Talk:National Register of Historic Places/Archive 1

Archive 1

Where are we going with this?

The list of places is getting large, and most of them aren't all that notable. Are we going to expand the list to include all 78K+ places, or perhaps excise them all and focus again on what is a historic place? Bollar 16:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that they are listed as a historical place says they are notable. There is something about it that makes it historically important.

About the large size, I wouldn't object to breaking it up by state. Either National Register of Historic Places in Iowa or National Register of Historic Places/Iowa. I'll pre-counter the "no sub pages" argument with that the purpose of not using sub pages is to impose a hierarchy of page (clearly, this could also be Iowa/National Register of Historic Places and be a valid place) however this usage is to quell the size of National Register of Historic Places, which is not imposing a hierarchy. Cburnett 17:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think we'd have to break it up by much more than state to fit all 78K+ entries at 32K a page. This list is added to weekly by the NPS and IMO it is unmaintainable. But even if we do decide to keep it, this current format of people adding to this list as they wish isn't creating a list that will ever become encyclopedic.

As it is, we appear to have a complete list of sites from American Samoa, but not one of the 1,196 sites in South Dakota (not even Mount Rushmore.

The entire list is available in a database format, and if it's truly the desire to make the list complete, I would propose that someone download it and have a bot enter it all into Wikipedia. Bollar 19:30, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

For the last week or so I have been adding lists of the NRHP sites to each of the county articles for Oklahoma. (See Washington County, Oklahoma for an example.) One exception was for Oklahoma county, which has well over a hundred sites. In that case I created the article List of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma sites on the National Register of Historic Places, and linked to it from the Oklahoma County article. I think that this, combined with Category:National Register of Historic Places is the way to go. As articles get written on each site and the category becomes unwieldy, we can create subcategories for each state. Dsmdgold 20:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

That's a nice solution. Too bad it isn't easy, but I can work on some States myself if there's concensus. Bollar 22:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

32 KB is a rough guideline. Don't over-optimize a problem before it's a problem. Most states probably won't have any problem being under 32 KB, but if they aren't then that can be addressed then.

If you have a problem with the rate it's being entered, then you need to do it yourself. But the lack of a rate to your snuff is not reason to delete the article and I'll fight it tooth-and-nail because that's probably one of the worst reasons to delete an article. Even incomplete, the article is definitely encyclopedic. Definitely. It is entirely expected to have incomplete articles on wikipedia. Cburnett 20:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

If you thought I wanted to delete the article, then you've misunderstood me. I wanted to get rid of the list, which is in need of cleanup and which I think detracts from the important part of the article, which IMO is about the National Register of Historic Places, its history, what constitutes a NRHP, etc.

Can we agree to move the part of the article entitled Places in the registry to its own article, called List of National Historic Places, or something like that? And then break that article up as size requires? Bollar 22:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Cburnett 15:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject?

Does anyone think there is enough interest to start "Wikiproject NRHP" Goals for the project could be:

• Insert lists of NRHP sites in every appropriate county, city, and town article.
• Create articles that are "Lists of NRHP sites in X" where X is a state name, or some sub-unit of a state, such that all the sites are contained on at least one list.
• Create a "List of NRHP Lists" to contain all of the above lists.
• And finally, the big one, create non-stub articles with images for every site on the above lists.

Dsmdgold 04:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

NRHP Project collaboration

This will be the talk thread that will be archived with the nifty template when we finish here. Add new topic as they are needed, use a third level headline ===headline=== so that all entires appear under the heading of our collaboration. Thanks. IvoShandor 07:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Prose

• Some prose issues. For example this The Register automatically includes all National Historic Landmarks as wellas all historic areas administered by the National Park Service.

• A bit too wordy and confusing. I will look for other stuff and correct. Anyone know what that is getting at? IvoShandor 07:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know what qualifies as a "historic area adminstered by the National Park Service? Landmarks, Register, Historic Areas, Battlefields, what else is out there? I'll look it up, though if you know say so, I have been looking up a lot of stuff lately and have much competing information swirling around my head. IvoShandor 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the above. I added the project banners to all the existing articles that were covered, ages ago. National Natural Landmark don't apply, though. It seems to be anything related to people. Built by people, fought on by people, etc.

Images

We have only one image. We need to brainstorm, if we can't get a picture of the building the NRHP is administered from, and then even if we can (if it exists in its own right), we need to think about ways of illustrating this article that doesn't involve photos of listed places. IvoShandor 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Their address is 1201 I (Eye) Street NW, DC -- they're on the 8th floor. Other NPS offices are also in the building.

Ideas/requests

• For the "History" section: Ernest Connally - first director of OAHP.IvoShandor 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• For the "Nominations" section: an actual "State Historic Preservation Office" (any state); some way to illustrate the criteria? I don't know, just something to dwell on.IvoShandor 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a few ideas floating around. The "Types of Properties" section may be the only one that could get away with using listed places as illustrations without being too cliche. Maybe the "Special PReservation stuff too. I don't really know how to the illustrate the "listed properties" section, without resorting to, well, listed properties, which is just lame. We must think on this. IvoShandor 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI

This article has over 11,500 incoming links, all namespaces, the majority are in the main namespace. Just FYI. IvoShandor 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro

The lead should conform to WP:LEAD and represent a summary of the rest of the article, no info should be found only in the lead. I may take a stab at it later, feel free though. IvoShandor 07:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can whoever added the fact about properties such as embassy add the ref to it please, it is the last {{fact}} left in the article right now, also add that info to the appropriate section - probably "nominations." IvoShandor 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro reworked and formatted, should conform to WP:LEAD now, haven't checked length specifically but it seems to be right. Check it if you have a chance. IvoShandor 08:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Organization

I have heavily expanded the article as well as tentatively reorganized. I don't think the current organization will stand, mainly because it could be better and some stuff will be added. Right now I am wondering to what extent we should utilize WP:SUMMARY for this article. Should we have main articles like History of the National Register of Historic Places. The reason I wonder is because the more research I do the more I am finding worthy of inclusion. For instance, at a glance the "criteria" don't seem to merit their own article nor even section but deeper research reveals that these criteria are applied in a host of different ways and have, indeed, much like the Wiki, evolved over time. What does anyone and everyone think? IvoShandor 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

With my last expansion 33kb long, may be time to seriously think about how to approach the summary style for this article. IvoShandor 05:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have again reorganized it, I like it better. I have begun to copy edit my additions along with whatever text was there, which I blurred into the rest of article. It barely resembles its former self (of just days ago). I still want to find out what pushed the development of the Register, of which I found some intriguing info on the NPS' "MISSION 66" which culminated with the passage of the NHPA of 1966. The history section needs a bit of beefing up but through about 1980 its pretty solid, this is probably going to need its own article and a good summary before it goes beyond GA (yeah FA, one day, why not). The Types of Properties section could eventually asplode off the page as well, notice only two of the specialty properties have any in depth info, and not much at that. At least a couple of those other topics (especially designed historic landscapes (which writing on is pretty prolific from what I see)). The criticism section will probably need some expansion as there are a couple of other aspects which have been heavily criticized in the academic world, enough to have garnered published, peer reviewed responses anyway. Some other stuff to consider includes funding, how much of the DOI budget goes to the NPS, to the NRHP? Probably a glance at the DOI Appropriations Bill for 07 will reveal this information. All for now. IvoShandor 06:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the history page in user space. Right now it is simply the same as the section here. Before I go live with the History page I plan to expand it, tonight. Then I will pare down the section here and make it more of an overall summary, more like 5 or six shorter paragraphs instead of the lengthy and detailed rant that I have here now. : ) IvoShandor 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am having trouble coming up with a good way to split up the Listed properties section per WP:SUMMARY, any ideas appreciated. IvoShandor 12:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Needed topics for inclusion

A list, yeah, that's right a list. ; )

• Impetus: Who spurred the creation of the NRHP? Why?
• History: More detail for the period 1975 to present is needed {I am currently at work on this) IvoShandor 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (Moved to main articleIvoShandor 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC))
• Property types: needs expansion IvoShandor 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Updated numbers are badly needed
• Structure: How is the administration of the NRHP structured? Surely they have a director or a board below the NPS divisions that govern it.
• Summary: I am for sure going to do a main article History of the National Register of Historic Places. Other spots may require it sooner or later, but the history section is going to get out of hand if it isn't done. I predict the same for the types of properties, maybe Property types (National Register of Historic Places) would be a good article to pen, perhaps merging a couple of existing articles, namely contributing property. IvoShandor 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Not sure about other sections or how to approach the listed property section, if the others are trimmed that one may not be so dauntingly long, seemingly anyway.
• Plaques: What seems kind of silly has actually been a source of contention among those "into" the NRHP. I recommend reading the fourth footnote, (PDF).
• Grants: so far I have included very little about grants available as incentives, which incidentally is probably where the plaques stuff fits in, possibly some under the criticism section.
• Budget: See above comment, under organization.

These are just some of the additions I have thought of, clealy WP:SUMMARY will be incorporated. IvoShandor 08:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Main article History of the National Register of Historic Places is now up, History section trimmed accordingly. Also I have Property types (National Register of Historic Places) in my user space, currently just a reflection of the section here, with expansion it can go live and the section here can be trimmed , like with the history section. IvoShandor 01:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks

I know it doesn't seem that there are that many wikilinks. But I am highly satisfied that those that do exist (and those uncreated as of now) add significantly to the context of the article, which is why some terms that may seem like they should be linked aren't, such as Ronald Reagan. If you see any glaring omissions add them, otherwise I might suggest discussing it here first. : ) Awesome. IvoShandor 21:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

I am beginning to think that no one really knows, at any given moment, how many properties are actually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The best, I think, that we can do is come up with the most recent and accurate estimates and then also figure out a recent average of new listings per week/year/month, whatever. We must also keep in mind that as properties are demolished or otherwise destroyed they are delisted. IvoShandor 01:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For the "History" section, and main article (now live btw and submitted to DYK) a good composite of estimates from various eras should be utilized, I have already started this but it would be nice to have, at least, estimates from each decade. IvoShandor 01:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Some people count things, I just talk to myself. IvoShandor 12:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And endeavor to bring about a physical manifestation of Gozer . . . 12:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

History

This section might be shortened to a general discussion, now that there's a Main page for History. — Dogears 18:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I did shorten it some, feel free to further trim it where necessary. : )IvoShandor 18:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I am opening a peer review for broader perspective. It will probably be open the remainder of the collaboration and beyond. Feel free to comment. IvoShandor 09:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I am going to halt the major expansions for now, though I may add a bit in the criticism section, pending peer comments. IvoShandor 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would probably assess this B class, A if the NRHP had that type of review...speaking of . . IvoShandor 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with intro

I didn't read the article, and maybe this is clarified in the article itself, but the lead by itself contains two seemingly contradictory statements:

1. "As of 2007, the list includes more than 80,000 entries, including many icons of American culture, history, engineering, and architecture."
2. "As of 1998, there were over one million buildings, sites and structures listed on the Register - including historic districts and individually listed buildings - and each year an additional 30,000 are added."

So which is it? More than 80,000, or the much larger figure of more than a million? Even if the article itself clarifies this point and resolves these two statements to make them make sense, the lead needs to be changed so that by itself it does not seem contradictory. —Lowellian (reply) 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, working on this, the lead will be completely rewritten. The article does clarify (the one million number includes all structures within historic districts too). IvoShandor 06:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Check it out now, let me know. IvoShandor 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see the changes. It's much clearer now. :) —Lowellian (reply) 00:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

GA nom

I have nominated this for GA, it will be an opportunity for more feedback as I continue the push toward FA for this most important article. IvoShandor 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

I have reviewed the article and believe it meets criteria at WP:WIAGA. I could find overall, very little to improve though I do have a few suggestions.

• overall the article seems very technical, like some passages were obviosuly a direct cut of the original text, not that I can substantiate the claim but the article does have a very technical, drawn out length. Considering this article is long, I would suggest that experienced editors go over and attempt to rewrite/make more concise some of the passages.

• the lead didnt exactly make me go wow or anything - not that it should but I just felt that maybe a few examples of some of the more famous places on the register would give it a bit more depth. More over, the lead at the moment seems a bit technical. Anyway thats just a thought.

• the section Multiple Property Submission felt a bit technical as well, wordy etc - perhaps this could be made more concise?

Other than that everything else fine - images ok, article broad enough etc. Good work to all those who contributed.LordHarris 00:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns are something I, and others, have been struggling with. I don't know if I can address them effectively, however, as I have attempted to in the past. I will try to enlist the help of some of the others at the NRHP project. Thanks again LordHarris. IvoShandor 06:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

National Monument note

I added "some" before "National Monument" in the article, with an explanatory footnote. Only NMs that are historical in character and administered by the NPS are automatically listed on the Register. Natural NMs, such as Buck Island Reef National Monument are not listed, even though they are NPS sites. Likewise, historical NMs such as President Lincoln and Soldiers' Home National Monument are not administratively listed on the Register, if they are not NPS sites (although that particular NM is part of a prior NR listing, but it was not automatically added as a separate listing). — Eoghanacht ^talk 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Notes on To Do List picture request

Regarding the request for "an image of the building the NRHP is adminstrated from, provided they have their own building." From what I've found they're located at 1201 Eye St., NW in D.C. This is not their own building; in a brief search I found other National Park Service programs, some folks from the Dept of the Interior and a consulting firm. Xstolix 14:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what they told me in an email too, so I think you got the building. It's probably not even worth adding but if you have a pic feel free to add it, at some point I will be working on this article again and going for FA. IvoShandor 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Commercial site trying to look like the real thing

I deleted the www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com from External Links, as it looks as if they are trying to make money by presenting themselves as the official US government website. It's misleading and language on the site is semi-literate. --Parkwells 18:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors Using Commercial Site Wanna-be rather than Official Website

In other articles I've noticed editors making errors by listing the above commercial site as an External Link. This is NOT the Official Website of the National Register of Historic Places (http://www.nps.gov/nr/), which is run by the National Park Service and Federal government. It makes it look as if Wikipedia doesn't know the difference. The commercial site is trying to make money by offering a tie-in linked to an official government symbol.

I don't know if there is some "Find" copy editing that can be done, but this might be a widespread problem. --Parkwells 19:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed it occasionally as well, I remove it where I see it. I dont think nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com is reliable enough to be used for a source, they still have long demolished sites listed and though there are errors in the NRIS database, they are fewer than the NRHP.com commercial site that sees a lot of link traffic. IvoShandor 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your assessment of the site as "trying to make money of a tie in" or whatever is incorrect, I don't see a single ad anywhere in that site, never have. There isn't anything wrong with including the site as an external link, it was clearly marked as unofficial. Please offer some proof of your accusations or I will revert your change. IvoShandor 23:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So in summary, I remove it as a source, but your implying this is a spam link, I see no evidence of this. IvoShandor 23:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I found one commercial link, "Top ten Inns" in lieu of travel information. I still don't think this qualifies it as a spam site, and I am wondering what your issue with this is. IvoShandor 23:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Never seemed like a spam site to me. No pop-ups, an ad on a page here and there, doesn't seem like a problem. The information on it has always appeared to be accurate, if not updated. But the official site doesn't add the newer listings into the general database, so they're not always great at updating either. Also seems to be the only place where specific historic district info (acreage, # of buildings, etc) is listed. I've not found that even on the official gov't site. I use it as a reference, actually, b/c it goes to a specific page. You can't direct link to an entry on the official site, at least not so far as I've found. My two cents. -Ebyabe 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no links directly to the listing on the official site. Perhaps my references removal is a bit of conclusion jumping on my part. I should say I really only do it with Illinois because the SHPO has all those little details, ref number, acerage etc, listed for Illinois. IvoShandor 23:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple questions

Where did the 30k added per year thing in the lead come from? I looked for it later in the article, but didn't see it mentioned or referenced. Also, the criticism section lists a few critics and uses a block quote for one of them, but doesn't say who the critics are, outside of the names, or why the reader should trust their opinions / criticism. I don't need a full biography, but they have no wiki-links on them so I think they need a small intro, like Stephen Mikesell, a noted blah blah blah holding a PhD in blah says.... or something more reader friendly. --Dual Freq 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Roger that, thanks for the feedback Dual, as always you are most helpful. I didn't realize the 30K didn't have a ref but its one of those used already so it'll be easy to add. IvoShandor 06:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Update [1] goes back 10 years. Isn't there a way to send a bot or something to count all the properties listed during that time period(provided they haven't been removed) and create an average?Einbierbitte 17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea but I have no clue about such things. IvoShandor 19:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, it seems odd that the only criticisms cited are 20 years old. There may be more recent issues and/or criticism related to administration of the program. --Parkwells 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Stuff to do

This is a compilation checklist from the peer review and other commenters. It's easier to add here than the to-do list because the concerns are rather specific. Most of this will need to be clarified before FA.

•  Not doneDouble check to see if you need to be so specific in some sections (particularly incentives and nominations.
•  Not doneThoroughly copyedit this article for grammar, typos, jargon and, most importantly, for flow.

• Copyeditors (please sign below if you give this a good copy edit, or even a partial one, please note the sections you edited)

•  Not done Lead: Is it clear, and is it a good summary?
•  Not done Look for sneaky POV descriptors.

IvoShandor 07:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Expansion to do

•  Not done Impetus
•  Not done Budget
•  Not done Plaques
•  Not done Grants
•  Not done Structure
•  Not done Updated Numbers

I don't think we should think about FA until this stuff is added and any kinks noted elsewhere on this page are also worked out. I do think we will easily get GA, maybe a few minor problems but nothing an on hold period wouldn't be able to address. IvoShandor 07:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I made several corrections throughout the article. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a good article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tax credit information

This Missouri state site http://www.dnr.mo.gov/shpo/TaxCrdts.htm provides info on tax credits. Missouri very proudly proclaims being first in the nation with its program providing state tax credits, supplementing federal tax credits available for National Register properties. As of June 2008, this page http://www.dnr.mo.gov/shpo/ is all about that. I think more info on tax credits can usefully be added to this NRHP article. doncram (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism removed from article

I'm removing the following passage from the article, because it is outdated, old, no longer applicable in my view (which is informed by my having edited a thousand or more NRHP articles, at least, and seeing how many are derived from Theme Studies). The last paragraph, which I had added to provide a bit of balance, was stricken from the article by an anonymous viewer. Without that balance, especially, I think it is best to strike it all. There is some wikipedia criteria about UNDUE WEIGHT, which applies. However, I am keeping the passage here, to provide for further discussion. Comments, anyone? doncram (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed passage:

In 1983 Joseph A. Tainter and G. John Lucas published "Epistemology of the Significance Concept," in American Antiquity. The paper dealt with the notion of significance and the "dilemma" it presented concerning which properties were included on the NRHP and which ones were not. The main idea underlying Lucas' and Tainter's paper was the quest for a "deeper understanding" of the notion of significance as it pertained to historic preservation efforts in the United States. Through that deeper understanding they hoped to "suggest possible courses of action for dealing with some aspects of the significance dilemma." The two criticized the idea of significance as it was applied by the NRHP, stating that three of the criteria for inclusion basically defined significance as "significant." The fourth criterion, they stated, defined the concept as "important." Tainter and Lucas' view drew considerable response from the larger academic community.

Stephen Mikesell argued a similar position in 1986 in his paper, published in The Public Historian. Mikesell called the NRHP criteria "so broad as to be almost useless when evaluating specific properties." A 1987 paper by Jerry L. Rogers in The Public Historian criticized the lack of a "human touch" in the way the program was administered by the National Park Service. The author contended the process was highly decentralized. Rogers further noted that federal historic preservation officers did not receive much training.

The National Park Service has since performed numerous Theme Studies which identify candidate landmarks in broad topic areas. The Theme Studies may have substantially alleviated the issues raised in these articles.

References

Oh yes, no one would ever criticize the register today. Give me a break. You remove material cited from academic journals because you think it's old? That's nonsense about undue weight. You really think there isn't criticism of this crap? Seriously? They'll list just about anything on this register of historic places, the criteria are wishy washy. Have you ever nominated a property? Do you even know what the hell you're talking about? --208.82.225.232 (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to dismiss criticisms lightly, but I also don't want to include criticism that appears to be invalid or outdated, without proper explanation of how the criticism was once valid and what has changed. One thing that has changed is that the NRHP program has been reshaped greatly, in my view, by use of Theme Studies / Multiple Property Submissions. I would be happy to include criticism that appears to be currently valid in the article (and even include discussion of criticism that used to be valid) if well-sourced and put into context. About the specific criticisms removed above, without access to the articles myself and other research it is hard for me really to know if they are valid. For example, I wouldn't want the 1983 criticism included in the article if it is commenting about previous criteria for NRHP designation. Perhaps its comments were about criteria that have not changed, though, in which case it is more relevant.

From the California OHP, statement of "Criteria for National Register Designation":

To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history (Criterion A).
2. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past (Criterion B).
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion C).
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory (Criterion D).

I could see those phrases potentially being dismissed as circular, if they are a definition of signficance, as they essentially define eligibility as significance, significance, significance, and importance. However it may be they are now phrases defining eligibility, not phrases defining significance, in which case there would be no circularity. So, the criticisms may or may not be valid now, it would take access to the criticism and some more research to verify.

However, I would also be concerned that those criticisms applied to the summary-type statements that were perhaps the only guidelines available in 1983. Now, there is a very extensive manual providing guidance on evaluating NRHP eligibility (linked in this article). Was the manual created since 1983, perhaps even in response to the criticism? If so, it still would be okay and good to describe the criticism then and the changes that it led to, to provide a historical perspective for considering the quality of NRHP designations through time. doncram (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming proposals

FYI to potentially interested folks: There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals of proposals to rename several NRHP-related articles and categories. --Orlady (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

The McKinley National Memorial is an NHL but is certainly not a National Memorial according to the NPS. The Ohio Historical Society sign has it wrong, IMO. I'd like to "move" the page to William McKinley Tomb or some other recognized name for accuracy. Anyone else have an opinion before I proceed?--Appraiser (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There's been discussion of the name on the article talk page. You might get some more discussion if you posted a message there (or maybe not).
From my limited research, I'd say it should not be renamed "Tomb." The official sign in front of it (pictured in the article) says it's the "McKinley National Memorial". http://www.mckinleymuseum.org/mckinley_memorial calls it the "McKinley Memorial" and/or "McKinley Monument" and/or "McKinley National Memorial." The article and that website both say that it was erected by the McKinley National Memorial Association. I found a website selling a souvenir from its dedication in 1907, when it was opened to the public as the "McKinley National Memorial." It appears to me that the fact that it's not a National Park Service "National Memorial" does not alter the fact that its name is "McKinley National Memorial." --Orlady (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Resource Area

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

Per Orlady's copying the question to there, please continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Multiple Resource Area instead. doncram (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about destroyed/moved structures

This has probably been discussed but have two additional questions:

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

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

I copied the two above questions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, as I think they are a better fit for the project-wide discussion than for this article-specific discussion. --Orlady (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, continue the discussion there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Question about destroyed/moved structures. I thought this was there, already! doncram (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for links?

[2nd try using special "create a new..." link]

Inclusion criteria for links?

What is the inclusion criteria for links? Is it just Don's personal opinion or are there quantifiable measures that can be applied? I ask because I added a link http://usnris.freebase.com which was immediately reverted (although it wasn't labeled a reversion). The site is similar in nature to http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ in that it's a structured database as opposed to freeform text like Wikipedia, but it has the added advantage that it's strongly connected with topics about things other than just the sites, so you can find all National Register sites that a particular architect designed or sites which are associated with a university or other similar types of queries.

The reversion comment mentioned that the site is a "copycat" of Wikipedia which would indicate that Don didn't even follow the link since it's nothing like Wikipedia. It would seem appropriate to actually investigate before just doing knee-jerk deletes of new information.

I believe that the site includes useful information which is not replicated anywhere else on the web. How do I get a link to it included?65.215.113.195 (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC) 65.215.113.195 (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sufficient for Notability

Is inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places sufficient to mean a place is notable? I have been looking at our article on the Cox-Craddock House and the article seems to have no claim to notability other than an undocumented claim it is on this Register. Is this register enough, or is there some way to establish notability from this register, and to cite the register in a proper way? An additional problem I have, though this is perhaps not relevant here is though it seems to be a nice house built by an Architect - in a way don't all houses have architects - it is in a style similar to many others. Are such houses notable as examples of work or just because all work is notable? Is this Architect (Hugo Kuehne) notable? Any help would be welcome. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

I have documented the claim to be on the register - and produced a little article on the architect but still no help as to the Register and Notability (Msrasnw (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

I've responded briefly at Talk:Cox-Craddock House to the effect that if you want to find out why this particular house is notable, you should obtain the NRHP application document (or sometimes it is a "registration document" or an "inventory document") that is available for free upon request to the National Register.

But, yes, an individual listing on the National Register is presumed to be wikipedia-notable by Wikipedia editors, because: a) the place has been deemed National Register eligible by a process of nomination and approvals involving state and Federal officials and architectural historians and other experts, and b) there is extensive documentation available (namely the NRHP application document, whether it has been received or not). This view has been held in multiple previous AFDs and other decisions. By the way someone commented that this is one of 1,000,000 NRHP-listed properties, which is a misstatement. This is one of about 84,000 separate NRHP listings, all listed here. Most of these deserve a separate article, but some could be covered in combo articles that cover all the listed works of a given architect instead, for example. Given that no one has obtained the NRHP document describing the Cox-Craddock House, in my opinion it is best to keep it as a separate article for now. doncram (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Doncram - many thanks for your reply. The document that I found and added, which is the only real source on the article, seems to have the info produced for the NRHP listing. But my feeling is we need someone to somehow make the case in the article simliar at least in some repsects to that that has been presented to the NRHP. Just saying that we have an article because it is on the NRHP list without saying why is, in my view, not right. I do think there is a clear COI problem with this list and this house might be an example of it. As I read it you get a tax break of around $2000/year for filling in a form which describes the house and the architect - and the local governement gets the benefit of having historic houses - everyone gains - how historic the house is doesn't matter so much. Anyway I have made an article on the architect now - but it is a bit thin - and then this house is really just an examplar of his work. I am still dubious though about this process. The house is a nice house - but so are millions of others - it is by an architect - all houses have architect. This house is one of many in the street that are similar - the architect himself had a house on the street. I think there are few houses on the street that could not apply and get this status - some with more justification than this one! Anyway thanks (Msrasnw (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

As the article exists, I don't see any indication that the house is notable. However, in order to get listed on the National Register, someone must have convinced the National Park Service that the house possesses significance. That significance can be related to (for example) its architecture, one of its owners, or something that happened there. The linked reference in this article includes the National Register nomination form. That form indicates that the main significance of this house is that it is an example of the work of a locally prominent architect and it hasn't been altered much. For example, consider the following excerpts: "The house and its setting maintain a high degree of integrity, ... the terraces and drive have not been altered, and the original landscaping is largely intact ... The design of the house remains true to the architect's intent...." IMO, it would make a lot of sense to merge the information about this house into the article about its architect, as it appears that the house is notable only as an excellent example of his work. --Orlady (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the City of Austin package linked in the article includes only a partial copy of the NRHP nom form, which omits the key "Narrative Statement of Significance" section (I explain further at Talk:Cox-Craddock House). So any arguments so far towards merging away that particular article are inadequately informed, IMO. doncram (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Source 19

The link is invalid. 0xg0ldpk3rx0 (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

National Historic District

There's discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 5#National Historic District about the term "National Historic District", which seems to be incorrect usage but sometimes used to refer to historic districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Comments there welcome about a proposed dab or a redirect or deletion.

I am wondering about including a short section in this NRHP article, perhaps "Terminology", that would discuss the term and perhaps others, and give an official type view that the term, while used even in some NPS informal webpages, is informal and not correct. This section would then be the natural target of a redirect from the term National Historic District. --doncram (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes to 507 Furnace Brook Parkway

507 Furnace Brook Pkwy, Quincy, Ma02170 the Historic Granite Garage has been domolished on 1/23/2012 and there are plans to erect two wings (22' x 20' each) on either side of Cape style building and removing the two Gas tanks (UST) and installing two drywells next to Parkway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.169.19 (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Merger complete

  Y Merger complete. All information from Recent past has been merged into this article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Luston Homes

My husband and I are in the process of buying a Luston home in Kingsport Tenn we where trying to find out if it was on this site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.71.148 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Try spelling it "Lustron" if you want to search for it. --Orlady (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a List of Lustron houses list in Wikipedia which includes probably all the National Register-listed Lustron homes, but none in Kingsport, Tennessee. The Lustron house article provides more info. Probably all Lustron homes are of historic interest, and your one could possibly be National Register-eligible. Good luck. --doncram 12:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

historic native american site

I used to live in a certain county in Ohio i believe is was the site of a mass native american summer encampment. when they would plow the field we would find arrow heads, ax heads made of flint also stone marbles.I believe it to be the summer place for the chippawa(not spelled correct) Indian. there is a large river near by and a huge flat open field.I believe this place should be looked at as a possible historic site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.45.91 (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Yours Truly Robert J Voshel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.45.91 (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Identification numbers

I wonder if anyone can tell me, what are the USN Number and the NR Number, and why aren't they provided for in the Infobox template? I found them at CRIS > SEARCH. Thanks a lot! Vzeebjtf (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, are photos attached to an NRHP Nomination or Registration Form public domain? Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in National Register of Historic Places

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of National Register of Historic Places's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nhlsum":

• From List of threatened historic sites in the United States: "Fort St. Philip". National Historic Landmark summary listing. National Park Service. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
• From Elissa (ship): "Elissa (Bark)". National Historic Landmark summary listing. National Park Service. Archived from the original on 2009-11-13. Retrieved 2009-07-03. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Register of Historic Places. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621134010/http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/PDFs/200493.pdf to http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/PDFs/200493.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302203928/http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200636 to http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200636

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Move

We've moved! The National Register of Historic Places homepage has moved. Click OK to be redirected to our new URL: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/index.htm

This would mean a lot of references will have to be changed. CapnZapp (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

First time updating an outdated reference, probably did it wrong

I think I updated reference [12] "Criteria Bulletin" with an archived copy. Let me know if I messed up. Danakontos (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Note needs written

The four states with the most properties on the National Register are New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Kentucky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvoShandor (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

References