Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Collaboration/archives/National Register of Historic Places

NRHP Project collaboration edit

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)[reply]

Prose edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 edit

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)[reply]

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 edit

For the "History" section: Ernest Connally - first director of OAHP.IvoShandor 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FYI edit

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)[reply]

Intro edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Organization edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Needed topics for inclusion edit

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))[reply]
Property types: ~~needs expansion~~ IvoShandor 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikilinks edit

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)[reply]

Numbers edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

History edit

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)[reply]

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

Peer review edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Problem with intro edit

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:

"As of 2007, the list includes more than 80,000 entries, including many icons of American culture, history, engineering, and architecture."
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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