP#Updating NRHP list-articles with new listings. Please do revise as necessary. I term you and others as "frequent updaters", for lack of a better title.
Okay, i went back to the only two Georgia additions, to update the ledes of the list-articles with the updated counts, but it happens that those list-articles don't make any summary claims about numbers of listings. I did the one addition for Idaho, too, for which the lede did require updating, done. So, besides not renumbering, I completed all that is necessary for the two states of GA and ID based on this new NPS update. There were no items for GU or HI. I'm going to assume there were not any unprocessed stuff from before, so I recorded the update date of February 1, 2019 for GA, GU, HI, ID into Template:NRHP date for lists/dates. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, one other thing for instructions: what about "vicinity" mentions. For the IDAHO, ADA COUNTY, item of Firebird Raceway, the NPS gives location of
8551 ID 16,
Eagle vicinity, SG100003243,
LISTED, 12/24/2018
I think that the location should be recorded as
address=8551 ID 16
city=Eagle vicinity
i.e., with qualification by the word "vicinity". Because it would be inaccurate to assert it is in Eagle proper. However, I think that NRHP editors' practice about this varies; i have seen the "vicinity" term added by some and deleted by some. --Doncram (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree. If "vicinity" is in the source it should not be deleted as that reduces accuracy and misleads readers. Jonathunder (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
FWIW a head's up German submarine U-166 (1941) already exists as an article. The SS Robert E. Lee is only in a list. I'm too busy to add them. Einbierbitte (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I updated Iowa this evening so the state should be complete, assuming I did it correctly. There was only one, but the Fort Dodge Downtown Historic District had additional documentation approved. I assume nothing needed to be done with that one. I also updated DC. The page National Register of Historic Places listings in the upper NW Quadrant of Washington, D.C. needs to be renumbered. Farragutful (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I would think that announcements of additional documentation are pretty important and should get noted directly into any existing article, and/or to the notes/description section of the county list-article for the item. In this edit I added such mention to the Fort Dodge Downtown Historic District article (which Farragutful had previously created). It just seems to me this is our chance to identify the material, which can eventually be used to expand the article. The fact of additional documentation being available would [likely] not be known to future editors/readers, otherwise. I don't know what practice has been about noting AD during the regular weekly updates, but the info is very official, it gets a reference number, and it seems to me we should be grabbing hold of it. --Doncram (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
For MPS / TR documents associated with a site, we can add them, using {{Infobox NRHP}} field like "mpsub = Light Stations of California MPS". For old listings those come in from the NRHP infobox generator and any link to the actual MPS document uses the actual reference number for them (though there is not an mpsub_refnum field, while there should be i think). I believe in practice the MPS is noted in the notes/description field of county list-articles for new listings. We should have infobox fields for Additional Documentation ("AddDoc="?) and its reference number too ("AddDoc_refnum="), perhaps? --Doncram (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Does additional documentation generally come with a different reference number? I ask because they used the same number from 2010 for the hd in Fort Dodge. I see no reason to include redundant information. Farragutful (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Additional documentation does not have a separate reference number. The existence of such documentation is IMHO not generally of interest to casual WP readers, but it may include address updates (which is typically the only thing I look for). Magic♪piano 16:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
That has been my experience as well, but I wanted to check to be sure. Farragutful (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, right, I was maybe perceiving more of a problem than there is, and I was outright wrong in perceiving that the AD got a different reference number (which I guess I used to be aware of, but I forgot and I didn't notice it here). Having the same reference number undercuts the value of mentioning it in the infobox. And merely mentioning in free text that additional documentation exists, is not particularly exciting for the reader, I agree, especially if the alleged document is not even linked (as here, where the AD does not seem to be immediately available, certainly is not linked from the NPS announcement page). However, some ADs that I have seen have been really good/important towards addressing serious deficiency in original NRHP nomination documents. And if we learn that AD exists, it does seem to me to be terribly important to capture that idea, to help local readers / potential editors know what to look for. Some systematic noting, maybe not too heavy-handedly for readers, seems appropriate. Still I come around to wanting to cover the AD though. There still is a new official date for the documentation, so maybe the right, lightish touch would be to note the existence of AD and its date in the infobox of an already-existing article (and link to the actual AD document if possible, as is done for MPS mentions in infoboxes). And again, like for MPS mentions, mention in the notes/description column of the county list-article for redlink items.
I also take it that AD has not been systematically noted previously. So I sort of think that there would be merit for a program to identify ADs mentioned in NRIS (hopefully a new version of NRIS) and put such systematic notes into articles. Not saying it was terrible or bad not to systematically cover them before, but it would be a good thing to catch up and do so now, IMO. Is that more compatible with your views? --Doncram (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I updated the one new listing in Michigan, which is listed under the name "Minong," with a location of "Isle Royale National Park" in "Isle Royale National Park." That's aggravating, because it's almost certainly incomplete, and definitely confusing. My best guess is it's intended to be cultural resources in and around Minong Island in Tobin Harbor (and so probably a HD?), which is where I directed the geo-coords, but it's impossible to tell what this is supposed to be from the weekly list alone. :( Andrew Jameson (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You might look for additional sourcing in the Isle Royale parts of the NPS web site. Magic♪piano 16:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I've found some information on both the Isle Royale NPS site and the MISHPO site that leads me to believe that this listing has something to do with Tobin Harbor, and I've found plenty of historical information on same, but I've not found anything that defines what the boundaries of the historic site actually are. Hopefully there will be a press release in the coming days, or something that defines what this site encompasses. Andrew Jameson (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and completed all the removals. 25or6to4 (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but you forgot to update numbers at the tops of lists (in at least some places that I checked). And thanks to everyone for chipping in! Magic♪piano 16:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, continuing, I did the several (four?) California listings, and so far have covered CA to ID.
But for CALIFORNIA, there are two MPS listings:
Garden Apartment Complexes in the City of Los Angeles, 1939-1955 MPS,
MC100003282,
COVER DOCUMENTATION APPROVED, 12/31/2018

CALIFORNIA,
Asian Americans in Los Angeles, 1850-1980 MPS,
MC100003290,
COVER DOCUMENTATION APPROVED, 1/4/2019
For these, what to do? Add to the wp:MPS list? (Which once was comprehensive including links that all worked, but whose usefulness has been undermined by the NPS moving and/or deleting stuff, and which might not have been much updated by us.) Okay, trying by this edit to update at wp:MPS. Is this what should be done, anyhow, for new MPS listings in the NPS announcements? --Doncram (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
No sites in Florida, but there are two in Brooklyn and Queens, respectively. One has an article that needs to be updated; Triboro Hospital for Tuberculosis is now on NRHP, and I've added some relevant parameters to that, but the attempt to get it to that status needs to be updated. On the other hand, the "German Evangelical Lutheran St. John's Church" neither has an article, nor images. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

House at 912 Magoffin Avenue

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am unable to retrieve the NRHP form.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if your question was before or after you successfully got other Texas NRHP documents. But the instructions given at wp:NRHPHELPTX work, for me anyhow, now anyhow, to yield the NRHP form. Here is the reference filled out:

<ref name=nrhpdoc>{{cite web|url=https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/NR/pdfs/03000557/03000557.pdf |title=National Register of Historic Places Registration: 912 Magoffin |publisher=Texas Historical Commission |author=Alfonzo Tellez |date=July 31, 2001 |accessdate=April 11, 2024}} Includes two photos from 2001. {{TexasHistoricalCommissionNote}}</ref>

The document is a bit slow to load. --Doncram (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Be careful with Arizona properties

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Elkman tool gives us the Arizona State Historic Property Inventory, not the National Register of Historic Places forms. If you are using the tool, you need to change the reference. Thanks to Doncram for making me realize this!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I am going to take a break from Arizona properties and not complete the National Register of Historic Places listings in Yuma County, Arizona, because I need more time to think about it.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, maybe it would be helpful if some others could comment.
What happens sometimes, maybe happened here i am not sure, is that an editor can be proceeding, in all good faith, to create articles, using the good start provided by the NRHP infobox generator. Nowadays the generator provides a draft NRHP document reference with links to the text document and to the photos, including suggested title text "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: John Q. Smith House". However, IMO that draft definitely needs to be changed, if the document is not in fact a NRHP nomination. For AZ, ID, MT, GA, some other states, sometimes the form is a state or even a local one, so it might need to be changed to "Kentucky Historic Resources Inventory:" or "Arizona State Historic Property Inventory:". The reference is to be customized by providing alternative names, author name, date of preparation, and info about photos (e.g. "17 photos from 1981").
I'm curious what others think, if the customization is not done. If the draft reference states something arguably inaccurate (that it is a NRHP form when it is in fact a state one)? How about if it just omits author, date, photo description? What if the photos link doesn't work? Practice varies, I am aware. --Doncram (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Herbert and Katherine Jacobs Second House

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

An editor is contesting that the photos are not of the actual house, and adding commentary to that effect to the article. Could those who might have more knowledge of the property take a look? --Ebyabe (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The photos from the NPS do not look like the same structure in the photos in the article. Seems to me the editor is correct. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I've actually been there, and looking through my photos I can also confirm that the editor is correct. (Not sure why I didn't catch that at the time.) I uploaded my one picture of the actual house. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

NRHP in Puerto Rico and other places

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How many people have considered Spanish versions and image descriptions for sites on the NRHP in Puerto Rico? Actually, who else has considered bilingual NRHP parameters for sites in non-English speaking parts of the country? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

double pile and single pile

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have been wondering for quite a while what is a single pile and what is a double pile type of house. Numerous Kentucky Historic Resources documents mention one or the other, including for Bayne House (Shelbyville, Kentucky). I see that summary List of house types article suggests double pile means two rooms deep, is that right? I was thinking it meant chimneys which are sort of piles of rocks. Why would a "pile" mean a room of depth, i don't get it. :( And does it just refer to very old houses, only stone or brick ones? I have the impression it would not apply for a simple woodframe cottage, i think I have only seen it applied to brick or stone residences. An article covering both terms is needed, methinks. :) --Doncram (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Bandit Rock/Robbers Roost

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm working on doublechecking the count for every state, and I need a clarification on a duplicate noted on the California list. Bandit Rock/Robbers Roost is listed on the California list as a duplicate in Kern and Shasta County. But I do not see the site in the Shasta County list, nor is it listed in the /Progress listings as a duplicate. Can someone with more experience in California verify if this is a dupe or not? Thanks. 25or6to4 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Kern County and Shasta County are in opposite ends of the state, so it's definitely not a duplicate between those two. Maybe whoever listed it meant a different county, but since it's not that close to a county line I think it was just a mistake. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok thanks for that info! I'll edit the California page for that. 25or6to4 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NRHP nominated for merging

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI, the {{Infobox NRHP}} template has been nominated for merging with {{Infobox historic site}}. Please contribute to the discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

State base maps

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Howdy @Dudemanfellabra, Multichill, and Magicpiano:, and anyone else that might be interested. I have uploaded a baseline map for the state of Alabama, and am looking for any input on design and/or if the coding works correctly. file:AlabamaTest.svg. Please have a look over it, and let me know if this would be useful here, along with any others. 25or6to4 (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Error

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I am getting this message whenever I try to click on a NRHP link from a list like this one: "Http/1.1 Service Unavailable". Is anyone else here getting the same message or did someone at USDOI block my IP address?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

OK it works if I remove the s in https. I followed this advice. Does anyone know why though?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I've been getting that too. This seems to happen from time to time with the NPS; I'm not sure if it's regular maintenance or just stability issues, but it usually fixes itself after a while. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I get it sometimes when I am creating new articles, like when i click on the link from the NRHP infobox generator, e.g. for Dorvin House, a link to https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/90000799. I usually check the reference and put info from the NRHP document into the new article before closing my first edit. But when I get the message, I go ahead and save anyhow, then the link from the article in the reference, to "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Dorvin House". National Park Service. Retrieved March 27, 2019. With accompanying pictures, usually works. The text link there is going to https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/90000799_text. Rarely, that also doesn't work, and I go searching for any usable references on the internet, and/or I mark it "under construction" and try to get back to it later. --Doncram (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

"Denver turkey brick veneer"

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Does anybody know what "Denver turkey brick" is please?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Compared to Chicago t.b., it takes longer to bake? --Doncram (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
There may be some kind of "Voss turkey" brand of large-scale brick-making machine, and then perhaps there was one such installation in Denver? I am a bit confused from what I can find on the internet, and I see no explanation of "turkey" in any naming. There do exist big brick-making machines, and probably Wikipedia needs an article on such, if we don't have one. Brick machine? Brick-making machine? --Doncram (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Two historic districts with similar names

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

As he often does, User:Daniel Case informs me about new Long Island-based NRHP listings, and on November 9, 2017 the Bethel Christian Avenue Historical District(#100001808) was added to historic Setauket, New York. However, User:CaptJayRuffins wrote an article on the Bethel-Christian Avenue-Laurel Hill Historical District back in July 2018. I suspect these two districts are one in the same. Am I wrong? If not, that article needs an NRHP tag on the talk page, and infobox, and a NYS NRHP navbox. Can anybody clear this issue up? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The first ref in the linked article is to a news story about the district being nominated for inclusion in the NRHP by the NY SHPO. So certainly the same. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to be the fly in this discussion, the blacks and indians of Setauket never attended church at the white only Presbyterian church, which is in the original historic district that comprised the Old Setauket Historic District. The Bethel Christian HD was the late addition to recognize the remnants of the indigenous community not recognized by the three-village historic district, and should retain that separate character. Please read the article, many of the events of the region remain the same, but Bethel is a different HD than the Old Setauket HD.CaptJayRuffins (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, User:Daniel Case is right, an infobox should have been created with the article, I moved on to other articles and will attend to it now. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

now, who wants to help with this NRHP? https://www.brookhavenny.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1382/Old-Setauket-Historic-District-PDF The setting of the Presbyterian Church retains its rural character and is a component of the Old Setauket Historic District locally designated by the Town of Brookhaven - National Archives Identifier: 75322236 - Creator: Department of the Interior. National Park Service. (3/2/1934 - )CaptJayRuffins (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Niagara Falls for deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Niagara Falls is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Niagara Falls until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 10:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Images without reference numbers, once again

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Since I will be on vacation starting this weekend, somebody else is going to have to add reference number tags to the images in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Images without refnum and remove them. But fear not, because part of my reason for this trip will involve the capture and/or attempted capture of images of more historic sites along the way, not to mention any other sites I find interesting. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to add there are sites on that page I still have doubts regarding their NRHP status, some of which I've discussed here before. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 
one of two pics of Woodville / Neville House
I won't commit to do much, but what is the job / what needs to be done? E.g. for the two three pics of Woodville (Heidelberg, Pennsylvania) or Neville House, with NRHP reference doc at https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/74001733, the refnum is 74001733. The refnum needs to be added to the description at commons somehow? --Doncram (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 01:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Images without refnums on Commons should have their descriptions include {{NRHP|refnum}}, as should categories for listed properties. Automated tools (some of them interwiki, not just English wiki) use these tags to connect images and categories to articles about the listings. If you tag an image, remove it from the gallery as well. Magic♪piano 15:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I added that template with NRHP refnum to each of three photos of Woodville_(Heidelberg,_Pennsylvania), and manually deleted them from the category. All three were already in Commons category for Woodville (Heidelberg, Pennsylvania). So a German editor would already find them, i would hope. Benefit of adding refnum is pretty opaque to me. I see something at Commons:Monuments_database/Images_without_id about bots not automatically adding images to the category, presumably for good reason. I don't see why a bot couldn't automatically remove any images that do have a refnum though. This is all pretty foreign to me. Different people can contribute in completely different ways, i guess, and I don't have to understand how. :( --Doncram (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Just as a point of information for people wanting something to do), ErfgoedBot (which populates the "Images without refnum" gallery) reports that there are more than 15,000 untagged images. (The gallery is limited to 1000 images.) Magic♪piano 15:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Spelling of personal name in NRHP-related article

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There's a discussion under way at Talk:Henry C. and Wilhemina Bruening House#Wilhemina vs. Wilhelmina that members of this project may wish to weigh in on. — Ipoellet (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Ipoellet, Thanks for seeking some additional input. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I really didn't think consensus was going to happen among just those of us who were already participating. — Ipoellet (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Baker Historic District

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It seems that ref. 3 refers to another NRHP entry while the nonatin file lined in the eternal lins section is the correct one. Someone knowledgable shuld fi it. --Matthiasb (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Added date of document, link to accompanying photos (supported by NRHP infobox generator tool), which IMHO should be standard for a NRHP document reference nowadays. Always glad there is any NRHP document reference though (in general IMHO it is not fair to criticize anyone for not doing something more than they choose to). --Doncram (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

quarries, historic or pre-historic

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hey I am working on List of quarries in the United States, which so far includes all hits on "quarry" in NRIS2013a plus all other members of Category:Quarries in the United States (which just grew quite a bit). It is organized by state now. Do you know of any archeological sites that include flint or sandstone or chert or whatever quarry sites, to add? Or any more modern NRHP sites including quarries? --Doncram (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know of any others, in answer to your questions, but I have several concerns with this list. First, if this is supposed to be a list of quarry's, why are non-quarries in the list? I note, for example, there are two bridges in Iowa listed, one near a former quarry and one near the town of Quarry. Neither of them are quarries, nor are the other "(places adjacent to quarries)", so I see no reason for them to be there. This is, after all, a list article not a disambiguation page. Second, if this is meant to be a list than it seems to me the extraneous information after some of the listings should be removed. If I want to know more about a place I can click on the link and read the article. Third, why are they divided between NRHP listings and non-NRHP listings? It seems to me that they should only be divided according to the states and that way we can get rid of the qualifier in the title of the second section "(presumably not NRHP-listed)". Really? Fourth, we are told in the title of the first group that these are NRHP listed properties, and then every listing ends with "NRHP-listed." Isn't that redundant? Fifth, and this is simply a pet peeve of mine, using "NRHP" in titles. It looks lazy and it's a bit too "inside" for me. I realize it's qualified in the text above the list, but many people aren't going to look there. As I said earlier I think the list should only be divided according to the states to make it usable and that would clear up my concerns 3, 4, and 5. Farragutful (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your adding a link to the list-article and for your comments here. Sorry, I wasn't clear in the new list-article or here about its "under construction" aspects. I agree with your concerns about how the list-article appeared, if it was going to stay that way. I just now continued with the intended merging into geographical (state and city) ordering, and relegated the "quarry bridge" type items with question marks to a clearly-labelled-as-temporary section at the bottom, and labelled the whole list as "under construction". My intent is for it to be developed like many other general list-articles started from NRHP items, such as List of fire stations in the United States, List of women's club buildings, List of corrals, List of Elks buildings, etc. I hope it is more clear now and I do welcome others' editing and/or discussion at its Talk. --Doncram (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
It's much more developed, and is completely sorted by state. Thanks User:McGhiever for adding some, and other additions/revisions would be welcome. --Doncram (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
P.S. See also somewhat-related List of lime kilns in the United States, under development now. --Doncram (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

What's up with GNIS?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone know what's up with GNIS, i.e., the geographical feature search? The link I've used for years goes to a completely different website. I eventually found a link that says "Search domestic names," but it doesn't have a search box. Thanks, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC).

No idea, but to make matters worse, the website changes seem to have also broken our existing links to the database. The original site was still up as of this morning, so hopefully they sort this all out soon. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Google landmarks

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Announcing Google-Landmarks-v2: An Improved Dataset for Landmark Recognition & Retrieval. This is version 2. Has anybody worked with version 1? It sounds like we could do some searches for historical photos for landmarks, so this might be incredibly useful. OTOH, I'm not at all clear on what the project actually does. Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

discuss photos not of the NRHP-listed resource

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There has been a running issue about photos not of the NRHP-listed resource, whether they should be kept or removed or relegated to Talk pages. Perhaps there could be an RFC about the issue, but I am not optimistic about that working. Just now I just came across more uploadings of such photos. Given past acrimony, though I chose to open discussion immediately at wp:ANI, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#photos not of the NRHP-listed resource. Perhaps wider discussion by non-regular-NRHP editors might resolve something. --Doncram (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Arlington Memorial Bridge, should it be on Arlington County, Virginia list?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Interested parties are invited to weigh in on the subject of whether or not Arlington Memorial Bridge should be in the National Register of Historic Places listings in Arlington County, Virginia; discussion is here. Magic♪piano 16:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

stub sorting

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/May#NRHP stubs for U.S. Virgin Islands, and for U.S. possessions in the Pacific. --Doncram (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Categorize by year of establishment in state

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:WilliamJE added the year of establishment in the state category. I think it's a good idea and I wonder if there is consensus to do this for all articles about historic houses and buildings? If that the case, I can add a similar category every time I create a new article about a historic house. The reason I ask is because I remember this was removed from articles I created a few years ago.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • It shouldn't have been removed from state establishment categories. A courthouse, farm, building, whatever, are establishments once they are built. Why should they be any different than baseball stadiums, golf courses etc that are also establishment categorized by location?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_67&oldid=902622053"