Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:49, 13 December 2012

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

MPS info in tables or not?

Recently, when I've worked on the state/county/city lists, I've added information about Multiple Property Submissions to the Summary column. There's quite a bit of work involved in this, but I thought it was worth it since (a) this information is included in the weekly new listing announcements published by the NPS and (b) the MPS documents might provide additional historical context for listings that might not be included in each site's nomination form. However, shortly after I added this information to the northern Cincinnati list, Nyttend reverted my edits with the edit summary "Those comments make the column too wide; restoring standard hidden comments". I had some back and forth with Nyttend this past week via our talk pages, but we were unable to reach a compromise. So I'm bringing it to the community here to get some other views. I don't want to continue doing all this work if it's subject to being reverted or if the community thinks this information doesn't belong in the tables.

For posterity's sake and to save you the trouble of clicking over to our talk pages, here's most of our talk page conversation:

Sanfranman59 I recently put in a good deal of work adding information about Multiple Property Submissions in the Summary column of the northern Cincinnati list. The only explanation you gave for reverting my work was the edit summary "Those comments make the column too wide; restoring standard hidden comments". I don't get it. First off, I think table column widths are mostly dictated by the width and resolution of one's monitor. The column widths looked fine to me. Second, are there guidelines somewhere of which I'm not aware that limit the width of a column in a table?

It seems to me that including the MPS information in the tables is valuable because it can help in article development. I've made adding this information one of the things I routinely do when I add new listings. If you feel strongly that this information doesn't belong in the tables, perhaps we can kick it around a little at WT:NRHP and get some other views?

As for the hidden comments, they really serve no purpose other than adding unnecessary bytes to each page. It's pretty clear from the row header ("|Description=") that one is supposed to enter a description there. It seems odd to me that you apparently find those hidden comments more useful than the MPS information.

Nyttend For one thing, the point of the column is that we summarise the site, either with a citation to somewhere, or with the most important cited information from the article; the MPS bits that you added aren't cited here and aren't part of the most important information from the article. Perhaps more importantly, the MPS bits mean nothing to pretty much every reader; even when we do cite this information, it's at best trivial and at worst confusing to the reader who doesn't understand why we mention it.

Sanfranman59 I disagree that the MPS information is trivial. I don't think the information is any more trivial than noting when the building was constructed, the architect or the architectural style. It's among the information that the NPS includes in the weekly new listing announcements, so they clearly don't consider it to be trivial. MPS documents provide historical context for the sites that are part of the multiple submission. This information should be of interest to editors who wish to create articles about a given listing. When adding this information to a list, I provide a link to the WP article that describes what a Multiple Property Submission, Multiple Resource Area and Thematic Resource is. I don't understand why you think a reader would find this confusing. Can you elaborate?

As for citing sources, as you know, the source for most of the information we present in the tables is the NPS NRIS database. I believe that every list includes at least one reference to the NRIS database. MPS information is included in the NRIS database. In any case, I see that doncram has restored the information I added and has added a source for each MPS note. Does this allay your concerns?

Nyttend Since NRIS provides nothing that automatically goes into the comment field, information in that column needs to be cited except when it's clarifying something (e.g. boundary increases) that simply wouldn't fit in other fields. This is important partially because comments in that field are often sorts of things that can't be derived from NRIS, such as the comments in National Register of Historic Places listings in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Regarding the inclusion of MPS information in the first place — aside from data from NPS and SHPOs, when have you ever seen anything about the concept of an MPS? The fact of a property being included in one is not important to the property; NPS includes it in NRIS because it's important for their internal purposes, but it's just about completely irrelevant to the history of the property itself. It belongs as a minor note in the article itself, but only because it's relevant to the process of historic designation, which (being relevant but not a huge part of a property's history) should get only a small portion of the article. Moreover, your comment about creating articles is a good reason not to include it: unlike project pages, these lists are places for readers, so resources specifically for editors don't belong. If you really want to include this kind of thing for editors, why don't you just hide it with <!-- and -->? That way, editors can find it without it getting in the way of readers who aren't interested in editing.

Thoughts? --sanfranman59 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the MPS information is only sometimes of use to readers, and of more use to editors. There are plenty of jurisdictions that have an MPS for the entire territory, done (seems to me) as a convenience to the historians compiling the list; these are useful for editors, but beyond the focus on the specific geography, end up being not much more than a laundry list. Themed MPSes (especially if articles exist on them) are, to me, clearly of use to the reader, since they establish a coherent context for a collection of sites. (Now, when am I going to write First Period Houses of Eastern Massachusetts?) Magic♪piano 21:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I am not sure in general; discretion should go to an editor actually developing descriptions. Where there is nothing going on in the description column of a county list-article, as the case in northern Cincinnati, it gives something at least, so i think what you added was fine. But editorially it should eventually yield to other description. About the Northern Cincinnatti list and the Hannaford & Sons TR, I note there exists a category, Category:Samuel Hannaford and Sons Thematic Resources with 57 articles, by the way. --doncram 22:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

How about using a less prominent indication, e.g. a footnote, e.g. in Landmark title column, show: Dinnie Apartments corresponding to Key stated above the table:

as was shown for the Dinnie Apartments item but not yet all others, within this version of the Grand Forks County, ND, list-article a year ago?

I was meaning to indicate all 27(!) items within the 69 item Grand Forks county list that way. However I see that editor Multichill removed the usage in that list-article, before running his conversion to use of nrhprow and nrhpheader, in this diff. Maybe some change in the nrhprow template would be needed to accomodate restoration of that again? --doncram 22:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Multichill also removed fully developed treatment of two MPS's, and completely removed the Key that was set up below the list-table, as appeared in this version of Syracuse NRHP list. I thot that was a good level of common indication of the Ward Wellington Ward architect MPS items. --doncram 22:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: Multichill kindly advised me of "name-extra=" feature within the NRHP row template, which allowed me just now to restore footnote links about the architect Ward MPS and about a park landscaping MPS into the List of RHPs in Syracuse list. The footnote links are clickable to bring the reader to a Key identifying what they mean. This is meant as a less-is-more approach to identifying MPS items within a county list.

Sanfranman59 and Nyttend, could you comment on this option? Other comments welcome. --doncram 21:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

One editor's opinion: I prefer some kind of footnote for notes re. MPS's, boundary expansions, etc., to putting that information in the description cell of the table. I'm inclined to agree with Nyttend's point that such information is of more interest to editors than to the general readership.

Per Doncram's suggestion, I checked out the Syracuse page; but on my browser (Chrome), at least, the key symbols weren't clickable. Could I suggest that we use lettered footnotes instead? Unlike symbols, there's a natural order to the alphabet, which will make it easier for people to follow notes should there be more than half a dozen or so. Ammodramus (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Links within List of RHPs in Syracuse made clickable for more browsers now. Does it work now in Chrome? It had worked in MSIE, but not in Firefox, with links to "#key" but where the anchor was actually named "Key". Changing anchor to be named "key" makes it work in Firefox now too. --doncram 03:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Since others object to including the MPS info in the Summary column, I will cease and desist on that front. As for using the "name-extra" feature to footnote the MPS info, that works for me (Nyttend, what do you think of this?). I developed a semi-automated method of adding MPS info to the Summary column that made it relatively easy (and less error-prone) to add that information. I'm not sure whether or not I'll be able to come up with a similar method for adding the information to the "name-extra" field. If not, I'll probably just refrain from adding it. Thanks for the feedback everyone. --sanfranman59 (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Re. Doncram's latest changes to RHPs in Syracuse: The symbols are now clickable in Chrome. However, I still think lettered footnotes would be preferable to asterisks, daggers, double-daggers, etc. For one thing, I assume that after clicking down to a lettered footnote, one could then click to go back to one's place in the text. For another, there's the natural-order thing that I mentioned in my earlier comment. For a county with many sites, there are likely to be many MPSs, boundary expansions, and the like; it'd be better to start with the 26 letters of the alphabet than with a collection of unordered symbols. Ammodramus (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sanfranman asked me to comment here several days ago, and I forgot; sorry. I like the idea of the footnotes as they're done on the Syracuse list; they don't get in the way for most readers, who couldn't care less, and they help the occasional reader who really does care. I'd just suggest one change: cut them out of the name column and put them in the numbered column. This is what we've done to mark HDs on the featured NHL lists for Alabama, Indiana, and Michigan. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend's further point doesn't work. It only makes sense to indicate the MPS on the specific title of the article. Indicating an MPS in the color/number column doesn't work; the keys he refers to in the NHL lists are indications explaining the color, not specific to the item. See the Syracuse list which has examples of both types (explanation of color, and indication of MPS). --doncram 17:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with Ammodramus about using letters rather than symbols for the clickable symbols. As for boundary increases, I've been in the habit of adding that information to the Location column and offset by a bullet. It seems to me that's where it belongs. For an example, see the Palos Verdes Public Library and Art Gallery and the Puvunga Indian Village Sites entries in National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles County, California. --sanfranman59 (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Boundary increases now being discussed in a different section, below.

On MPS mentions in tables, editor Nyttend has been proceeding occasionally to entirely delete MPS mentions that are in place, despite being aware of this discussion and his note above, supporting a lesser option. When I notice, I revert him, as just now in this diff for Allen County, Indiana. I experience Nyttend's edits as expressing contempt for the consensus in place, that some mention of MPS is highly relevant and appropriate in list-tables. It seems arrogant and offensive for the work of many editors, and especially the hard work of Sanfranman59, to be summarily deleted. Nyttend's M.O. is to implement his deletion edits in conjunction with adding other useful information or before proceeding with other additions, increasing the costs to others who may feel conflicted about losing his other work. My reversion just now loses those additions. This can attract other editors who think think Nyttend's additions must be saved, and who may enter into contention. After many years of this kind of action, I tend to think it is best to simply delete Nyttend's additions, and to allow Nyttend to readd or allow the additions to simply be lost, and not to allow the tactic by one editor to succeed in overriding consensus. This is unpleasant, but I don't know how the NRHP editing community should deal with this otherwise. Comments? --doncram 17:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thematic group and elements

Do all of the items on a thematic group list get put into their county lists? Example: "Highway Bridges Owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation TR" has 150+ bridges on it, each with a different number. T-49 of the TR is NRIS# 88000817, Bridge in Washington Township, already on the York county list. I just labeled a picture of T-48 (NRIS# 88000795), File:Bridge between East Manchester and Newberry Townships 1.jpg, also in York but not on the list. Should all 150+ bridges be listed? Thundersnow 02:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe they all are NRHP listed the same as any other NRHP site is listed - certainly it's been the practice for our tables. On this one User:Ruhrfisch should be contacted as the expert on these bridges (which I'll do).

I'm wondering if we should expand the discussion. Thundersnow is engaged in a great project here of putting NRIS#s on all NRHP photos. I don't think anybody wants to say "don't do this!" But I'm also not sure that this is a priority of the project, or that we should all let Thundersnow take on this near infinite project all by himself, without helping. In short, I'm not criticizing anybody but just confused while being amazed at Thundersnow's energy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It was a procedural, "yes/no" question, the bridge expert is not needed unless y'all want to redefine procedure.

I like doing the tagging. I like visiting historic buildings but I am not all that knowledgeable about history or geography; what and what not to do here confuse me; the Commons NRHP category structure makes my head hurt. I can track down eight digits, though. I do not have energy, I am just stubborn. It does not have to be a priority for the project - it just has to be a priority for me. Yours in gnomish edits.... Thundersnow 02:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's some possible help. A) we ask people to include the NRIS number on their photo uploads. That way it's not a race between you and dozens of other editors to see if they (we) can upload faster than you can add the numbers. But that would suggest B) that we express the NRIS numbers in the tables so that uploaders can find them. They are already in the tables, just not printed out. I'd put them right underneath the listing date (a somewhat related variable) rather than create a new column. Since everybody loves our table format, that's likely to be controversial, but I'd go for it. The NRIS numbers might be useful for something else as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The NRIS# tag on images is for ErfgoedBot; it does not do anything for editors (yet, at any rate. If only the US had a database like Canada...). Correct categories are what the humans need, and is the most confusing (imo) part of uploading NRHP images. Apparently the button was useful for both but I was one who hated how it looked. Form vs function: I bet Britannica never had this problem. Thundersnow 05:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Back to the bridge: I just finished going through the TR list. I found only 2 other listings that were not on already on WP, but I cannot find NRIS#s for them. I will add "Bridge between East Manchester and Newberry Townships" to the York County list, since it does have the number and is already on List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania. Thundersnow 05:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow in responding. Thanks for all your hard work Thundersnow! The NRHP has had at least two ways of listing multiple similar sites in one go. TR (Thematic Resources) were first and they were replaced by MPS (Multiple Property Submissions). Each property in a TR or MPS is listed on the National Register on its own and has its own NRHP number and should be listed separately in the county lists. I am in favor of including the NRIS # in photos and the the county tables.

At one point I was working on an article on the Pennsylvania highway bridges TR in a sandbox, but then I stopped working on it after a helpful discussion here - see here. My guess is that the "2 other listings that were not on already on WP" were ones I had problems with too - looking at my sandbox there were four bridges in the TR that were problematic (T-35, T-48, MA-5 and SU-2: see the bottom of my sandbox). It has been a while, but I recall writing to the National Park Service about a NRHP site that slipped through the cracks (was listed in a TR, but not in the Register - not sure if it was one of these). Looking at Pennsylvania covered bridge county TR/MPS lisitings I found a covered bridge that seems to be in the same position (eligible for the rgister but not listed for some reason) - I will post on that separately below. Ruhrfisch _><>° 20:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I find Elkman's NRHP tools to be very useful for tracking down refnums. It will generate a list which includes the refnums of all listings that are part of a given TR/MRA/MPS (MRA = Multiple Resource Area ... another term that the NPS has used over the years for the same concept ... I think). The way I know to do this is to run a "Query by county" from the main Elkman page. In this case, you could use York, PA since you know that at least one of the listings that's part of the TR of interest is in that county. This generates a table with all listings in the county. In the 'multname' column of the table, if you click on "query properties", it will generate a list for you. If you click on "generate list", it will generate Wiki markup output. But be aware that the database on which Elkman's tools are built is only as recent as the most recent version that was available for download on the NPS website. And even that version isn't available now. Their database download page has said "Download entire database will be available again soon." for at least several months now.

(the rest of this essay is about Commons categories, which Thundersnow mentioned as a perfectly understandable source of confusion and vexation ... if this generates any discussion, perhaps it should be moved under a different section heading?)

As for the NRHP-related categories over on Commons, I agree that they can be pretty difficult to decipher. One of my WP pastimes is to categorize NRHP photos over there, so I'm reasonably familiar with the lay of the land. But there are plenty of organizational challenges. In general, I try to include any NRHP geography-specific and building-type-specific categories that apply. (You can find all the building-type-specific categories here.) In some cases, there are categories that cross both of these dimensions (e.g. 'Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in San Francisco, California' or 'Buildings of religious function on the National Register of Historic Places in California'). Other categories I routinely add to images include specific geographic location (assuming that's not captured by one of the NRHP categories I've added), the year the structure was built and sometimes also the architectural style if I have a source that give me that information (e.g. an NRHP nom form). If the subject of the photo is a house, building of religious function or a bridge, I generally add 3 year-built-related categories (e.g., 'Built in California in 1913', '1910s houses in California' and 'Houses built in the United States in 1913'). When a structure was originally constructed over several years, I use the year completed for the category.

One mistake people frequently make with the categories is that they put photos in both parent and child categories. This results in over-categorization. I know I did this when I first started working with categories over there until someone straightened me out on the concept. For example, you shouldn't categorize a photo in 'San Jose, California', in 'Santa Clara County, California' and in 'California'. It should only be categorized in the most specific category (in this case, 'San Jose, California'). Similarly, a photo should not be placed in both 'National Register of Historic Places in Santa Clara County, California' and in 'Santa Clara County, California', since the former is a child category of the latter. But it is appropriate for a photo to be placed in both 'National Register of Historic Places in Santa Clara County, California' and 'Morgan Hill, California' since neither is the parent category of the other.

Another area of confusion is historic districts and contributing properties thereof. At this point, there are 'Historic districts in ' categories for every state and 'Historic district contributing properties in ' for almost every state. But the NRHP categories aren't currently included in that structure, although there is a 'Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places' category that's a child of 'Historic districts in the United States'. It seems to me that each 'Historic districts in ' category should have a 'National Register of Historic Places historic districts in ' child category. But that's not the case now. My habit has been to place photos of NRHP historic district contributing properties in the appropriate 'Historic district contributing properties in ' category, but not in 'National Register of Historic Places in '. If there are multiple photos of contributing properties from the same historic district, I create a category with that historic district's name. I make that category a child of 'Historic districts in ', 'National Register of Historic Places in ' and other categories, as appropriate. (See Category:Alviso Historic District and it's contents for an example of this.) Unfortunately (imho), there are many, many photos of contributing properties that are categorized in 'National Register of Historic Places in ' but that are not individually listed on the NRHP. This seems like misinformation to me. --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Two listings, one entry

I recently split the article Virginia and Truckee RR. Engines No. 18, The Dayton; and No. 22, The Inyo into two article Virginia and Truckee 18 Dayton and Virginia and Truckee 22 Inyo. It didn't seem logical to keep them together (notable on their own and one was moved to Virginia City). How would one go about linking to both articles with "NRHP row" in National Register of Historic Places listings in Carson City, Nevada? Also, should another entry be added to National Register of Historic Places listings in Nevada#Storey County to reflect the presence of one of them? Niagara ​​ 23:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)\

Same thing with Hiram M. Chittenden Locks and Lake Washington Ship Canal in National Register of Historic Places listings in Seattle, Washington. Nominated and listed as one entity but two separate articles. Einbierbitte (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Spokane parking garage on pending list

On yesterday's list of pending nominations announced by the NPS is a City Ramp Garage in what appears to be downtown Spokane. I wondered if this was a parking garage, [http://www.spokesman.com/video/2011/may/10/city-ramp-renovation/ and indeed it is.

So, if it makes it, would it be the first parking garage listed? It looks like its Art Deco architecture is the reason for the listing, rather than any place in the history of auto transport in this country (which I'd argue is significant, after reading Joel Garreau's Edge City ... if anything, parking lots and garages tell us more about how the automobile changed life and reordered public space than any roads). Since we're seeing some types of properties like pet cemeteries getting listed, and we already have McDonald's signs listed, it would be interesting to know. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A search using Elkman's property name search tool returns 4 listings with 'parking' in the name:

• Gimbels Parking Pavilion (Milwaukee, WI)
• Massachusetts Avenue Parking Shops (Washington, DC)
• Orr Roadside Parking Area (Orr, MN)
• Pickwick Hotel, Office Building, Parking Garage and Bus Terminal (Kansas City, MO)

--sanfranman59 (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Building at 816 South Grand Avenue in Los Angeles was listed in 2004. It is notable as being one of the first parking structures built in the US Einbierbitte (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Ben Lomond Hotel Garage, built in 1929 in Ogden, Utah, was just listed this August. Ntsimp (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping these sites won't get torn down and replaced by parking lots! There are at least a couple "Automobile Rows" from the 30s and 40s which are HDs of auto showrooms and repair-garages, e.g. in Chicago and Aurora, Illinois. Not exactly the same things of course. Similarly I love some of the little gas stations, e.g. in Davenport, IA and West Nowhere, Nebraska. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Boundary adjustments

Does anyone here have an objection to the way I've chosen to add boundary adjustment information to our NRHP lists? This past week I had a rather frustrating back-and-forth with User:Nyttend about this. He does object to what I'm doing. See his comments on my talk page for his reasoning and my comments on his talk page for mine. The first row in the table below is what I've been doing; the second row is his preference. I won't continue what I'm doing if others in the community find it objectionable.

As far as I know, we don't have a documented standard for adding this information. Perhaps we should?

	Name on the Register	Image	Date listed	Location	City or town	Description
7	Central Bethlehem Historic District		May 5, 1972 (#72001131)	Bounded by Main, Nevada, and East Broad Streets, and the Lehigh River • Boundary increase (listed November 7, 1988, refnum 88000452): Roughly bounded by Walnut St., Linden St., Lehigh River, and New St. 40°37′06″N 75°22′56″W / 40.618333°N 75.382222°W / 40.618333; -75.382222 (Central Bethlehem Historic District)	Bethlehem	Extends into Lehigh County
60	Euclid Avenue Historic District		June 28, 2002 (#02000702)	Roughly bounded by Public Square, Euclid Ave. to E. 17th St., and E. 21st St.; also 205 St. Clair Ave., 1370 Ontario St., and 1796-1808 E. 13th St. 41°30′02″N 81°41′12″W / 41.500556°N 81.686667°W / 41.500556; -81.686667 (Euclid Avenue Historic District)	Cleveland	Second set of addresses represents a boundary increase of May 29, 2007

--sanfranman59 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Creating a proper standard for this common situation is way past due, is very much needed. There are cases of multiple boundary increases and cases having both increases and decreases, too. Thanks for raising this and giving these examples to comment upon. I don't think either example is perfect; it seems to me:

1. that the two dates of listing (original and increase) should both appear in the date column,
2. that both reference numbers should be included, but both be hidden in the English wikipedia version. The NRHP row template would need to be modified to accomodate a 2nd, 3rd, 4th reference number. German and other wikipedias could choose to show both; the English version in the future could possibly choose to show both. Our lists should be clear, at least in their innards, that this is the row that covers whatever reference number.
3. that both original and boundary increase/decrease location info should appear in the location column, with clarity about which is which

--doncram 22:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

My tuppence: the average reader of a list of entries probably doesn't care about boundary changes, so only show the current bounds (i.e. the second option, but omitting the comment). If multiple refnums are involved, include them all (they're hidden anyway), and maybe add an html comment explaining what they represent. An article can go into whatever detail the editor deems suitable to describe current and historical boundaries. Magic♪piano 00:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think entering multiple numbers in the refnum= parameter mess with some of the functionality that User:Multichill sold us on when we went to the {{NRHP row}} system a year or so ago. --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll invite Multichill to comment; the NRHP row template could be revised to accomodate an "otherrefnums=" field perhaps if the refnum field must be kept cleanly as one number. --doncram 16:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Magicpiano on this: I suspect that most readers coming to such a list are interested in the current addresses/boundaries. I'd suggest putting boundary changes and the like into the footnotes, where the information would be available to an editor working on an article, but where it wouldn't add noise to the address- and description cells in the table.

I consult these articles when I'm looking for places to photograph, and it's easier for me if there's nothing in the address cell but the address; otherwise, especially in urban areas, it's harder to scan a page to see which sites might be close together. Ammodramus (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Boundary adjustments represent current addresses/boundaries. In my opinion, it's misleading not to include boundary adjustments in the location column. If you're going to take photos to represent an historic district, it really ought to be of contributing properties. In most cases, this can't be determined simply by looking at the brief boundary descriptions in the new listings announcements. You need to go to the nomination forms or other sources. If you want to see which listings are close together, do what I do and generate a map from the coordinates in the table. I save the map in Google Maps, bring it up on my smart phone and use the navigation feature to direct me to each site. --sanfranman59 (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, the addresses/boundaries given in the location column should reflect boundary increases. However, there's no reason why it needs to give the history of the boundaries: what they were initially, how and when they were increased. That's not information that tells the reader where the place is; and for someone scanning the column quickly checking addresses, it makes it harder to spot the address amidst the other information.

Is there a reason not to put the boundary-history information in a footnote? In particular, would it significantly complicate the task of entering new sites and revising old ones? Sanfranman does a tremendous amount of work keeping the lists up to date, and I don't want to make extra work for him.

The smart-phone idea sounds clever, but I tend to operate closer to the clay-tablets end of the technology spectrum. Also, one of the things I'm looking for when I'm scanning the address list is the parity of the street number: that generally tells me whether a place is on the sunlit side of the street. I'm not just looking for "places close to 8th and Euclid"; my search criteria are more like "close to 8th and Euclid, odd addresses on numbered avenues, even addresses on named streets". Ammodramus (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

NRHP list-article delisted section using multiple types of dates usefully:

	Name on the Register	Image	Date listed/removed	Location	City or town	Description
1	Hotel Roberts		July 26, 1979 listed, April 28, 2005 removed (#79002516)	192 S. University Ave.	Provo	Historic Mission-style hotel built in 1882 that served as a landmark and center of Provo social activity for much of the early 20th century. Demolished in 2004.
6	Spanish Fork Fire Station	Upload image	October 22, 1996 (delisted) April 1, 1985 (listed) (#85000818)	365 N. Main St.	Spanish Fork

Non-NRHP list-article section using built and NRHP-listed and NRHP-C-listed types of dates usefully:

	Building	Image	Dates	Location	City, State	Description
4	Masonic Temple (Berkeley, California)		1905 built 1982 NRHP-listed	2105 Bancroft Way and 2295 Shattuck Ave. 37°52′5″N 122°15′58″W / 37.86806°N 122.26611°W / 37.86806; -122.26611 (Masonic Temple (Berkeley, California))	Berkeley, California	Classical Revival style, built in 1905. The ground floor of the building is currently occupied by a FedEx Kinko's store while the remaining floors are used by University of California, Berkeley.
5	Masonic Temple (Ferndale, California)		1891 built NRHP-C-listed 1994	212 Francis 40°34′30.77″N 124°15′55.53″W / 40.5752139°N 124.2654250°W / 40.5752139; -124.2654250 (Masonic Temple (Ferndale, California))	Ferndale, California	Eastlake-Stick architecture built in 1891. It is used as a Masonic Hall. Contributing building in NRHP-listed Ferndale Main Street Historic District

I am moved by suggestions that the location information does not need to describe too carefully which portion was original vs. increased, at the list-article table entry. The more detailed information can be developed more fully in the NRHP infobox of the linked individual article, I agree.

The multiple dates easily fit and are important to include in the date column, however, IMHO. Consider example of our secondary tables of formerly listed places, which I think routinely include both listed and delisted dates where available, as in 2 List of RHPs in Utah County items inserted above. Consider also extract from List of Masonic buildings in the United States which, like many other similar list-articles, mentions built date and NRHP listing date, if any. There's too much wasted space in the date column and unnecessary burden on description column, if the date columnn is not used fully. --doncram 16:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

And, another prescription related to this, which I see, is that we really need to start the articles for all NRHP-listed historic districts. For the many with boundary changes, the changes can/should be described properly in the individual articles, and that would take some pressure off reflecting this info at the NRHP-list articles. For all historic districts, there is need for many pictures, not just the one that serves at the list-article. Set up the articles now to receive whole tables of the contributing properties with pics, or open galleries of pics, then the pics will come. IMO it was a problem in the WLM photo drive that there weren't HD articles set up ready to receive multiple pictures in many cases, and we weren't ready to further set up linked HD-specific commons categories where needed to hold even more pictures, when lots of pics were made available. Receiving photos is more a problem for HDs than for non-HDs. Let's just start all the HD articles now (and especially those with boundary increases to handle)! :) --doncram 18:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So I'm clearly pretty far off base with what I've been doing for months now. It looks like I've got a lot of self-reverting and cleaning up to do. However, I'm not clear at this point what's being proposed. Can someone propose something concrete and provide an example? Also, it would be nice to get some other opinions. Is anyone else out there willing to chime in?

In the meantime, I'll refrain from adding any new boundary adjustment information to the tables. --sanfranman59 (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess we've reached a dead-end in this discussion. Since there doesn't seem to be much interest in this topic and I'm not clear about how to implement what is being proposed by others, I'll just stop entering boundary adjustment information in the tables. On the one hand, it seems to me that if we're going to have complete information in our tables, the boundary adjustment information should be there. On the other, I don't want to continue entering information as I have been since it's apparently not acceptable to the community (at least to the few who have chimed in here and elsewhere). Should we just go with what Nyttend's been doing? I don't care for that approach, but will certainly comply if that's the consensus. If not, can someone flesh out another approach (preferably including an example)? --sanfranman59 (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Having multiple id's in the "refnum" field messes up the system so it would be nice to have a second field for additional refnums. I don't think this is really a problem with any of the other fields. I think I can produce a list of listings that have multiple refnums for cleanup. Multichill (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Need a dedicated article/navbox/category for works of Frederick Law Olmsted?

I'm asking the above at "Talk:Frederick Law Olmsted#Dedicated article/navbox/category for Olmsted's works?". Anyone with opinions on this, please go there - thanks.--A bit iffy (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment: Thundersnow removing images

As doncram has mentioned Nytend in particular and "another couple editors" in general; bringing it here in the form of an RFC; and failed to watch my talk page as they said they would, I am bringing a discussion from my talk page to here. The original is on my talk page at Bullock'27s Pasadena pictures and other pic deletions. Also of interest is User talk:Thundersnow#Blue Hills Headquarters, etc. and, I suppose, somewhere on Nyttend's talk page. Thundersnow 16:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Bullock's Pasadena pictures and other pic deletions

doncram Hi, i don't understand your removal of pictures from Bullock's Pasadena article. I reversed your edit by this edit restoring the pics. Multiple pictures certainly help in an article. In this case, you removed a picture that showed curved eaves and other elements of the place's Streamline Moderne architecture that I think is why it is NRHP-listed. Streamline moderne is a style evocative of ocean liners' design; see Normandie Hotel, about a hotel modelled after the original SS Normandie ocean liner, as one extreme example. The pic you left in the infobox doesn't convey anything about that architecture. I'll watch here and would see any reply.

Thanks for all your work adding newly available pics to many articles. cheers, --doncram 16:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thundersnow I disagree that multiple images help articles, especially when the images do nothing to explicate the text. The whole building is an example of that architectural style. Adding images of details without excyclopedic context about those details is using an article as a gallery, and that is not good. Thundersnow 05:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

doncram To follow up, that is horrible. The one pic you had kept shows hardly anything of the architecture, and does not convey streamline moderne at all. --doncram 23:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed and reverted your removal of images at excellent article Casa Paoli. I hadn't seen your reply above about the Pasadena article. If that is your position, that you believe multiple images don't help articles (?!), and if you are proceeding to remove images in more cases, then that is quite alarming. Your removal of pics in the pasadena article reflected ignorance about the architecture involved. It would be one thing for you to use some tag to call for more captioning, or call for explanation, but it is destructive to simply remove images in articles in a general way.

Have you done this in many articles? I am concerned that I or others are going to have to go through a lot of work to review your other contributions. --doncram 16:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

doncram Okay, i am officially horrified at what you have done to numerous articles, going back to November 1, in terms of your removing hard-won photos added through a lot of work by editors such as myself. All seemed to be NRHP articles. I came across several articles where you removed photos of mine, actually, but I am perhaps most horrified at your removing Historic American Buildings Survey photos by Jet Lowe and others, that other editors had carefully added to articles, which provide great perspective about the changes or similarities in NRHP properties over many years. And you seem to routinely delete galleries. Obviously multiple pics help convey more about a property. I tried to be careful for a while in reviewing your work to ensure that other small changes you made were re-added in my reversions, but eventually i just switch to reverting all.

I believe you are well-meaning but misguided. I think you might have a different view, coming from your work placing newly uploaded photos, that you think photos are cheap and easy to obtain. That is opposite my view and that of many editors, that we have gone through hell to get places and take photos, or to research and find photos, and that we are seeking to illustrate articles. You cannot blithely disregard this effort and just drop useful stuff.

So, for now, could you agree to stop removing any photos whatsover from any article, please. I would like to ask for you to consult with others, e.g. at wt:NRHP, if you think any removal is possibly justified. You may well not want to take my advice; you have a right to disagree with my view; however, if you do disagree, would you agree to have some review, I suppose in the form of a discussion at wt:NRHP possibly to be identified as a RFC. But I will say, it is not just my concern. I saw, somewhere, perhaps at User talk:Nyttend, another couple editors expressing concern at your deletion of photos. I was not aware of the scope of what you have been doing, and perhaps the failure of others to give you feedback, until now. I'll watch here for your reply.

For the record, I have gone back through your contributions to November 1, and reversed your deletions at articles including:

23:29, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+77)‎ . .Moratock Park ‎ (Undid revision 523513599 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:28, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+198)‎ . .Old Alton Bridge ‎ (Undid revision 523693124 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:27, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+443)‎ . .Mappa Hall ‎ (Undid revision 523494611 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:26, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+680)‎ . .Fort Snelling ‎ (Undid revision 523455446 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:23, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+1,108)‎ . .Camp Springs House ‎ (Undid revision 524170047 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:22, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+80)‎ . .Union Church of Pocantico Hills ‎ (Undid revision 524629291 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top)  
23:21, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+160)‎ . .Hibernian Hall (Boston, Massachusetts) ‎ (Undid revision 520838051 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:15, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+156)‎ . .Wang Theatre ‎ (Undid revision 520840823 by Thundersnow (talk) it was not marked sourced. indicate source needed or something, don't randomly delete.) (top) 
23:14, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+112)‎ . .Citi Performing Arts Center ‎ (Undid revision 520840975 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:13, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+140)‎ . .Paris Cemetery ‎ (Undid revision 520848118 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:12, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+89)‎ . .Bowsher Ford Covered Bridge ‎ (Undid revision 520849050 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:12, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+100)‎ . .Taylors Falls Public Library ‎ (Undid revision 520851206 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:10, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+482)‎ . .F. M. Howell and Company ‎ (Undid revision 520854740 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:09, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+281)‎ . .John C. Breckinridge Memorial ‎ (Undid revision 520855192 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:03, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+110)‎ . .Brooklandwood ‎ (Undid revision 521114599 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:03, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+80)‎ . .Fisher Hill Reservoir ‎ (Undid revision 521115271 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:02, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+270)‎ . .Brooklyn Borough Hall ‎ (Undid revision 521121001 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
23:00, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+106)‎ . .Burden Ironworks Office Building ‎ (Undid revision 522086121 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
22:59, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+284)‎ . .Burden Iron Works ‎ (Undid revision 522086162 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
22:58, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+65)‎ . .Burnt Cabins Gristmill Property ‎ (note it is a HABS photo by Jet Lowe that was previously deleted) (top) 
22:57, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+70)‎ . .Burnt Cabins Gristmill Property ‎ (Undid revision 522089731 by Thundersnow (talk) undo, but re-add some info added)
22:18, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+535)‎ . .Bodie Island Light ‎ (Undid revision 520591207 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
22:13, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+126)‎ . .Warwick Furnace Farms ‎ (Undid revision 520969884 by Thundersnow (talk) wrong. i think it is part of the site.) (top) 
21:26, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+175)‎ . .Old Lock Pump House, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal ‎ (restore multiple images) (top) 
21:21, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+91)‎ . .C.G. Meaker Food Company Warehouse ‎ (restore helpful pic) (top) 
21:00, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-81)‎ . .Crow Canyon Archaeological District ‎ (re-remove one that was added to the infobox) (top) 
20:59, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+197)‎ . .Crow Canyon Archaeological District ‎ (restore images bizarrely removed)
20:57, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+274)‎ . .Camillus Union Free School ‎ (Undid revision 523453624 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
20:56, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+164)‎ . .F. A. Kennedy Steam Bakery ‎ (Undid revision 523451816 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
20:55, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+261)‎ . .Dallas Arboretum and Botanical Garden ‎ (Undid revision 523480466 by Thundersnow (talk) restore images, other) (top) 
20:53, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+85)‎ . .Mont-Joli railway station ‎ (Undid revision 523976401 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
20:51, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+111)‎ . .Camp Sherman Community Hall ‎ (Undid revision 524169547 by Thundersnow (talk)) (top) 
16:17, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+22)‎ . .Captain Robert Bennet Forbes House ‎ (caption) (top) 
16:17, 24 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+87)‎ . .Captain Robert Bennet Forbes House ‎ (Undid revision 524633507 by Thundersnow (talk)) 

and previously Bullock's Pasadena and Casa Paoli. Sincerely, --doncram 23:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thundersnow review

Doncram stated that I removed several of their images, and used "alarming", "concerned" and "officially horrified" to convey disagreement, which leads me to believe they are too involved to review my edits. The only other person to state disagreement to me also said they "can't argue with your point of view." I cannot find any other discussion I was involved in that conveyed disagreement with my deletions. The "failure of others to give you feedback" is ridiculous: it is not a failure to not provide feedback; that "others" have not given me feedback does not mean they should have given me feedback; and the assumption others have disagreed with me if they had. As such, I found doncram's "requests" that I either stop deleting images, get pre-sanctioning of my deletions at this board, get discussed on this board, and/or get an RfC both unwarranted escalation and an attempt to threaten me into doing things their way. None of my edits break Misplaced Pages guidelines or are destructive (doncram's word). As such I will not stop deleting images nor will I get pre-sanctioning for my deletions, until someone can explain to me what I am doing wrong in general (content disputes belong on article talk pages).

I find mention of "hard-won photos" to be specious. It does not matter how or who or why the images got to Wikimedia, the question in general is if those images should be used in articles, and specifically if I can decide if they do.

"multiple pics help convey more about a property": That is true of any item that can be seen and several that cannot (atomic structures come to mind). However Misplaced Pages is not a gallery. The existence of an image does not mean it must be included in an article. Images should be used to show what the text is explaining, and the text should be both notable and sourced. If the text is not there to support the inclusion of an image, the image should not be used.

Examples:

• Casa Paoli: the two images still in the article after my edit were supported by the text; the images of a ceiling and an interior door were not and those were the ones I removed. I had also added a link to the Commons category I had created, as well as formatted the page to place the images near the text they were explaining.
• Bullock's Pasadena: the article is about the building, not explaining the style of the building. The extra images conveyed little to nothing not shown in one image. A different image could be substituted, but three do nothing.
• Moratock Park: the article now has four images of the outside of the building, none of which show anything different from the others except for some trees. I should have left the postcard, but there is no purpose to the repeats.
• Captain Robert Bennet Forbes House: the article has two images of the front of the house with no changes to the building.

I could go on but this is not the place for it. If someone has a question about a specific edit I will answer. Thundersnow 16:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• At the risk of offending everybody, I'll chime in here :-b Are we having fun yet? There have been enough quarrels on this page in the last couple of years to last for decades (I'll plead guilty myself on a couple of them). Nothing I've seen of those quarrels amounts to anything like a moral choice, or something that threatens the project. But not having fun does threaten the project. Editors will be driven away, and we won't be able to accomplish our goals. I'll even single out Doncram here, even though a quick review of Bullock's Pasadena indicates that I agree with him on that article. DC - you better start having some fun, seriously! Getting into multiple arguments hurts the project! And this applies especially when you are right.

As far as the substance of the argument (though it doesn't matter that much), I'll say that I like pictures in articles. Two photos, even in a three line stub, should not be too much. A four picture gallery should be ok, even in a basic three paragraph article. WP:NOTGALLERY is taken much to seriously by some folks these days, and generally editing practice is moving well away from it. Of course we can set up galleries in Commons - see The Flower Book by Edward Burne-Jones as an example where it was useful. Also on that page you can see a slide show app (on Commons only as far as I can make out). I'm wondering whether we can set up something similar for tables or even articles on Misplaced Pages? All the best and start having some fun (that's an order!) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Thundersnow for bravely opening discussion here, including wholesale bringing in the user talk discussion where my language was perhaps too strong. I appreciate that you are completely complying with my request to get some more feedback. I could have, probably should have, been milder in my choice of words at your Talk page and it is fair for you to call me on that here. And I appreciate also Smallbones' request that we/I have fun, and not drag down into driving people away from the WikiProject and from wikipedia in general.

• About technical discussions like this, I am not the only one who thinks we NRHPers need to have occasional discussions about formats of list-articles and sourcing and suitability of photos here, to address emerging or running disagreements elsewhere. No one, me included, should be too very bent out of shape about any such matter. These are all kinda technical. But from time to time it is helpful to have a discussion. One relatively recent one was discussion about some computer-modified photos, where I received the feedback of a pretty clear consensus against use of such photos. Ongoing ones are about handling MPS/TR info in list-articles, and about handling boundary increases/decreases. These are basically boring topics, but it does seem helpful to have discussion when it turns out one or a few editors are systematically working in one direction, where one or a few other editors are going in a different one. It shouldn't matter too much what a standard is, but in many cases a standard, a consensus seems needed to keep the project fun for everyone.

• About the other discussion that I was vague about, it was at current User Talk:Nyttend#How many images in a a stub? (permalink) where I saw JamesLWoodward(sp?) raising the same kind of concern. Do let's discuss some specific cases among these, okay? I wonder if these could be categorized usefully:
  • articles where a historic HABS or other photo is removed upon arrival of a new color recent pic (Captain Robert Bennet Forbes House is one where 1965 facade is shown and then 2009 facade seems quite similar -- i think that is great, in contrast to many cases where I have seen that facades change significantly; Burnt Cabins Gristmill Property where Jet Lowe HABS pic was removed, i think it provided great perspective to keep with the new pic)
  • short articles having 2 pics where Thundersnow dropped one (perhaps C.G. Meaker Food Company Warehouse? 2010 listing and article which i just revisited, where i add NRHP nom doc now available online)
  • other types of articles?
• I do wish to talk about the articles, and what the standards are, and hope we can. --doncram 19:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• P.S. Would a good compromise be to identify (or create) some tags which indicate that photos are present with no captions or not mentioned adequately in the text? I agree that Thundersnow has a good point with that observation that the usefulness of some photos is not properly supported. --19:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thundersnow, what types of concerns do you observe (what tags could possibly be used)? We can create custom template {{NRHP photo concerns}}, and allow for tags like:

• "Multiple pics somewhat overlapping in topic without explanation"
• "Gallery too large, please create/use a linked Commons gallery instead"
• others?

And each tag would have a corresponding maintenance category, like Category:NRHP photo concern - unexplained photos Category:NRHP photo concern - Commons cat needed, and be linked from the NRHP To Do list shown at top of this page (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/to do). I personally would very much value your identifying concerns by tagging that could then be addressed by editors. --doncram 20:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the Casa Paoli article is a special case, where I and wikipedia editor Mercy11 found success in cultivating a National Register photographer/employee, Juan Llanes Santos, who kindly went through hoops to make the 5 photos available at Commons under acceptable licensing, after it was one of the NPS's featured properties and we contacted him. This contributed towards the Puerto Rico OPRP office making a good number of further photos available into the public domain which are now used in articles. This is the only successful case I know about, of any one of us obtaining National Register office cooperation like that. I don't want to drop any of the photos of this unique case (and I think they do add, they do convey what a cool casa in a hot area can be like). --doncram 22:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the various articles discussed here, I perceive that Thundersnow's contentions are related to (1) images that don't add information value to the articles in the way they have been presented and (2) articles that have very little text to balance a long infobox, much less a long infobox plus multiple images. I suggest several ways to use and display images that I think could satisfy "both sides". The choice between these approaches would depend on the specifics of the article and the images:

• Put the "extra" images into image galleries, with descriptive captions.
• Either in an image gallery or in the article text, provide image captions that provide encyclopedic information about what the image illustrates. Captions like "Front facade in 1965" or "View of building from the west" don't do that for me. However, if the caption said something like "Reticulated Elbonian furbelows on front facade in 1965, prior to restoration" and that was supported by text discussion of the unusual use of Elbonian furbelows in the building and the effects of the 1969 restoration, the image would add clear value to the article. This approach could work with articles like Captain Robert Bennet Forbes House, Casa Paoli, and Bullock's Pasadena, but the Forbes House article doesn't have nearly enough text content yet to support more than one full-sized image -- much less to support informative captions for all of the images.
• Create a Commons category for all of the images for the building, and provide a {{commonscat}} link to that category.

Looking at some of the specific articles in question, I didn't identify any that seem long enough to accommodate all of the available images. My personal druthers would be to handle them as follows:

• Casa Paoli - Create an image gallery with descriptive captions on the images. The images appear to have information value, with appropriate captions, but with two infoboxes that include a photo and a map, the article isn't long enough to support the additional images. (OK, maybe it could support just one additional image in the article, but not 4 of them.)
• Bullock's Pasadena - Same approach as Casa Paoli. The "extra" images aren't particularly good quality, so an image gallery is probably a large enough display size.
• Moratock Park - Keep one image in the infobox and put the others into a linked commons category. The article is real short and the different images (other than the postcard) don't convey different information.
• Captain Robert Bennet Forbes House - Same approach as Casa Paoli. My choice for the infobox image would be the black-and-white image of the front facade, as it illustrates the building better than the more recent color photo.
• C.G. Meaker Food Company Warehouse - Same approach as Moratock Park. The two images both seem to be good quality, but the architectural features they show are the same.
• Burnt Cabins Gristmill Property - First choice would be to expand the article so that both photos could reasonably be used. If the article remains at its current stubby length, keep one image in the article and provide a link to a commons category.
• Camillus Union Free School - Create and use a linked commons category. The images don't illustrate different features of the building.
• Bodie Island Light - Use one image in the infobox, use one or two others in the article with informative captions, add the rest of the images to the infobox, AND create a Bodie Island Light category at Commons to link to include a link to the Commons category "Bodie Island Lighthouse" (I added it). The images are interesting and illustrative, but there are way too many images for just one article. --Orlady (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I utterly resent an editor who has long tangled with me butting in here to complicate matters, commenting directly after me. I removed a comment above; i won't battle if someone else restores it, but I see it providing no help, and I would ask other editors not to condone it. The editor has done more than anyone to fan flames of contention among NRHP editors IMO over many years of contention. The editor has resumed a pattern of stalking my edits, recently opening an AFD which was/is totally unjustified, seems rather to be an assertion of dominance, of right to bedevil me. The post i removed could be considered supportive perhaps of my position, but I perceive the wp:POINTY point to be an assertion of that editor's "right" to follow my edits and complicate. I don't want to hear it. I have repeatedly asked this editor to stop, but the editor continues, including posting at my Talk page against my wishes. I resent the butting in and don't need the "help" if that is what it is meant to seem to be. Again I won't war to re-remove the comment if someone else restores it, but I would prefer if no one did. I am sorry to have baggage, myself, in terms of this long history with this editor. --doncram 22:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Doncram. Don't remove people's comments from talk pages. Period. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

@Doncram: You've been told directly and repeatedly that you may not remove Orlady's comments on any talkpage other than your own:do not do that again, ever. Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I was quoted out of context above. I deplore almost all of Thunderstorm's image removals. While I agree that WP:EN is not a gallery, equally it does not require that we have only one image of a NRHP building. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 01:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! I thought as a newbie to this project that I would offer some fresh viewpoints. First, I really don't think that the issue is worth the amount of ink that is being spilled, pro or con. Some of the entries that I was checking out seem to have repetitive images to me. I like photos, and I would err on the side of having too many. But, I have to agree that a few of the hyperlinked pages in this discussion seem overboard. One of the articles seemed to have three pictures that were taken from within about one foot of each other. That seems like too much. I mean, if I really, really, really wanted to see every possible view, I could just go to Wikimedia myself and do some targeted searching. But, as long as the subject matter is tied to the article, I'm in favor of including photos. I don't think that every possible image needs to have a specific reference in the accompanying text. Bottom line: I would delete some of the repeat images but keep unique images even if they are not squarely and directly referenced in the text.ProfReader (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with most of Orlady's general points, above; in particular, that images shouldn't be included without captions that clearly explain their usefulness to the reader. This was my objection, for instance, to the extra photos in Bullock's Pasadena: if they were supposed to illustrate the curved lines typical of Streamline Moderne architecture, then the text should have mentioned this fact, and the caption should have emphasized it. The caption "Bullock's Pasadena, looking east" did nothing of the kind; and the article text didn't mention the curved lines at all—a reader would've had to follow the Streamline Moderne Wikilink to find out about them.

Rather than galleries, I'd prefer to see a link to Commons categories, where such exist. However, I wonder whether the {{Commons category}} template conveys much meaning to the casual Misplaced Pages reader. We editors who use and are familiar with Commons know that "media related to..." probably means "photos of..." in such a context; but someone less involved in WP might not realize that. Might it be better to replace the standard template with something more explicit? I'm thinking of something in the external-links section, like—

• More photos of Hartington Auditorium at Wikimedia Commons

This tells the reader "photos" instead of the generic and not entirely meaningful "media". The second link, to the Commons main page, allows interested readers to learn more about Commons, and might on occasion lead to future contributions.

—Ammodramus (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree almost completely with ProfReader - we definitely should error on the side of keeping images in the article if their subject is even somewhat different. Edit the caption before removing a useful photograph. I see reason to have 1 infobox image and 3 photographs in a gallery for one of those infamous superstubs - except if they're just a repeat image (like the Moratock Park example). When an image gets removed from an article then it is usually lost forever. Who would dig back in the article history to look for it? Not many articles have Commons categories.

I also agree with Ammodramus about Commons. I read some of this thread this morning and I was thinking that I need to point out that only Wikipedians even know what the Commons category link means. Out of sight means that it doesn't exist to the other 99% of readers. Royalbroil 00:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

NRHP categories for Virginia's independent cities?

I just ran across the redlink category Category:National Register of Historic Places in Richmond, Virginia. I didn't determine why the category hasn't been created. Virginia cities like Richmond are independent cities; they aren't included in counties. I can't find anywhere in the Virginia NRHP category structure for this category. Can anyone advise on the history of categorization for Virginia independent cities? --Orlady (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oh... From what I see, Category:National Register of Historic Places in Virginia is a mess, with dozens of articles not categorized into counties. I suggest that the missing categories should be created, and the articles moved from this top category into (old and new) sub-categories.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I went ahead and created the Richmond category and the parent Category:National Register of Historic Places in Virginia by city. It has 3 city categories in it so far... --Orlady (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I started working on it as well, may be we manage to clean the category up.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I completed Richmond, now doing other cities and counties.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

John Patton Log Cabin

Whereas I don't have a clue where this building might stand I am really sure it isn't located on the place for which coordinates are are given in the article. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Replied at Talk:John Patton Log Cabin.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Most photographed sites

Hi everyone, I've been playing around with indexing all images. That seems to work, I now have about 800.000 indexed images including almost 70.000 from the NRHP. I'm also testing with making this data api accessible and I figured you guys would like a list like this. Anything you didn't expect? Multichill (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Georgetown Steam Plant has 353 images
• Pike Place Public Market Historic District has 292 images
• Alcatraz has 267 images
• Snohomish Historic District has 212 images
• Central Building, Public Library has 187 images
• Nevada City Downtown Historic District has 160 images
• Port Townsend Historic District has 150 images
• Chittenden Locks and Lake Washington Ship Canal has 106 images
• Port Gamble Historic District has 99 images
• King Street Station has 99 images
• Washington Monument has 92 images
• Statue of Liberty National Monument, Ellis Island and Liberty Island has 85 images
• Center Bridge Historic District has 83 images
• Forts Baker, Barry, and Cronkhite has 80 images
• Williamsburg Historic District has 78 images
• Main Street Historic District (Middletown) has 73 images
• Sheffield Downtown Commercial Historic District has 72 images
• Moore Theatre and Hotel has 71 images
• Aurora Avenue Bridge has 71 images
• Mission Dolores has 69 images

I gotta say that I was just gobsmacked by much of this, and I probably know more about this phenomenon that most folks at WP:NRHP. Most of this I tend to view neither negatively or positively, but it has very little to do with the project. Some of this is great, some a minor bother.

To start almost half of these entries are from User:Jmabel, who for whatever reason wants to take photos of almost everything inside a steam plant museum. It doesn't rock my boat, but if he thinks folks are interested, why not? I'll say that I've taken several dozens of photos inside the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania (which is more related to this project) and I think that "doing a museum" has its place at least occasionally.

Something that shouldn't be surprising is the group of Alcatraz, Washington Monument, Statue of Liberty, and Williamsburg. For the most part, after a couple dozen photos of these tourist destinations, I don't think another photo will add much to the collection, but there is no way that we'd be successful telling folks not to upload any more, so why bother.

There are likely quite a few sites that aren't on this list because adding the NRHP template with ref number hasn't been viewed as a requirement. For my part, I know that Cape May Historic District (150 photos) and probably Colonial Germantown Historic District could be added to this list.

Some of what I say below is negative - but I want to except Forts Baker, Barry, and Cronkhite from anything like that. Sometimes what might seem crazy to me just works.

Some of the photos in this group were a result of WLM-US. I was quite surprised at the beginning of the contest that a few people essentially took one photo, then moved 5 feet, took another photo, etc. for up to 100 photos. I didn't like this at all - I think folks should be selective in what they upload and not expect other editors to do the selection for them. Other sites represented above are the result of group events, where for example they might get 20 photographers and they all go together to 20 sites and each gets 10 or 20 photos of each site. I understand how an event like this can encourage newbies to start taking photos, but the event itself doesn't do much for the project. We should clarify what events are supposed to do before the next WLM.

So there is a very mixed bag represented above. Nothing I can say (or even WP:NRHP as a whole) would make any of this against the rules of Commons or Misplaced Pages, but some of it I would discourage and other parts (e.g. historic districts) I'd encourage. I'll end just noting that there used to be something of a feeling here that maybe you should only upload the best one or two photos you have of each site. That seems kind of silly now, doesn't it? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Rereading this, it seems much too negative, but I'll point out the not having the NRHP template on every photo distorts the results, e.g. the Category for Washington Monument has over 320 photos. My point is, or should have been, that number of photos for a site is most likely irrelevant for the goals of the project, and certainly doesn't align with my goals, except for large and important historic districts - for these we need a lot of pix. For some other sites, I'll recommend quality over quantity. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The data source is certainly suspect. Boston Navy Yard has over 200 photos, and Boston Public Garden has over 400 (and that's just in the top-level category, not its subcategories). I'd suggest that any assertion of "most photographed in Commons" be treated gingerly until the data source (properly tagged images and properly organized/tagged categories) is more reliable. This could be roughly cross-checked by counting imaged entries in the listing articles and/or entry articles.

I'm also not sure what the value of that measure is. I'd rather see a summary count, perhaps by state, of listings that have (a) no image, or (b) no recent image (within say 5-10 years). This might spur some to haul out their cameras or trawl through suitable photo archives. Magic♪piano 18:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones regarding the plethora of photos at some sites—how many Washington Monument photos do we need?—but there are non-HD situations where lots of photos should be taken, and often the non-scenic ones are some of the most important.

For one thing, the photographer may not know what details of a site are significant. I know next to nothing about architecture, so if a building's of architectural significance, I might have to take scores of photos in order to capture a particular detail that's of interest. For example, of the 94 shots that I took of the Charles Mix County Courthouse, the one that really excited an editor who's interested in architect William L. Steele was the one that happened to catch the water table (architecture). A photo like that is never going to win a WLM contest, but it illustrates a significant architectural aspect of the building that probably wouldn't show up on a more scenic view.

The same holds with bridges: I don't know from bridge engineering at all, so I might have to shoot dozens of photos to get one that happens to show the weird rivets that make the bridge noteworthy. A wide shot of the bridge with sunny skies and blue water and colorful fall foliage is the sort of thing we want for an infobox, but it doesn't help the editor who wants to write a section on the hand-forged handrail or the left-handed turnbuckles or the American chestnut deck planking.

I'd say: better too many photos than too few. We're hoping that every single article will one day reach GA status, and we should try to make sure that the editors who try to bring them up to that level have all the photos they need to illustrate the salient features of the sites. Ammodramus (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree that too many is better than too few. And I won't discourage anybody who knows what he is doing and why, as Ammodramus clearly does, from uploading all the pix they want. Ammo, whether he knows it or not, was quite important in getting me out of my "1 photo per site" mode and I've enjoyed taking pix much more since then. Sometimes, though, I do wonder "why did someone want to take another photo of that?" and, unlike most Multichill tools, I wonder what the above tool really does for us. Sorry if I was too negative above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

While I can find fault with some photographers' documentation methodology, I'm not inclined to discourage image contributions on the basis of "too many." I could go on for paragraph after paragraph about Commons' disinterest in curation and evaluation, and its seemingly endless tolerance for any damned thing that can be uploaded so long as it's been rightly or wrongly tagged CC-by-SA at some point in its life. However, as Commons participants will quickly explain, it's hard to predict what will be wanted in the future, and at some point even the most seemingly mundane image may be valuable to a researcher. I think some form of rating or triage system may have to be introduced, but it's unlikely to happen soon. Acroterion (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to help with the triage process a little, by deleting some of my own photos when I've taken a better one. If I've taken a photo of a building in bad light, or with the facade largely obscured by foliage, or with a yellow truck conspicuously parked in front and intruding on the picture, I'll often try to go back and get a better photo; and when I do, I'd like to delete the poor original. I'm not sure, however, if that's a legitimate reason to speedy-delete a photo; and going through the regular deletion process seems like a slow and cumbersome process, needlessly calling for the time of other editors. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a process analogous to WP:PROD for Commons; if there is, I haven't been able to find it through the help pages. Ammodramus (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no analogous system at Commons. You may nominate to delete something if it is beyond the scope of the project. See Commons:Scope. Basically, if there's no copyright issue, images are kept if they theoretically could be of some "educational" value. In practice, this is a very low threshold. Any specific ones you have in mind that ought to be deleted? For example, there are thousands of superflorous images of caucasian human dongs that don't get deleted because somewhere, somehow, someone might find them useful.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You can simply upload a new photograph (without the ugly truck, or whatever) as a new version of an old one. (I just did this with this image, where the original was the completely wrong subject.) Magic♪piano 03:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As Magicpiano said, uploading the new version is the best option. If for whatever reason you do not like this, you can always upload a new file and mark the old one for speedy deletion indicating that you are the author and there is a better version available.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just make sure that it's your image that you're overwriting, that you note that you're overwriting it in the comment, and that you make any necessary changes to the description.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Guys, before you start overwriting images and nominating images for deletion: This is not accepted behavior at all at Commons.

Commons is not an encyclopedia. We don't delete our "bad" photos or replace them with "better" ones. We have plenty of disk space so we'll just keep all files and leave it up to the (re-)user to decide what images you want to use.

And for the first part. This was just a random list, you take things to damn seriously. Lighten up. Multichill (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Winners of the international Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest

Please see the nicely produced jury report. The winners among the US photos represented were the Chicago Theater by Raymonst and the St. Alexander Nevsky Chapel by Etaohc.

Congratulations to all the winners. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've put a discussion page about next year's WLM-US Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/WLM-US 2013 discussion, and would appreciate it if people took a look and answered a few questions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Second Generation Veterans Hospitals

There is a multiple property submission known as the "United States Second Generation Veterans Hospital MPS" that is referenced on about 850 articles of interest to your wikiproject. Perhaps that is evidence that either a template or an article should be dedicated to the topic. If such a template or article existed, it could be linked to in those 850 articles. 67.100.127.28 (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I just took a quick look around. It's clear there is such an MPS, mostly (?) with 2012 listing dates. I got one nomination form in Dayton but couldn't find the mps form itself. Nothing I could find on hocus focus. I'll try again in the morning. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A How-to question

How do you determine the geocoordinates that almost every article has? Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are three ways that come to my mind:

• The nomination forms give coordinates (not always correct, however).
• Using some sort of GPS receiver, get the coordinates at the site on a visit.
• Use ACME Mapper or another online mapping service to get coordinates.

Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• For my articles, I used Google Earth to find the building, and then corrected the coordinates in the lists.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Google Maps (the web version) has a handy "What's here" item on a popup menu that will give coordinates for whatever is under the mouse pointer. Be certain, however, that you have the correct location -- street numbers are not always correctly mapped in Google Maps. Magic♪piano 16:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Two new proposed listings from NY

New York's SHPO is back, this year, to having quarterly meetings to discuss proposed NR listings, and as usual has posted those under consideration for Thursday's meeting. Two caught my eye as meriting some comment:

• Far Rockaway Beach Bungalow Historic District, Queens County. Oh boy. This has to be the worst-timed NRHP nom ever. I feel sorry for the nominators. They did all this work researching and writing this ... only to have Superstorm Sandy come through less than a month after they finished and, I'd bet, more or less destroy the whole district.

  Based on where it is and the pictures, I doubt they survived. In fact, this piece suggests as much: "Pre-Sandy, the Beachside Bungalows Preservation Area was a pretty stretch of historic single-story wooden homes seconds back from the beach. During the storm, they were almost entirely submerged by the Atlantic; many families have lost almost everything." I'm sure whether this nomination goes forward or not will be discussed at the meeting.

• Space Shuttle Enterprise, New York County. 'Bout time, and way to go SHPO, getting on top of this before the shuttle even got on top of the Intrepid, itself an NHL. I'm sure all the other space shuttles will get listed, but it's nice to see a nomination this good (it even mentions the Trekker letter-writing campaign that got the shuttle named). It never actually went into space and wasn't designed to, but it was an important design step, and I believe it will be the first manned space vehicle to get listed.

  The Register also has a bunch of space-program related things like Neutral Buoyancy Space Simulator. Perhaps we should have a category for "Space-related National Register of Historic Places listings" if we don't already? Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

How should changes after listing be indicated on county NRHP lists?

I think we need to indicate in county and other lists those NRHP sites whose status has changed since they were listed. This would indicate that a site has been destroyed (or dismantled) and no longer exists, or that it exists but has been rebuilt (and is no longer the original historic structure), or that it has been moved from its original location.

As an example, for the Wiki Loves Monuments contest I decided to photograph all the covered bridges in Columbia County, Pennsylvania, which would have led to the National Register of Historic Places listings in Columbia County, Pennsylvania list being completely illustrated. There are 31 listings in the county, 26 of which are covered bridges (there is also one former listing, Welle Hess Covered Bridge No. S1, which collapsed in 1981). These covered bridges are also on the List of covered bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania.

Three of the covered bridges on the county list are no longer standing (though one is in storage and could possibly be rebuilt):

Riegel Covered Bridge No. 6 (arson on May 30, 1979), and

Rohrbach Covered Bridge No. 24 (dismantled in October 1986 and in storage at Knoebels).

Y Covered Bridge No. 156 (suspicious fire on August 15, 1983).

Two bridges have been moved from their original locations:

Wagner Covered Bridge No. 19 (dismantled in March 1981, stored at Knoebels until it was rebuilt at a housing development in 1994)

Fowlersville Covered Bridge (moved 1986 to Briar Creek Park in the same township)

Two bridges have been partially or completely reconstructed:

Twin Bridges-West Paden Covered Bridge No. 121 was destroyed in a flood on June 28, 2006. An identical new bridge was built in summer of 2008.

Kramer Covered Bridge No. 113 - this was "totally rebuilt in 2007" and the World Guide to Covered Bridges now lists it as WGCB 38-19-23#2 (a designation given if over 50% of the truss beams have been replaced - not clear if this is completely new, or just rebuilt)

In addition, someone has added to the Bridge in Fishing Creek Township article that it "was demolished" (this concrete bridge already had a PennDOT picture), so I did not try to find it.

So 6 of the 31 NRHP sites in Columbia County are no longer eligible for NRHP status (19%), and 2 others have been moved from the location given. So over a quarter of the listings in the Columbia Co. NRHP list aricle are problematic (no longer in existence, replaced or moved). There are at least 7 bridges on the state covered bridges list that no longer exist - see here. I think we need to indicate that in some way on the list article (colors / symbols). Ruhrfisch _><>° 04:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A similar issue to this is when, due to annexation or de-annexation, an extant property is no longer in the political subdivision that it was in when it was nominated. An example can be found at National Register of Historic Places listings in Lake County, Indiana, Entry # 60, John Wood Mill. When it was designated, it was in a rural township with a mailing address of Merrillville, In. Due to annexation, it is now in Hobart, Indiana. I boldly changed the city on the list, but am wondering if I should go back and reference it with the official state highway map? Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought the last column in the list is exactly for the issues both of you mention?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not putting them down in a new table, similar to some of the NHL lists (there something like "Former NHLsL) when appropriate? --Matthiasb (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I run into demolished sites with fair regularity, and I've been noting the fact in the "Summary" section in the last column. That seems like a pretty fair solution; after all, the fact that the building no longer exists is a pretty pertinent fact and should likely be included in even the briefest of summaries. The only tricksy thing is confirming demolition. For example, in the National Register of Historic Places listings in Wayne County, Michigan, I was able to confirm demolition of the Paul Harvey Deming House and the Mellus Newspapers Building with reliable sources, but was unable to confirm demolition of the David and Elizabeth Bell Boldman House and the Phillip and Maria Hasselbach Dingledey House (although I'm 99.9% certain they're actually demolished, they could have been moved), and so for the last two simply note that they're not at their listed location.

Reliable confirmation is the key, though, because I've more than once set out to photograph a site and found that it didn't exist at its listed location. However, further research showed that the NRHP listing was simply in error, and the building existed, safe and sound and unmoved, a few blocks away.

I would not support breaking these sites out into a new table until they're actually formally de-listed, because (a) it's not our place to differentiate between sites that should and should not be removed from the list, and (b) there's a small but fuzzy line of sites that have been moved or rebuilt or otherwise had their historic context altered. These facts should also be noted in the summary, but it's a complex judgment call to decide whether the context has been altered enough to warrant de-listing. (See, for example, the Forrest J. Stimpson House on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Cheboygan County, Michigan. After hours of research trying to figure out what the Hell happened to it, I emailed the Mackinaw Area Historical Society, who in reply told me that "this house was removed from site and left in the woods at Trails End Road and changed dramatically." Assuming that's true , the house probably ought to be de-listed, although (a) that's arguable, and (b) some properties have been completely gone for over 20 years and still haven't been removed from the Register, so I wouldn't hold my breath on de-listing a more recent and arguable case.) Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the list articles is principally to present what is listed on the NRHP. These listings are, unfortunately, known to contain stale and inaccurate information (where "stale" includes "the structure doesn't seem to exist anymore"). The proper thing to do is to get those entries delisted; talk to your state's SHPO (preservation office, keeper of the state's NRHP list). I always correct address changes (noting the difference, and also provide locations for "address restricted" listings where the location is well-described or available in other sources) and note evidence of non-existence (using "probably demolished" if I can't gain confirmation). I will probably eventually take a list to the Mass. SHPO based on notes accumulated in various listing articles. Magic♪piano 13:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Good points about trying to get the SHPO and NPS to correct the NRHP listing. Regarding the encyclopedia, the fact that a structure is no longer at the listed address could be published in a table entry if it can be supported by any reliable source. Many times there are local news stories about the destruction of historic properties. It occurs to me that satellite and air photo images published by Google Earth, Bing, etc., ought to qualify as published reliable sources -- if they clearly demonstrate the absence of a structure at its supposed address. When a Wikipedian fails to find a structure at its supposed address but cannot find any reliable-source confirmation of its absence, it seems to me that a hidden note in the "Summary" section would (at a minimum) be appropriate to record the information for the benefit of others. --Orlady (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - I agree that we should contact the SHPO and NPS about destroyed / missing sites, though it is not clear to me what they would do about a moved listing or a rebuilt one where some of the original listing is still present. I also agree that we should not make separate lists of missing / moved / rebuilt sites, unless the NRHP somehow changes the listing's status. While I really like the information Andrew Jameson has added to the Michigan lists, I also found it difficult to see at a glance what has been changed since listing.

In the short term (while we wait for the NRHP to update its listings), I think it would make sense to do some sort of different background color for the row and add a symbol (after the name) to indicate that the lisitng has somehow been changed since it was originally included on the NRHP. I also would include the specific information in the comments - using both a color and a symbol meets WP:ACCESSIBILITY. From the examples cited here, it seems like we would need five colors / symbols (I suggest symbols and colors below, but they are just what I came up with):

1. Destroyed (* and Red?) - for listings that we have reliable sources showing that they no longer exist
2. Missing (# and Yellow?) - for listings that are no longer at the address or coordinates given, but where we cannot determine what happened (probably detroyed, may be moved)
3. Moved (^ and Blue?) - for listings that are known to have been moved from their original NRHP address
4. Address change (@ and Purple?) - for listings in their original location, but whose address has changed (annexation, road renamed or renumbered, etc.).
5. Rebuilt / replaced ($ and Green?) - for listings that have been rebuilt or replaced since originally being listed

What do you all think? Ruhrfisch _><>° 16:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I know Ruhrfisch is aware, but I wonder if some of the commenters above are not aware of thewp:NRIS info issues system, which is this WikiProject's out-of-mainspace documentation of known errors and questions about the National Register's published data. I think it should be re-affirmed that central noting of discrepancies appears useful. One purpose is to facilitate editors actually working with the National and/or state staff to see to the correction of published data. Another is to explain to future editors why our list-articles and individual articles often show something different than what is publicly stated by the National Register to be fact. Having this system has facilitated dealing with many new editors coming in with local, on-the-spot knowledge that something is wrong with a given wikipedia article, and allowed us and them to use their knowledge to correct the wikipedia information in mainspace and document the reasoning in the info issues system.

About an address change, I think the process has been that we just update the address in a list-article, and in the individual article too. The address change, i.e. the fact that it is different than what NRIS shows, can be noted in the individual article, perhaps only in a footnote. And it should be noted in wp:NRIS info issues. No need for a color or any other highlighting in a list-article, about this.

About demolished ones, where it has been documented, I sorta like this suggestion, to use another color to highlight the fact that a building is completely gone, yet nonetheless NRHP-listed. It could come across as a bit pointy, though. The point would be that we know a building is completely gone, and it is obviously no longer NRHP-eligible, and the readers of Misplaced Pages now know it. But the National Register has it wrong. And so does "nrhp.com" and the other mirrors of NRIS. And arguably the National register staff hasn't done its job and/or the state staff hasn't done their job. A less pointy approach, less than using colors to highlight this into mainspace, is to note the demolition with source in the list-article description/notes column, and in the individual article, and to note it in wp:NRIS info issues, and to inform the state and National staff of the error in the NRIS data. --doncram 17:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

My comment above referred to places which have been delisted only. I agree with the points made by Ruhrfisch and Doncram concerning those registry errors. I don't think a color system is needed, a appropriate statement like "moved", "destroyed" in the remarks column will be adequate for pointing out the issue(s). --Matthiasb (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a good example is National Register of Historic Places listings in Cleveland, Ohio. The list there has at least 11 confirmed listings that are demolished yet still listed. As long as they are properly labeled in remarks and referenced, I think that is more than sufficient for displaying the necessary information that it's still listed but no longer exists. More color coding is just going to be distracting, time-consuming to manually check, and troublesome to keep updated. Ohio's historic preservation office notes 157 locations that have been demolished. They are labeled "delisted", but nearly half of those are, in fact, still listed. If a site does get delisted it goes in a separate section on the bottom of that county's list, as in the Cleveland page, which has 7 delistings at the bottom. Making a separate page for *ALL* the listings on one page (or even single-state pages) I would advise against since there's over 1500 delistings, half of which have been added to county listings by me recently. 25or6to4 (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all, I have added comments to the Columbia County NRHP list for each listing where I had a reliable source for the change (and I already updated the individual articles). The List of covered bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania is formatted a bit differently and does not hhave a clear place for such comments - I think I may change the "type" column to something like "Comments" to include the information. I will add the destroyed and moved bridges to the PA WP:NRIS info issues page and contact the authorities. Ruhrfisch _><>° 21:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, it would be great if you did follow up about those and possibly other wp:NRIS info issues PA items with them. I myself made some progress, but not a lot, with the National Register staff a couple years ago. And just a thought: if you combined the "Built" and "Listed" column into one "Dates" column, it would save space in the table. This is done now in most of the "Delisted" section tables I think, where listing and delisting dates are both given in one. In one cell you would have "1977 built<br/>1979 NRHP-listed" and it would be sortable by the first date the built date. It's probably not important to be able to sort by NRHP listing date, right? That's my 2 cents. --doncram 00:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A few years back, I contacted the NPS about demolished properties. Their response to me was that the SHPO (or FPO or THPO) has to originate the de-listing of any property and then send it to the Keeper for action. Einbierbitte (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

1. ^ Numbers represent an alphabetical ordering by significant words. Various colorings, defined here, differentiate National Historic Landmarks and historic districts from other NRHP buildings, structures, sites or objects.
2. The eight-digit number below each date is the number assigned to each location in the National Register Information System database, which can be viewed by clicking the number.
3. Weekly Register Lists, 1985, p.47
4. Cite error: The named reference nris was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. "Main Street Walk, Ferndale, California". Ferndale Museum. 2011. Retrieved 12 December 2011. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• 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