Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:15, 10 March 2013

National Register of Historic Places Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WT:NRHP

How to address geocoding when a facility moves from historic location

Los Alamos National Laboratory has a National Historic Landmark District located in the town of Los Alamos. The wiki page for LANL has the infobox and geocode for this NHL. The issue is: the lab moved south and west of the town in the 1940s, well before it was created a NHL. So: should the wiki page for the lab use the historic coordinates to match the NHL, or the current coordinates? I had changed it to current coordinates but have no idea whether there's a protocol about this buried somewhere. See Talk:Los Alamos National Laboratory too. --Officiallyover (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've posted on the talk page there and suggest we keep the conversation in one place (there). My basic advice is to split the article in two, one for the current entity and one for the historic site. It strikes me as being analogous to a notable church congregation that moves out of its historical church building, but without the problem of having two resulting stubs. I seem to remember a few of these church problems, with the usual resulting advice being to split. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Covered bridges are moved with some regularity - I am not sure a split into two articles would work since there is one physical structure which has been in two (or more) locations. Just in Columbia County, Pennsylvania three (or four) bridges have been moved - see Wagner Covered Bridge No. 19 and Fowlersville Covered Bridge for another way of dealing with this issue - suggestions for other ways of dealing with it are welcome. By the way Lawrence L. Knoebel Covered Bridge was also moved, but has been in its current position since the 1930s. Also Rohrbach Covered Bridge No. 24 was disassembled and put in storage, which is a different kind of move. Ruhrfisch _><>° 04:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

For lighthouses which have been moved we have generally put in two geocodes, one for the original site and one for the current location. But I think what we're talking about in the Los Alamos case is a split between the lab article and the NHRP site article. Mangoe (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

NS Savannah

Is it normal that is is listed as a NRHP property on the list of York County, Virginia and also as a national historic landmark in Maryland?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ships move around. This one has moved around a lot. VA, in and out of Baltimore, SC, and back to Baltimore. The Baltimore listing is under "Former." What do you suggest? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall that there was a Weekly Listing update about the Savannah when she was moved to the James River Reserve Fleet. Einbierbitte (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. Should we then remove the Maryland category from the article and keep the Virginia category?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed this: the Savannah has been in Baltimore since 2008, and is expected to stay there indefinitely - I was aboard for tours twice in 2012 and had a lengthy discussion with the Maritime Administration official in charge of the ship (his office is aboard). We ought to lose the York County listing and go with Baltimore City. Acroterion (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is easy to do, but where is it actually listed?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It ought to go into National Register of Historic Places listings in South and Southeast Baltimore, which covers things and places around Baltimore Harbor. Acroterion (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Let us wait if there are no objections, if not I am going to move it to the "former" listings for York County, VA (with an explaining footnote) and to the South and Southeast Baltimore list.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Categorization of churches

Please see Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 4#Congregational churches categories. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

NRHP Parameters for People

For some reason there are NRHP-related categories and a navbox for George A. Crawley. I know he was the original designer of Old Westbury Gardens, but none of those cats are appropriate. Would anybody be willing to fix this? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

After editing by several of us, the issue seems to be resolved. --Orlady (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Good, because there's another one; Frank J. Nies. I wonder how many more people are incorrectly categorized this way. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I got rid of the offending category for Nies. The category intersection tool might help root out any others. TheCatalyst31 04:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Listing inaccuracies

I've trolling around the MD/DE lists looking for things to write about/photograph and came across a couple of discrepancies that have foiled my rather weak NHRP skills. First, all evidence I can find suggests that either the MHT info on the James Hamilton House is wildly inaccurate, or the building has been torn down. There's nothing at the given address which could possibly be it. Is there a ready way of determining whether it has been delisted?

Second, in Delaware there is supposedly a listing for McColley's Chapel, which is a Methodist church down at the south end of the state. It is definitely there, and I can find lots of notices that it was being listed (e.g. ). NRIS, however, stubbornly refuses to acknowledge it, so matter how I search. Is there some other way to try to find the listing forms and such? I could write a stub article except that I'm not absolutely sure it is (still) listed. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the Hamilton issue (coords were off a bit), still could use help on the other. Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So are you set on the Hamilton House? Was it just a co-ordinate issue? It looks like the road runs "behind" the house, so the view from the road is of the rear facade rather than the front facade. For McColley's Chapel, seeing the fairly recent listing date I suspect it's an update issue, and the NRIS hasn't yet been updated. FWIW, the weekly listing notice (that you linked to) is enough to establish that the property has certainly been listed. Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, part of the issue is that Google gives a different location depending on whether you say "Bowie" (NRHP/MHT) or "Mitchellville" (NCPPC). We're all set on that one. As for the other, any suggestions on where I might find more info besides the raw fact of listing? The church does not have its own website, and AFAIK there's no comprehensive DE site as there is for Maryland. Mangoe (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

For recent listings, I'll usually Google the name of the site plus NRHP (i.e., McColley's Chapel NRHP in this case); there will often be a local news report or press release that gives basic details. In this case, though, I got lucky: Here's a pdf of an evaluation of the chapel for NRHP eligibility, which includes probably everything that's in the actual nom form. It comes from a Delaware state site, so there might be more info on other properties hidden there. Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I don't know why it didn't show up for me (probably masked by the road name) but I'll keep that source in mind. Thanks muchly. Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mangoe --- note that the James Hamilton House is set back well from the road. I've been by there and cannot get a good picture from the street. That's why there isn't one with the article.--Pubdog (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Best to go there before spring comes, so you can get something when the trees don't have leaves. Pubdog, see File:Elm Spring Farm fields.jpg, File:Kintner-Withers House from the road.jpg, or File:Joseph Finney House from a distance.jpg; if you think the Hamilton House is far from the road, you should try getting photos in rural Indiana :-) As far as the chapel, I think NRIS is only updated once or twice per year. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Jewel Bain House

Recent listings for 8 February contained an additional-documentation-accepted note for the Jewel Bain House Number 2, refnum 12001228, in Pine Bluff, Arkansas (nomination). However, it's not included on National Register of Historic Places listings in Jefferson County, Arkansas, and I can't find it in any of the recent listings for last year. Any clue what's going on? I'm inclined to think that they listed it but forgot to put it on a recent listings page, so I think it best to put it on the list, but I'd prefer getting input to doing it unilaterally. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The nomination form was submitted in October 2012, so it can't be that old, and the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program claims it was entered in the National Register on January 29. My guess is it was listed on January 29 and the NPS just put down the wrong action. TheCatalyst31 09:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You might try emailing Edson Beall (Edson_Beall@nps.gov). I've had some success in the past getting responses from him to emails, although he hasn't always responded. --sanfranman59 (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliability question

Here in Indiana, the Department of Natural Resources' SHAARD system provides nominations and other information for almost all sites, as well as documentation on things such as historic bridges, cemeteries, and theaters. They also make available nomination forms for sites that have never made it to the Register, such as this one for the Edgewood School in Anderson. Most of these sites aren't in NRIS at all, so it appears that many of the nominations were never sent to Washington. With this in mind, what do you think about these forms' reliability? Should we assume them to be reliable unless proven otherwise, or unreliable unless proven otherwise, or always unreliable? Some are definitely unreliable, such as one that I've found that was a high-school project and reads like one. Others are produced by professionals; the Edgewood School is an example, as it's the work of an architectural professional, and several of the archaeological nominations were written by academic archaeologists, including at least one by Edward E. Smith, an Indiana University professor who wrote or co-wrote ten nominations that appear at List of archaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Indiana. Nyttend (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think they'll have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, with preference given to those written by preservation professionals. They're not too hard to spot and sort. It's not too different from a lot of the early (and often very important) NRHP properties that were nominated and documented before there were preservation professionals, often written by Mrs. Timothy van Snootington of the local garden club or the DAR, unreferenced, and riddled with problems. They're interesting in their way, but should not be put ahead of professionally-written sources. A useful report will have its own lists of sources and references, and should be recognizable as a carefully-written report rather than a regurgitation into a document template. Acroterion (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln Highway, Douglas County, Nebraska

On National Register of Historic Places listings in Douglas County, Nebraska, we have two separate listings for the Lincoln Highway. According to the nom form for the later one, it includes the earlier one. Should these be combined? At the Focus site, they've got separate refnums: Item No. 87002098 for the earlier one, titled "Lincoln Highway"; Item No. 03000104 for the later one, titled "Lincoln Highway--Omaha to Elkhorn". The later one's nom form is available through the Nebraska State Historical Society's "Nebraska National Register Sites in Douglas County" page; on the fifth page of the document, labelled "Section 7 Page 1", it states "This nomination encompasses a .87-mile section of the Lincoln Highway between North 180th and North 191st Streets that was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) in 1987."

Should we keep these as separate items in the county list article, or should we combine them? This feels like a boundary expansion to me, although it's not expressly stated that way. Ammodramus (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think they could probably have separate listings in the county list, but they could be combined into one article. There are actually four sections in Nebraska listed on the National Register: Omaha to Elkhorn (refnum 03000104), Gardiner Station (Butler Township, refnum 07000655), Duncan West (refnum 07000656), and the previously listed section in Elkhorn, refnum 87002098. The first three are listed in the "Lincoln Highway in Nebraska Multiple Property Submission", while the earlier-listed section in Elkhorn isn't. I don't think it makes much sense to have four separate articles.

By the way, there are several sections on the National Register in Greene County Iowa, as well as two highway markers. Here's the Multiple Property Submission for that section. And, there's a bridge in Tama, Iowa and a bridge in Dugway Proving Ground, Utah on the National Register. --Elkman 17:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be logical to cover all of these segments in the article Lincoln Highway? The bridges that Elkman found would merit separate articles, and there may be local significance to some of the individual sections of the road that are NR-listed, but the listed sites ought to be included in the article about the historic highway. --Orlady (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That solution makes more sense to me. Mangoe (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Something similar was done with the Old Spanish Trail. Take a look at it for some ideas. Einbierbitte (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like a boundary increase; much better to give them separate entries on the list but a single article for both. For what it's worth, we have a bunch of National Road-related listings; National Road (Cambridge, Ohio) is the only chunk of the road itself, but there are many bridges, mile markers, inns, and the National Road Corridor Historic District as well. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

NRHP Misplaced Pages mapping table

Does some maintains a table, that maps NRHP-IDs to Misplaced Pages entries? I know, that I can use Templatetiger therefore, but maybe someone already have a ready to use table. --Arch2all (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What is Templatetiger, can you explain what that is? Is there any possible use for this WikiProject NRHP? Based on your question, i imagine you are wanting to extract Misplaced Pages data for some outside purpose. I am personally more interested in helping people who want to develop Misplaced Pages proper, but for what it is worth, here's a response:

There is a nearly complete correspondence between wikipedia article titles and NRHP reference numbers contained within the system of 2,000+ county- and city- list-articles, indexed from List of RHPs. Or accessed also by Category:List-Class National Register of Historic Places articles. The NRHP reference numbers are not displayed, but they are present within the list-articles, you can see by hitting Edit on any one of them. However some of the article titles given are really redirects to actual article titles. The list-article system is a complete index to all of the NRHP-listed places, updated to with a week or two or three of current, recent NRHP listings. But note we haven't started Misplaced Pages articles for about 40,000 of the 87,000 NRHP-listed places, so about 40,000 of the article titles are redlinks, i.e. the unique names for all intended articles are set already. Hope this helps. --doncram 22:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Arch2all means this project -- looks interesting. de:Misplaced Pages:WikiProjekt Vorlagenauswertung/en --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there is not a straight one-to-one correspondence between NRHP reference numbers and articles (or potential articles). Some articles cover more than one reference number, and reference numbers may appear in more than one article (true for properties that contribute to districts but have their own articles, and some other probably rare cases). Magic♪piano 00:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. Seems that Templatetiger(indeed it's the same as de:Misplaced Pages:WikiProjekt Vorlagenauswertung/en ) is the best way for creating such a relation table. SarekOfVulcan's suggestion is interesting, but I think it's much more complex to extract the data this way. Because a relation table is maybe for someone else helpful (and I could help people to develop Misplaced Pages proper ;) I show here how this could be done withe Templatetiger: All WP lemmas about a NRHP object should contain a "Infobox NRHP" template. This template contains a row with the NRHP reference ("refnum"). With Templatetiger it's now possible to find all lemmas with such a template and show WP page name and NRHP reference:

• http://toolserver.org/~kolossos/templatetiger/tt-table4.php?template=Infobox%20NRHP&lang=enwiki&columns=refnum&format=csv&limit=4000

There are still some problems:

• A lot of refnum entries contains unwanted extra information, especially source references. You have to remove this stuff manually by editing the result file.
• The Templatetiger output is limited to a certain amount of rows (some thousands). To get all results, You have to split up the requests in smaller portions by using a limiting query parameter: "&where=refnum&is=^.*&regexp=yes", "&where=refnum&is=^.*&regexp=yes", "&where=refnum&is=^.*&regexp=yes", ...

--Arch2all (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thousand Island Park Historic District

Hi everyone. A historian at the Thousand Island Park Historic District in upstate New York wants to donate historical images of the historic area. I don't have the volunteer capacity to help her at this time. It should be an easy enough project - and I think she'll probably upload the images herself if given the proper support. Please contact me if you can help, I'd be grateful. Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Responded at User talk:SarahStierch#Images of Thousand Island Park Historic District.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

New York State Parks, Recreation & Preservation site doesn't work

Maybe it's just my PC, but none of the Java links owned by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation work for me. I updated my Java program, and it didn't do a damn thing. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It must be your box. I've not been having any problems. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Privacy rights of property owners

Please see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 127#Privacy rights of property owners (version of 17:57, 3 March 2013).
—Wavelength (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Using an Alternate Citation to Allow Users to Search for a Historic Place on the NRHP Site

For the Pulaski Skyway article, I would like to replace the current standard source citation for National Register of Historic Places:

"National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. March 13, 2009.

with the alternate source citation below:

"Search Form for U.S. Registered Historic Places". National Register of Historic Places . National Park Service. Retrieved March 10, 2013. Search by the cited Reference Number, 05000880. Pulaski Skyway is listed as part of “Route 1 Extension”.

I was told that I cannot use the alternate source citation because it is different than the standard citation that is used everywhere else in Misplaced Pages and it is not regular practice to provide users with instructions on how to search for an item on the NRHP page.

The alternate source citation lets users go to the correct National Register of Historic places page where they can enter the reference number to go immediately to the correct source, “Route 1 Extension”. Pulaski Skyway is NOT listed as a separate historic place.

If users try to search on "Pulaski Skyway", they will not find it.

Please advise if I can use the alternate source citation.

In addition, please let me know if the current standard Misplaced Pages source citation for National Register of Historic Places can be changed to:

"Search Form for U.S. Registered Historic Places". National Register of Historic Places . National Park Service. Retrieved March 10, 2013. Search by the cited NRHP Reference Number, if available.

It should be changed to make it much easier for all Misplaced Pages users to find a historic place based on the following reasons.

1. It takes users directly to National Register of Historic Places advanced search page that they need to use if they are going to search for an item.

Using the National Register of Historic Places' reference number takes a user directly to the source for the historic place.

It is best to use the reference number, when available, since I found that if you try to type in the name of the historic place, you get a list of hundreds, if not more than a thousand, of results. In addition, if you do not type in the name of the historic place exactly the way it has been listed in the NRHP data base, you will either not find the cited place or you will get hundreds, if not more than a thousand, of results.

2. Current standard Misplaced Pages source citation takes a user to a National Register of Historic page that is NOT immediately useful. If a user tries typing in various search terms, including the NRHP reference number, in the General Search box in the upper left, they get a result "Search page not found".

User then needs to go to the Advanced Search page link on the left, which is where my alternate search takes the user.

If they type in the full name of the historic place, they will most likely get hundreds, if not more than a thousand, of search results without immediately seeing the site they are interested in.

If they do not type in the name of the historic place exactly the way it has been listed in the NRHP data base, they will either not find the cited place or they will get hundreds, if not more than a thousand, of results.

They may finally get to the cited historic place if they finally figure out to use the cited NRHP reference number, if available.

Users will waste a lot of time and have a lot of frustration finally figuring out how to get to the cited historic place, if they are able to, or just give up in frustration.

It should be noted that my alternate source citation, needs to be bracketed at beginning and end with "ref" and "/ref" (each of those quoted items need to enclosed in brackets < >) for posting on an actual Misplaced Pages article site so that it can appear as I have shown it above. For some reason, when I bracket it here on the Talk page, it is not correct, as shown below. You need to go the Edit page to see how I have typed it in with the brackets.

Wondering55 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble understanding what the issue is, but it should be noted that the NRIS citation, in its current format, is a reference to the NRIS database, which can be downloaded through the NPS website. The website also provides some online access to that database, although (unfortunately, as you found out), the ease of querying through the website leaves something to be desired. It looks like "Pulaski Skyway" appears in the database as an "other name" for the Route 1 Extension, so were you to actually download and query the database yourself, you'd find it (admittedly, not a simple task).

Also, I'm a little uncertain as to the relationship between the Pulaski Skyway and the Route 1 Extension. The NRHP listing is for the whole Route 1 Extension, which I gather is the Pulaski Skyway plus some additional miles of roadway. So the Pulaski Skyway is definitely listed on the NRHP, but as part of a larger listing? In the past, for Historic Districts that include multiple buildings, the project has used a "contributing property" designation on the article, noting that "Building X" is listed as a Contributing Property in "Historic District Y" (as an example, see the Penobscot Building). Calling the Pulaski Skyway a Contributing Property would perhaps solve the root issue in this case, and effectively be more correct (although the Route 1 Extension is not a "Historic District," so I guess it's technically less correct) by explicitly noting that the "Pulaski Skyway" contributes to the "Route 1 Extension." Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue is what citation source can be used in a Misplaced Pages article to make it as quick and easy for a Misplaced Pages user to find the referenced NRHP site in the article. My proposed NRHP source below for the Misplaced Pages article makes it quick, easy, and very simple for any Misplaced Pages user to immediately find the NRHP info on the Pulaski Highway, which is part of the Route 1 Extension listing. First, I would like the project team to say it is OK for me to use this source for the Pulaski Skyway.

"Search Form for U.S. Registered Historic Places". National Register of Historic Places . National Park Service. Retrieved March 10, 2013. Search by the cited Reference Number, 05000880. Pulaski Skyway is listed as part of “Route 1 Extension”.

The current NRHP source in Misplaced Pages articles makes it very difficult, if next to impossible, for a general Misplaced Pages user to find a referenced NRHP site, inluding the Pulaski Skyway.

Second, I would like the project team to consider using my proposed NRHP source below in future revisions of Misplaced Pages articles in order to make it quicker, easier, and simpler for general Misplaced Pages users to find the historical place they are using it for.

"Search Form for U.S. Registered Historic Places". National Register of Historic Places . National Park Service. Retrieved March 10, 2013. Search by the cited NRHP Reference Number, if available.

instead of the current NRHP source:

"National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. March 13, 2009.

The current NRHP source takes a Misplaced Pages user to a secondary NRHP page that is not the practical NRHP page that will make it easy for a Misplaced Pages user to find what they are looking for, as I noted in my original Talk above.

The ordinary Misplaced Pages user is not going to download NRHP database to find what they are looking for. They are going to try and do a search query on the Internet page that they are directed to. My proposed NRHP sources will make it easier for them to find what they are looking for. As you indicated, based on using the current Misplaced Pages source for the NRHP, the "ease of querying through the website leaves something to be desired" and downloading their database "admittedly, not a simple task".

In answer to your question, the Pulaski Skyway is part of a larger listing for the Route 1 Extension. In fact, Misplaced Pages's cited NRHP reference number 05000880 will take a user to the Route 1 Extension listing. I can change the instruction in my proposed source for the Pulaski Skyway to:

Search by the cited Reference Number, 05000880. Pulaski Skyway is listed as a contributing part of “Route 1 Extension”.Wondering55 (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Complications about the Skyway vs. the Route 1 Extension notwithstanding, Wondering55 has a good point. The standard NRIS reference serves readers poorly by giving a link to a downloadable database which is of no use to them. Linking to a search screen would be better, but can also be misleading. The search screen because the search screen was not the source for information provided; the search screen cannot get you to some information that actually came from the database and is not available.

I think the standard NRIS reference should be changed centrally (at {{Nrisref}}), and my first choice would be that it should be changed to include no link at all, but rather be presented as an off-line source. It is effectively not feasibly available on-line. Or, the reference can include a link to a Misplaced Pages article on the National Register Information System, which would provide more explanations (and present the search screen and also the downloadable database in proper context). --doncram 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew Jameson that the cited source should be the NRIS database, as it provides somewhat more information than is available from the NRHP search page. As for how to cite it, rather than creating a nonstandard citation or falsely claiming this to be a contributing property, it seems to me that the reference citation can be clarified by two fairly simple changes:

1. Supplement the templated citation with an indication of the property name: <ref name="nris">{{NRISref|2009a|mdy}} Listed name is Route 1 Extension.</ref>

2. In the article text, indicate that the National Register listing is as part of the Route 1 Extension. --Orlady (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

1. "Search Form for U.S. Registered Historic Places". National Register of Historic Places . National Park Service. Retrieved March 10, 2013. Search by the cited NRHP Reference Number, if available.

• Project-Class National Register of Historic Places pages
• NA-importance National Register of Historic Places pages
• Project-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of NA-importance
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists