Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 18

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Orlady in topic Names for categories
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Problem exporting coordinates as GeoRSS

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When I click the "Export microformated coordinates as GeoRSS" at List of Registered Historic Places in Contra Costa County, California, it returns "No Geo Points found". I know I've done this before with other Registered Historic Places lists. It should pop up a window that prompts me to save a file. All of the other links under "Map of all coordinates" work as expected. The "Export points of interest as KML" link works, but when I use it, it doesn't retain the name labels for each location when I import the coordinates into Google Maps. Would someone else out there try the link that fails for me and see if you get the same thing? Thanks. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Address-based listing naming conventions proposal and style suggestion

Latest comment: 16 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion

After hundreds of NRHP articles, I finally got to my first "House At ..." article this week, House at 3 Crown Street. I know we've written quite a few of these already (Apartment Building at 2225 N Street, Commercial Building at 32 West Bridge Street, to cite some non-house examples). In one case (South Park Lofts), I renamed one after the name its redeveloper chose for it. And I do think we should try to do that sort of thing where possible. But that's not my concern here.

I have complained elsewhere about some editors' too-slavish devotion to the NPS's naming conventions (I'm pretty sure that most churches do not include "Complex" or "...And Rectory" in their formal names, and there's no reason for us to use them since our church articles should be as much about the congregation as the building(s)). And here, for a property listing of the format "BUILDING TYPE at NUMBER STREET", we should go a little further and disambiguate as "BUILDING TYPE at NUMBER STREET, CITY, STATE".

Therefore, "House at 3 Crown Street" would become "House at 3 Crown Street, Nelsonville, New York" and so forth. I'd prefer commas be used rather than parentheses because after all, the article title is a location, not a proper name. Using parentheses would imply the latter, and the commas work just as well for disambiguation should there be, say, two "Overgrown Vacant Lot at 123 Main Street"s listed in the country.

I do think we need to do this. First, there are probably a lot of Crown Streets (et al) in the English-speaking world. Is everyone supposed to know this one in a small village in the Hudson Valley? And without the town in the title, these look like the sort of articles people used to put up as jokes in the early days, when they knew it would end up on BJAODN, when we had BJAODN ("Tree in my parents' backyard" was one; there used to be a hilarious AfD involving some note posted on the door of a Finnish apartment complex). So, what does everyone else think?

And my style proposal is also related to the fact that "House at ..." is not a proper name. In the lede when you boldface the name, don't capitalize "House" (as I did with 3 Crown Street). Can we do that in the future too? Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was kind of curious as to why there are a lot of generic named "House at..." listings on the National Register, as opposed to the more common practice of naming the house after its most famous resident(s). I queried the database and found that there are 692 entries that begin with "House at" or "Houses at". Of that number, 626 are part of a Multiple Property Submission. One of these examples is San Jose Estates Thematic Resource Area in Jacksonville, Florida, which has about 21 properties. So, I'd be willing to guess that a lot of these "generic" houses are part of a common theme, rather than being individually famous. That's just something to think about when writing the articles, I guess.
As far as the actual naming convention goes, I think the idea of naming them "House at 310 South Beaver, Flagstaff, Arizona" makes sense. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Two questions. Daniel has revised the article to downcase the name of the house: "The house at 3 Crown Street in Nelsonville, New York, United States is located at...." The downcased version seems a little jarring to me, as if the editor is making a point that the name of the places is definitely not to be capitalized and/or that "House at 3 Crown Street" cannot be used as a proper noun-type name to refer to the place. But that point is belied by the NRHP infobox which, properly in my view, shows the NRHP name for the site "House at 3 Crown Street". And the article title will also have House capitalized. I tend to agree that "House at 3 Crown Street" is sort of lame, but it is the NRHP program name for the place. If some source calls it the Smith Family House or whatever, then you could choose to use that for the article title, but apparently there is no family-name derived name for this house or you would be using it. Comparing then, which looks better for the intro:
For me, offhand I think i prefer the former, for it not creating any issue for the reader about how one can refer to the house. Second, for the article title, i agree it seems natural to include Nelsonville, New York in the title. But why do you prefer the comma version "House at 3 Crown Street, Nelsonville, New York" rather than "House at 3 Crown Street (Nelsonville, New York)"? The latter would be more compatible with other NRHP article names like "Smith House (Nelsonville, New York)", The Birches (Garrison, New York) or St. Andrew's Episcopal Church (Brewster, New York). Or would you also prefer to change all of those to use commas rather than parentheses, too? doncram (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It is not a proper name. That, to me, settles it. Bringing up the article title and infobox hed is disingenuous because they are not preceded by articles; therefore they should be capitalized in those situations. More importantly, the policy page is very clear about this: "With place-names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses, as in Windsor, Berkshire." --Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, wp:NCDAB is not clear about that, by my reading. And hey, "disingenuous" is a rather loaded term to apply vis-a-vis what i wrote. My point was not at all "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere" (dictionary.com). My point was simply that using the first word capitalized in the article title which you yourself chose House at 3 Crown Street and also the capitalized use in the NRHP infobox title, sets up some dissonance for readers when you down-case the first word in the bolded phrase in the intro sentence. It raises the question for the reader, how can one refer to this place? It is a non-loaded point. I just stated that, and further said based on the discussion so far I currently (offhand) prefer not to set up that issue of dissonance for the reader. doncram (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I was too harsh. But I don't see it as any different than many other articles which capitalize their name in the title and an infobox but don't in the opening line. See Orlady's comment below ... she gets the point. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the city and state should be added to the article name right off. Isn't it about notability? There may be gajillion other houses at 3 Crown Street, but how many are notable? If it was House at 100 North Main Street, maybe. I'd check what links to a potential article before creating it. If nothing does, one should be OK. Pre-emptive disambiguation isn't always necessary, imho. So sayeth the creator of San Jose Estates Thematic Resource Area. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I think someone else will impose this on us eventually if we don't. I also feel this is a subtle instance of American bias which we try to reduce or eliminate here. I'd rather do it on our terms. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I've systematically renamed these to NUMBER STREET when I came across them. As far as I know, the only other class of buildings in WP often not known by a formal name are skyscrapers, and nobody ever thought of giving then a title other than their civic address (except for the cases when they were created as RHPs), so I don't quite see what adding the (exceedingly awkward, IMHO) specific at the beginning would be really useful for (besides following the NPS). Circeus (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We use names like 500 Fifth Avenue for articles about buildings that have been given those names by their owners/developers, or acquired them through widespread popular use.

I also feel that it's better for these articles, whose sole claim to notability is the NRHP listing, to have the property type included in the name. "House at 3 Crown Street" makes it clear that the house alone is what's notable, not, say, a garden shed or a detached garage (Compare with listings which include one or more outbuildings (or something else, like the remains of the foundation of the earlier house, or an old well or stone wall, as contributing resources). It seems to me they try not to list these on an address basis). Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, there was, at the outset of this project, an idea here to just not give those listings separate articles but keep them in the county lists. Given that the noms for most of these buildings tend to be short, that might be another idea to consider. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, there is a bit of a serious issue here, about the commas vs. the parentheses. I didn't mean to imply anything by my asking which you prefer above, i really was just asking. The issue is that our general use of town and state in parentheses to disambiguate NRHP properties is not blessed by any wikipedia naming convention policy guide, as far as I know. There is policy stating preference for commas for "place names", but meaning towns and other settlements, such as Windsor, Berkshire. But there is no specific guidance, and there are differences in practice, about using "place names" to disambiguate properties. I notice in particuliar that churches in England tend to be identified by article names using commas. This shows up in the disambiguation pages like St. John's Church, etc. I am thinking it could be in our interest to raise the issue properly in the naming conventions policy areas and get it sorted out. doncram (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Since "House at ..." is not part of any proper title but is instead one conferred on the building by the needs of the NPS's naming conventions (the same ones that insist on calling Slabsides the "John Burroughs Log Cabin", despite an explicit use of that name in Burroughs' own work), I consider it a place name. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I have always capitalized the "House" or "Commercial Building", as it seemed to make sense to me as a title. I also would have used parentheses, as it seems consistent with the way we title the disambiguations, and most reader wouldn't realize the difference. I don't really care, one way or the other about either of these issues, I just did what seemed most natural to me. I DO have an opinion about writing the articles about them. I like them all having articles. For instance, the Commercial Building at 32 West Bridge Street has plenty more in the nom, I just created the minimum 'cause I had a picture. I would definitely be against leaving them only in the county list. Lvklock (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Manual of Style seems pretty clear on the matter of capitalization. Aside from the first word in a title or sentence, capitalization should be used only for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters) and Wikipedia:Proper names). In article titles, the initial word and proper names should be capitalized, but other words should begin with a lower case letter (see WP:MOS#Article titles, headings and sections). Applying those rules, it seems to me that the articles should be entitled "House at 3 Crown Street, City, State" and "Commercial building at 32 West Bridge Street, City, State", and in the text of the articles the buildings should be called simply "house", "commercial building," or other appropriate uncapitalized nouns. --Orlady (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
But, methinks these are all proper noun names. The MOS guidelines where lower-casing is recommended are about article titles that are made up titles, not proper noun titles. So, yes, we all agree that "listings" is lower-cased in "National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin", as it is not a proper noun phrase, no matter what else we think of that title. Daniel has now repeated several times that NRHP names for sites are not proper noun names, but I think that is an opinion which is unusual, and that accepting it would create a lot of awkwardness. I guess I have always understood NRHP names to be proper noun titles, am a bit surprised to have to question that, and thinking about it I still believe that they are. Whether you believe NRHP names are proper noun names may depend on your belief of whether the National Register can "name" properties at all. If you believe that their use of a proper noun type name on their forms and in their systems does not name a place, and other documentation is required to assert that the NRHP-given title for the place is in fact a proper noun name by some other standard of what makes a proper noun name, then that would create a lot of confusion and work for us. I don't even see how to start, to reexamine whether every NRHP title like "Lewis House" should really be restated as "Lewis house", etc.
Anyhow, the NRIS system reports "Commercial Building at 32 West Bridge Street". That will no doubt also be the NRHP.Com title for the place (yup, see here), and it will no doubt also be the Archiplanet.com title for the place. The NRHP inventory/nomination form's section 1 (Name of property) reads: "historic name: Commercial Building at 32 West Bridge Street" (my italics denoting what was filled in on the form). I believe that the NRHP weekly listing would have shown the same, just as this Aug 2008 weekly listing recently showed "Cobblestone Farmhouse at 1229 Birdsey Road". (By the way, there apparently no NRHP form for House at 3 Crown Street; its NYS form reads "Residence at 3 Crown Street" (my italics for what is filled in on the form).) I think it's easiest to understand that if the property was not already named "Commercial Building at 32 West Bridge Street" by other acceptable authority, the NRHP has now named the property, as reported in the weekly listings and as nominated in documents and as seconded in websites by echoing of the NRIS name. The result, whether created by the NRHP or not, is the name "Commercial Building at 32 West Bridge Street", now a proper noun name. doncram (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say that none of the NRHP names are proper nouns, just that the ones derived from addresses aren't. I accept the names derived from former residents, businesses or nearby locations as proper because those terms are already proper names to begin with. If someone buys 32 West Bridge Street, Catskill, New York, redevelops it and gives it a name, we would use it. We don't always do the same for properties with existing name-derived names. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, the NRHP and NRIS follow a stylistic convention in which property designations are listed in title case (capitalizing all major words). The fact that terms like "Boundary Increase" or "Commercial Building" or "House" appear there with initial capitalization does not make these words into proper names. I have no quarrel with capitalizing "House" when it's part of a name like "John Jones House", nor with capitalizing "Commercial Building" if it appears that this was the building's proper name at one time ("The Commercial Building"), but when these are merely generic descriptive words that are capitalized due to the NRIS style convention, they should not also be capitalized in Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)While Bulletin 16a does not specifically state that capital letters be used, all the examples they provide all have capital letters. Regardless, once you make up a name for what you are nominating, that becomes its title - and it should be written in title case. Once it is on the NRHP, is not "any" house at 123 Fake Street, but THE "House at 123 Fake Street". Einbierbitte (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts: I have found that there are naming conventions: X Island, Florida is a settlement, while X Island (Florida)]] is a geographic feature. Similarly churches in the US are usually Christ Church (City and State), while a settlement would be Christ Church, State. The English do it differently, e.g. Christ Church, Paddington, with or without commas. They don't have 50 states to worry about or the number of places we have. Also I think the NRHP purposely lists House at 39 Main Street, rather than 39 Main Street house. Initial numbers do not list or aphabetize very well. Why put city and state afterwards if there are no others of the same address? If you do put city and states it should be in parentheses. If you can find a more specific name for House at 39 Main Street, go ahead and use it with a redirect from House at 39 Main Street. clariosophic (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that in this case, since the title is descriptive of a location, the comma should be used (Note that neighborhoods within cities (Chelsea, Manhattan and Chelsea, London, for instance) use commas, not parentheses. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the NRHP name is a proper noun. I would imagine that the somewhat murky (to me) distinctions being made here would discourage newbies who were corrected for using the title from the NRHP documentation when creating a new article. Granted I'm a numbers person not an English major, but it makes no sense to me to say the NRHP title for the property isn't a proper noun. And, if you have to be an English major to understand this and contribute properly, then I imagine there'd be a bunch of us who wouldn't be here. Lvklock (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Orlady says it above even better than I could. I will just restate my position: an included family name passes on the proper-noun quality; a property known solely by its address does not. The NPS's naming conventions exist for its purposes, not necessarily ours. "St. Ignatius's Roman Catholic Church" does not automatically become "St. Ignatius's Roman Catholic Church Rectory and Complex" when it gets listed on the Register because that's the NPS decides to list it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The reason we're writing the article is because of it's membership on this list, which confers the notability, therefore it makes sense to me that the list's name should be our name, including relevant capitalization. Membership on the list makes it notable, but we think the list's names are wrong? This whole thing will make me think twice about creating one of these articles because these distinctions don't make sense to me and I'm not gonna spend the time looking up this conversation every time I come across one to try to figure it out. Seems to DIScourage contribution. Just my opinion. Lvklock (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Calvary Episcopal Church (Louisville, Kentucky)

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can't find a related deletion sorting, if it exists, for the project but courtesy heads up - this is an NRHP property currently at AfD TravellingCari 22:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising it here. There is no other deletion sorting place within wp:NRHP, as there is for some other wikiprojects. And the article survived the AfD. doncram (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

requested move on William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've requested renaming William Aiken House and associated railroad structures back to William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures. This is a NHL in South Carolina. Please feel free to join discussion at its talk page.

My purpose, stated at wp:Requested moves: "To restore usage of official NHL and NRHP program names for the historic district, seeking wider input due to some apparently differing opinions within wp:NRHP". doncram (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not the way to reach a decision that I hoped for, but i myself just over-rode the previous move, restoring the official name "William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures‎", despite there NOT being a consensus reached, for reasons stated in my concluding statement at the Talk page. Perhaps no one participating wanted to concede they were wrong, but there was no serious alternative ever put forward. I have (hopefully) closed the discussion, fearing that it would be worse to try to "force" people to concede.
Pennyspender, a non-NRHP-regular, commented (sanely in my view) about the wish by several NRHPers to use the non-capitalized non-official name:

I am not sure that the issue has been thought through. For example, if you think the title should follow WP:MOS over the convention used by NRHP, then it should be Ashley River historic district, not Ashley River Historic District, or Robert Brewton house not Robert Brewton House. So those who are saying that Associated Railroad Structures should not be capitalized contradict themselves unless they are changing every title that capitalizes the words "house," "residence," "property," etc. (with the exception of the historic sites that have become museums or tourist sites under some formalized or widely-accepted capitalized name (like the William Blacklock House which has been named formally by the College of Charleston here)).

I personally would not want to open all 15,000 NRHP articles to re-titling for not well-thought-out reasons. Hope this is read and considered. doncram (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This all or nothing argument just doesn't work, associated railroad structures is a proper noun and not just official nonsense is what you seem to be saying. I say it's official nonsense. Widely accepted convention establishes historic houses with the word house in their title as proper nouns, same with historic districts. Not so much for associated railroad structures. --IvoShandor (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move on The Hermitage (Tennessee)

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've requested a move on The Hermitage (Tennessee), a NHL in Tennessee. See its talk page. doncram (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This one was resolved by Hunster by moving the article to an alternative name The Hermitage (Nashville, Tennessee). Some additional information provided by several about the local places with Hermitage in their names was helpful in reaching this solution. doncram (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

NRHPs in the news

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[1]

I should have the article done by the end of the day;) Murderbike (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Adler Planetarium

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

You may have noticed one of "our" sites in the news this week-Adler Planetarium.--Appraiser (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Overhead projector! That's one hell of an overhead projector. --IvoShandor (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It would have been cool if Obama could have said something like, "investing $1 per child that will visit the planetarium over the next 20 years is money well spent in pursuit of educating the next generation in the sciences."--Appraiser (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought of that one too. --IvoShandor (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Obama shoulda been reading here, before the $3 million projector came up in the last debate, too, I thought as i watched McCain repeat it. doncram (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

16 new NHLs designated! please feel free to chip in

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

16 new NHLs have been designated! See Interior Designates 16 New National Historic Landmarks. I was alerted by an edit to a sandbox draft for the Forty Acres article. The Department of the Interior's press release is here.

Sandbox drafts for many of these, previously started, are indexed at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NHLs2008sandbox.

Please feel free to edit any of these sandbox articles and to move them into mainspace when ready. Hopefully these should all be developed to 150 words or whatever is the DYK requirement, and put up for DYK promptly (although not necessarily all for the same day!). doncram (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hooray for the Guggenheim Museum! --IvoShandor (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Should we replace the infobox for it? ----DanTD (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The Weekly List for October 17 has 'em listed! Einbierbitte (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy birthday, wikiproject NRHP!

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Two years old, since Ebyabe created the wikiproject page....15,526 articles, 25 of those are featured, 527 of those are list-articles. doncram (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hooray for WP:NRHP. Thanks Ebyabe! Woot! How many GAs we got don? --IvoShandor (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Very cool! Lvklock (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
We have accomplished quite a lot in those two years. Huzzah! Einbierbitte (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
There are 66 GAs in the automated tally on wp:NRHP page. Although I hope that I and other wp:NRHPers will develop a bunch of GAs and FAs and FLs in the future, many or perhaps most of the GAs and FAs appearing in the automated tally to date are more to the credit of wp:SHIPs or other editor groups. As a group, we've produced an awesome amount of pretty darn good although not yet publicly recognized work, in our list-articles and the vast numbers of individual short articles created. But I think perhaps the biggest accomplishment of wp:NRHP so far has been empowering a bunch of diverse individuals to be productive wikipedia writers, editors, and photographers. doncram (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

County-level splits

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Is there any specific minimum size for splitting out a county's listings from the state page? Ohio is now 128 KB of text. Coshocton County, which does not have a separate page, has 19 listings, and several more have 18: are they perhaps large enough to get their own pages? Nyttend (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

How to organize the multiple pages necessary to cover a big state's NRHPs hasn't been sorted out well yet. No state's list system has gone to peer review or Featured List yet and received scrutiny from outside wp:NRHP. I wonder, for Ohio, how about setting up an overview at "National Register of Historic Places listings in Ohio" which lists the counties in a table, giving the count of NRHP sites in each county? This could include one pic per county, perhaps. The table entries would link to separate county lists. See List of RHPs in NY for a not-great-yet working example. The smaller counties' tables could be kept in one list-article as they are now, but renamed to be properly descriptive: perhaps "National Register of Historic Places listings in Ohio's smaller counties"? (Yes, by smaller i mean having fewer NRHP sites, not necessarily same as being smaller in geographic area. I think that is okay, can be clarified in intro of the list-article.) Or "National Register of Historic Places listings in Ohio counties with 10 or fewer"? Redirects should be set up now, from each county-type name to this smaller county list-article. That is, if you don't split out Coshocton County, at least set up a redirect from "National Register of Historic Places listings in Coshocton County, Ohio" to the smaller counties list-article.
To respond to your specific question, no there is not any specific minimum size dictated by anyone. The New York State counties were all split out separately (and in some cases further subdivided), but they go down in size to only as few as 13 NRHP listings. It would be very weird to have separate list-articles for the Ohio counties that just have 4 NRHP listings. Since the List of RHPs in OH is that big, i think you simply have to split out some more, bringing it down to under 100 KB or so. doncram (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
What I did with Washington's list, is split out counties, starting with the most sites, until I got the list down to about 80K. I didn't have to go below I think 20 sites for a split out list, but I've heard a couple people use 13 as a guide. I'll have to split out more counties from washington as more pictures and info gets worked into the tables, to keep the list from going over 80K. That seems like the important thing to me. Murderbike (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I used the same approach as Murderbike with the Alabama and Michigan lists. The TOC at the top of each state list italicizes links that lead to a separate county list article. The other states I've worked on (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and New Jersey) all have relatively few counties, each of which have enough of NRHP listings to warrant separate articles. In these cases, I just created separate list articles for each county. But I didn't quite know what to do about the state articles for these states, accounting for the lack of uniformity of these pages. I like doncram's approach with the New York state page. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that National Register of Historic Places listings in New York is a good model for a state-level list article that serves mainly as an index to county-specific lists. --Orlady (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

coordinates

Thanks for the advice. Before I split out a few counties, I'd like to ask: where do I get the coords? I just created Lincoln County Courthouse (Wyoming), and I couldn't find any coords, so I had to do my best with this website. Therefore, before I create any new county lists, I'd like to have a link for the coords that I could place on those county lists. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Map all coordinates using OpenStreetMap

Download coordinates as:

Since there are coordinates included in each of the county tables in List of RHPs in OH already, i am not sure what you mean by the question. The existing tables show NRIS-provided coordinates that were merged by Elkman with other information to create the county-list-tables. Or, more precisely, he set up an interface at http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/countylist.php where others can get his system to create any specific county-list-table, more or less complete. Someone else has already done that and cut and pasted county list tables into List of RHPs in OH, and then done other work to add newer listings not covered in the NRIS download that Elkman has access to, and done other other work to fix them up. Perhaps you mean, how do you get the coordinates to show in a Google map link? For that, just include the template "GeoGroupTemplate" in your new county list article, and it will magically show in a corresponding Google map all of the places for which coordinates are given in the article. To demonstrate, here are properly formed coordinate sets for 2 ohio sites:
These will be viewable in the Google map reached by clicking on "Map of all coordinates" link appearing above. doncram (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Hmm, i'm sorry i didn't follow your question at first. To get the coordinates for Lincoln County Courthouse (Wyoming), or any other NRHP site, you can use the individual NRHP infobox generator. It will include them. I was discussing that with you a few days ago at your talk page, although I didn't emphasize that the coordinates were part of the info provided if you would use the generator, rather than creating your own infobox from scratch or from copying from another article. There are some sites for which the NRIS system does not provide coordinates, in which case your method of finding some, if it works is fine. And, the NRIS-provided coordinates are often slightly off, in part because many were collected under a geological survey system used for USGS contour maps, etc., prior to the current, highly accurate GPS system (which moved some places by 40 yards or so). doncram (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Since many coordinates for the older listings are innacurate, I prefer to use TerraServer aerial photos and get the coordinates that way. Einbierbitte (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminders; I do understand that I could have been more plain about this, since I knew that the Ohio listings all had coords, and I was (as you understood properly) more asking about non-tableised counties. I think I'll go ahead and make Coshocton County, at least, tonight. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

NRHP list-article on National Register featured properties at AfD

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am fuming that one of the wp:NRHP member/editors has put up a NHRP list-article for deletion, despite my asking that it not be taken in that direction. Help in dealing with this would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts. doncram (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Next round of NHL noms

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Park Service has a page for the next round of possible NHL moves (8 new ones and one withdrawal that I think will be noncontroversial; the article we have on it already reflects the reason why).

Most of these are out in the West and Midwest this time:

Possible NHL withdrawal:

I'm sure we can get what we need for these long before the designations are handed down. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a color picture of Christ Church Lutheran (Minneapolis), but I'm not sure I like the photo a lot. I took it in the early evening, so the colors look a little bit off. If I get a chance, I might go by there again this weekend and see if I can take a photo I like better. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

More Elkman stuff

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Today, I used the Elkman link mentioned above to create tables for certain counties nationwide, only to discover that it's not terribly up-to-date: the Gove County, Kansas listing only includes one place, although Sanfranman59's edit summary seems to say that another place in Gove County (a barn) was listed six months ago. Does anyone know (1) how up-to-date this generator is, and (2) where I can get the missing information for this building from another source, seeing that I don't know the address? Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The database from which I'm getting my queries (at this link) was last updated on April 15, 2008. They aren't really punctual at updating it all the time, but whenever I see an update, I'll update my copy of the database. In the meantime, the missing information can be gleaned from the NRHP weekly lists of National Register updates. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The barn is on the Weekly List from April 25, 2008. Einbierbitte (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Funny, to comment at User talk:Nyttend i also started to look at those NPS weekly listings, working backwards from the most recent one in the index. I gave up partway. Either u were lucky and started by going forward, or you had to look at a whole lot of them! :) doncram (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a lot of patience :) . I worked backwards from most recent date on the Kansas list, and just scanned until I found it. It really wasn't too hard. Einbierbitte (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, this week's (October 24) list has a lot of Kansas in it! Einbierbitte (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

USS Arizona (shipwreck) Merge Discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In creating the USS Arizona (shipwreck) article, I tried to keep it focused on the wreck itself (which is the NHL) rather than the USS Arizona Memorial around it (which is a NRHP). There's a merge proposal which essentially boils down to "they seem like the same thing". In the end, I'm not too worried about this, but thought others might want to weigh in. dm (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Names for categories

Latest comment: 16 years ago28 comments10 people in discussion

FYI on CfD discussions

Wikiproject participants who don't monitor WP:CfD are likely unaware that some the "Railroad-related" and "Infrastructure-related" RHP categories are up for discussion there, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 8#Category:Railroad-related Registered Historic Places and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 8#Category:Infrastructure-related Registered Historic Places, respectively. --Orlady (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

These have been closed with the new name "X-related listings on the National Register of Historic Places". Daniel Case (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of names for geographic categories

Now that significant progress has been made in renaming the "List of Registered Historic Places in" articles to "National Register of Historic Places listings in", it's time to see if we have consensus on how to rename the various related "RHP" categories. This was discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals, but it's fair to say that the discussion did not end in consensus. IMO, it would be productive to discuss this here before taking proposals to WP:CfD.

Here are three proposals to get started:

Support this--Appraiser (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

--Orlady (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Support this--Appraiser (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I like your last two, which to me are really one (the "U.S. insular area" term was, I believe, created to include territories and such). Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I like the last two also, but I think that the first one doesn't sound quite right. I have no alternative suggestions, however, since that particular description seems to be the only one that fits. Is there a bot or semi-automated process that can be used to update the article categories after CfD? I just ask since each state seems to have in the range of 125 to 600 articles in their respective "Registered Historic Places in _____" categories, which is a lot more than most CfD candidates. Altairisfartalk 06:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The task of updating categories following a rename is something that bots frequently do. They seem to be good at this task. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In view of support (lack of opposition) here, I've the "by insular area" and "...Places in..." proposals to WP:CfD, but I confess that I have not finished tagging all of the "in __ County" categories for several states. (Bot assistance is needed.)--Orlady (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that all these geographic NRHP categories are in the process of being renamed, can we at least add the original histories to them? ----DanTD (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I've passed your question along at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Category histories for moved categories? --Orlady (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Registered Historic Places of religious function obviously needs to be renamed. It currently contains over 600 entries, and is likely to grow substantially. Sites include churches, religious schools, synagogues, Native American ritual sites, burial grounds, convents, chapels, etc. Sub-categories could be created to break up the massive list, although the vast majority are "churches". So I propose just two new categories, with #2 being a sub-category of #1:

  1. Category:Spirituality-related listings on the National Register of Historic Places
  2. Category:Churches on the National Register of Historic Places

--Appraiser (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure how burial grounds and Native American sites really fit into a similar category. The parent category of Category:Churches is Category:Religious buildings, and that's a subcategory of Category:Religious places. Category:Native American religious places is a subcategory of Category:Religious places. Moreover, I'm not sure how many Native American archaeological sites have been identified as religious places or not.
I think we should try to follow current category conventions as close as is practical. How about:
I'm not sure yet what to do with cemeteries, because there are many non-sectarian cemeteries on the National Register (such as the chapel of Lakewood Cemetery in Minneapolis and the African Burying Ground in New York City).
As an aside, I checked the National Register database to see how religious buildings and structures are categorized there. There are 6122 structures classified as religious structures, of which 1398 don't contain "church" in the name, such as temples, synagogues, convents, chapels, cathedrals, and others. There are 482 ceremonial sites, 516 church schools, and 766 church-related residences. Funerary places are a separate category in the NRIS from religious places. There are 1472 cemeteries, 687 grave/burial sites, and 102 mortuaries. Places in the NRIS may be listed under multiple historic subfunctions. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I like your proposal. Do you want to further break down the categories into: cathedrals, mosques, temples, Friends meeting houses, and the like? As for Category:Cemeteries on the National Register of Historic Places, that is a a good starting point. For individual graves not part of a cemetery we can have Category:Graves/Burial sites on the National Register of Historic Places and Category:Mortuaries on the National Register of Historic Places. Do cemeteries need to be broken down by denomination or "colored cemeteries"? I think that a generic "cemetery" category will be sufficient. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Where would a mausoleum like the Tacoma Mausoleum go? Murderbike (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing that says that a Wikipedia category needs to be created for every conceivable subdivision. I don't believe that NRHP subcategories currently exist for graves, burial sites, mortuaries, or mausoleums. --Orlady (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
We could put them together with Category:Monuments and memorials on the National Register of Historic Places in some sort of funerary or memorial topic-level cat. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... It seems to me that Category:Religious buildings on the National Register of Historic Places might exclude some listed properties (not to mention historic districts) that are not buildings. How about Category:National Register of Historic Places listings of religious function? That would retain the "of religious function" wording, which seems to work well in the existing category.
However, I support Category:Churches on the National Register of Historic Places and Category:Synagogues on the National Register of Historic Places. --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
You guys are too hardcore for me. :-) --IvoShandor (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I support Orlady's suggestion for the topic-level cat, "National Register of Historic Places listings of religious function", as better than "religion-related NRHP listings" would be. "Spirituality" is not only a rather nebulous term, it seems to be an implied diss of Native American religion. And I know I made fun of "religious function" a while back (as in, should we describe some of the NPS comfort stations as "...of bodily function"? But I think it works. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment about spirituality related to Native American religion. Are you saying that churches, synagogues, and mosques are NOT related to spirituality? I think that word best encompasses all beliefs. And again, I object to following "Places" immediately with "listings" if there is an alternative. It reads and sounds ridiculous.--Appraiser (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it sort of implied to me that Native American beliefs weren't really a religion. You answer suggests that you don't believe that, so let's just leave it at that.

But what's wrong with "religion"? All those property types would easily come under it without argument. What would "spirituality" include that religion would overlook? Wiktionary defines it partially as "Concern for that which is unseen and intangible, as opposed to physical or mundane." How many buildings/sites/districts/structures would that include? Would, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson's house be considered spiritual because, well, he must have had some spiritual experiences there? Walden Pond? Do we have to include every home of a religious figure under that category? As I understand the definition of spirituality, yes.

As for "Places listings", I think it's OK when you remember that "Places" is the last word in an adjectival phrase, and not a noun in that construction. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any particular problem with the word "religion" (or "faith", "spirituality", or "belief in the supernatural", for that matter), but your most recent response piqued my curiosity. I used Google for 0.19 seconds and found this, which indicates that what you thought I meant might be true (even though I wasn't actually thinking that initially). Concerning biographical homes, I think Emerson is better known as an author and poet than as a religious/spiritual figure. However, if Edward Payson's home were on the Register, perhaps it should be in this category, as he is known mainly for his role as a preacher.--Appraiser (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
If it comes down to it, we should probably ask over at WP:IPNA whether it would be appropriate to list any Native American sites listed due to their sacred aspects in a category under a "Religion-related" topical parent cat.

As for Emerson, you're missing my point. Emerson is known as a writer, but as the Transcendentalist's Transcendentalist many of his writings have a spiritual dimension, one apart from a religious context. You cannot talk about Emerson in depth without talking about this. So, too, with Thoreau, who shacked himself up in the woods by the pond for spiritual reasons. Daniel Case (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this:
  • Category:Sacred sites on National Register of Historic Places
    • Category:Churches on National Register of Historic Places
      • Category:Cathedrals on National Register of Historic Places
      • Category:Chapels on National Register of Historic Places
      • Category:Church schools on National Register of Historic Places
      • Category:Convents on National Register of Historic Places
      • Category:Meeting Houses on National Register of Historic Places
    • Category:Funerary sites on National Register of Historic Places
      • Category:Burial sites on National Register of Historic Places (for individual graves or other burial sites not designated as a "cemetery")
      • Category:Cemeteries on National Register of Historic Places (for places designated as a "cemetery")
      • Category:Massacre memorials on National Register of Historic Places
      • Category:Mortuaries on National Register of Historic Places
    • Category:Mosques on National Register of Historic Places
    • Category:Native American sacred sites on National Register of Historic Places
    • Category:Synagogues on National Register of Historic Places
etc. This would allow for listing not only buildings but also where buildings used to be, and anywhere else where the people consider "sacred" regardless of if the site housed/hosted a religious dogma or not, but also avoiding the too broad of a "feel-good" associated with "spiritual", but some subcategories falling under several different main categories. CJLippert (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
You know what? I actually think I like this, with a few amendments. The massacre memorials cat should really be a subcat of "Monuments and memorials on the National Register of Historic Places" (this seems to be the the accepted nomenclature; later we could subdivide by war, by memorials to individuals, if desired). There are also some Monasteries on the National Register of Historic Places (like this one, for instance).

Also, is the "house" in this usage of "Meeting House" capitalized in the plural? Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification of CfD for nerger of Category:Lists of Registered Historic Places in Virginia

The subject category is a one-of-a-kind that seemed to me unnecessary to keep, so I proposed a merger over at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 22#Category:Lists of Registered Historic Places in Virginia. If you have an opinion, please express it there! --Orlady (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Still need to rename the category for state lists

Category:Lists of Registered Historic Places by state still needs a new name. My earlier suggestion of Category:Lists by state of National Register of Historic Places listings went over with a dull thud. Here are some new ideas:

My preference is for Category:National Register of Historic Places lists by state (which might be confusingly close to Category:National Register of Historic Places by state), but I can easily imagine that someone else will have a better idea. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_18&oldid=1051966858"