Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:18, 9 July 2013

National Register of Historic Places Project‑class

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

This WikiProject has been featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost twice, on 28 September 2009 and 17 October 2011.

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

National Register of Historic Places listings in Manassas Park, Virginia

I created National Register of Historic Places listings in Manassas Park, Virginia (cities in Virginia are county-equivalents), it probably needs some cleaning up. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that many of your recent edits to NRHP lists in Virginia are based off of the coordinates shown in the lists not lining up with the city/county that the list says they're in. See WP:NRHPHELP#Coordinates issues. If you are basing these edits on the coordinates included in the lists, that's not advised. The city/county in all of these lists comes from the National Register Information System (NRIS), and they're usually correct, although the coordinates may not be for reasons explained at the link I just gave you. I personally don't think the article you have created is necessary, as all of the listings there are also included in other county lists. I'll let someone else weigh in, though.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Legally speaking, any listings in Manassas Park aren't actually part of Prince William County, so they shouldn't be in the Prince William County list. Unfortunately, the NRIS doesn't make it very clear what's where. It lists three properties in Manassas, none in Manassas Park, and everything else in the three areas as Prince William County, but some of the Prince William County listings are clearly wrong; for instance, Prince William County Courthouse is in the heart of Manassas (unless the courthouse is an enclave of Prince William County for legal reasons). I also suspect a few places were in the vicinity of the two cities (and therefore part of Prince William County) when they were listed but got annexed later on, though I can't really prove that. At any rate, we're probably best off trusting the NRIS as to where places are, which would mean there aren't any places in Manassas Park proper anyway. TheCatalyst31 21:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Emmette Hernandez Coleman's effort seems helpful. I would absolutely NOT trust NRIS as to the locations. I would tend to agree with strategy of looking at where coordinates show the place to be located, and agree that bringing up the item here at wt:NRHP is a good idea, as EHC did. Items should indeed be moved out of the county lists if it can be established that they were incorrectly included. Note there are could be similar other fixes needed in Virginia where there are independent cities which are not part of counties that surround them. Recently archived discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_55#Swannanoa (mansion) covered another example, where NRIS correctly reported independent city Waynesboro as being the nearest city, while including it in Augusta County and we verified/clarified it is located in Augusta County (which surrounds but does not include Waynesboro). So, we should focus now on trying to verify where the several items are actually located. Probably best to start articles on each of them, and bring in the NRHP nomination documents that Virginia makes available, and examine the locations on sometimes-included maps in those documents. --doncram 22:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As for the article I created, any other state, and you'd probably be correct, but Virginia has lists for it's incorporated cities (see National Register of Historic Places listings in Virginia) This is probably because, due to a quick in Virginia law, incorporated cities in Virginia aren't legally part of their counties (see cities in Virginia).

As for the coordinates and the city/county source, I had no idea. Still, most of the ones I fixed are probably not in Manassas. Two of the entries explicitly say that they are "NW of Manassas", they all had Manass postal addresses according to their coordinates, and the Manassas National Battlefield Park article itself says that it is outside of Manassas. The Manassas postal addresses extends well outside of Manassas, and it's a common mistake, even among otherwise reliable sources, and even the locales, to list all places with a Manassas address as in Manassas.

Is it possible that the NRIS bases it's city data on postal addresses rather then the city something is in, I had assumed that the "false" Manassas in National Register of Historic Places listings in Prince William County, Virginia were the result of some editor who mistakenly thought they were in Manassas. That would also explain why the Fairfax County list had entries that listed their city as Manassas Park and Manassas (which are in Prince William County, not Fairfax County) and Arlington (which is itself a county). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Given some doubt as to the information in NRIS for these, it is good that the state of Virginia provides specific lists for each (can find by lookup at wp:NRHPhelp). Specifically:

• City of Manassas Park should have just one, i guess, per http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Cities/register_ManassasPark.htm
• City of Manassas should have just 3, i guess, per http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Cities/register_Manassas.htm.

BUT, hmm, big caveat: even state registers are wonky and don't perfectly identify which counties are relevant, especially where an item spans county lines. I recall that the state of Oregon's official list of national register listings often includes just one county, for multiple-county items, and had other problems, which caused confusion (sorted out in big reconciliation and discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon#Reconciliation of wikipedia tables vs. Oregon PDF and Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon#Development. So just because the Virginia Department of Historic Resources lists them one way, it is not a sure thing that their info is precise enough for us. --doncram 00:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

For Conner House, its NRHP nomination document includes a USGS quadrant map in its last page, page 7, that shows the location precisely. Happily Mapquest shows county borders (while Google and Bing do not), and in fact seems to distinguish between independent cities vs. counties within Virginia. Comparing, it is clear that Conner House is within the city of Manassas Park. And not in Prince William County. --doncram 00:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Another caveat about the Virginia website: I've found that if the Virginia DHR doesn't have the nomination forms online, they just don't list the site in their listings, which might be a problem for the Address Restricted sites. TheCatalyst31 00:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Since the 3 others, besides Conner House, are Address Restricted ones, I am guessing our best info is that the Manassas Park list is best with those 4 items, exactly as EHC created it. So I'm gonna proceed and remove those 4 items from the Prince William county list-article. I will say it is really quite extraordinary that EHC has found a new list of NRHPs to create. Congratulations! The NRHP wikiproject regulars, me included, have been pretty darn confident we had them all set up, though there are always new additions of items, and though we know we have to make changes/corrections/occasional moves as fuller information comes forward. And we subdivide lists sometimes due to article size problems. But it is really surprising to find we completely missed the need for a list for this specific city. --doncram 01:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I rechecked the ones on the Prince William County list that I identified as not Manassas, using thiar addresses instead of their coordinates, thiar not in Manassas. I did however mistakenly identify Ben Lomond as in Sudley, it's in Bull Run. The Manassas ones with a {{citation needed}} I was unable to check, they didn't have addresses, or even coordinates. The remainder I've confirmed as being in Manassas, except for Prince William County Courthouse which is otherwise well within Manassas, but tough I'm not sure of this, it appears to be PWC enclave for legal reasons, as TheCatalyst31 pointed out. Even if it is I think we should still count it as in Manassas though, tough clearly state it's enclave status. I've added them all to the Manassas list, but put the unconfirmed ones in their own clearly marked section.

To clarify, my creation of the Manassas Park list was not intended to get the Manassas Park ones off the PWC list. Right now the scope includes PWC's independent cities, rather that should change is a separate matter. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, both the Mayfield Fort and Cannon Branch Fort are described in this document. The two sites and the Manassas Industrial School for Colored Youth are precisely located, by address, by the Manassas Historical Society (I assume in Manassas, but I'm not familiar with the area). Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The Cannon Branch Fort, then, appears to be located in Manassas, as street address "10611 Gateway Boulevard" (per the latter reference the manassascity.org one) shows, in MapQuest, to be in Manassas, though if the listed property extends far enough it could go into Prince William. It depends how far off Gateway, and in what direction off, it goes; the "Located off Gateway Blvd. near the Manassas Airport, this site is part of the Manassas Museum System" (at first source the The Civil War in PWC") is not precise enough to absolutely rule out the property extending into Prince William. ) --doncram 13:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary edit point

About the PWC list's scope, many VA county lists include their independent cities, and at least a few don't. I've amended a the leads of the lists I've come across that include their independent cities to state that they do, for example PWC's "... in Prince William County, Virginia (including the independent cities of Manassas and Manassas Park)". There's no dispute that the independent cities aren't legally part of their counties, however for many non-legal purposes they are counted as part of their counties. For example, as the Manassas article says: "The Bureau of Economic Analysis combines the city of Manassas (along with Manassas Park) with Prince William County for statistical purposes." I think it makes scene to include the independent cities on the county lists, but we should decide this on a Virginia-wide bases, and not for any one list in particular. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I commented already at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Prince William County, Virginia already about this. I think overall we don't want overlapping lists, and I was trying to follow your lead in splitting out the National Register of Historic Places listings in Manassas Park list. If Manassas Park is separate, we should drop the 4 entries from the Prince Wm list, and edit the lede (define the scope) accordingly. If we want the Prince Wm list to include the Manassas Park (and city of Manassas) ones, then I think it should include two (or three) separate tables, in 2 or 3 sections, one for each city or county, and National Register of Historic Places listings in Manassas Park should be changed to a redirect back to the Prince Wm list. See, for example, National Register of Historic Places listings in Spokane County, Washington which contains one table of the city of Spokane NRHPs and one table of the rest of the county.

I agree it is somewhat arbitrary and it doesn't really matter if one list contains both a county and the city it encloses. It does not have to be the same everywhere in Virginia; it just needs to be clearly presented in each case. --doncram 04:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As a general policy, it's not clear to me what the benefit is of splitting out small lists into different articles. If anything, I think it would be better to combine geographically contiguous short lists, so that the reader can more easily find or compare historic properties in a certain locale. What, exactly, is the utility to the reader of creating a list article containing only three or four entries? Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that splitting out small lists usually shouldn't be done, unless the main list is simply too big to keep together. One reason is that splitting prevents us and readers from seeing all the locations in one linked Google or Bing map. It's better to be able to see them all, sometimes, as was preferred for Spokane city and the others in Spokane County. Too many short town lists were split out in Massachusetts and in some other states, IMO, and some shold be recombined. But here, the fact is that the sites are not correctly included in an article titled NRHP listings in Prince William County. They are not in fact in Prince Wm county. If one wants to include them all in one article, then I say put them into separate tables within one article to give proper clarification that they are not in the same entities (and this allows all to be seen in linked Google or Bing map). And I guess rename/move the article, too, to National Register of Historic Places listings in Manassas, Manassas Park, and Prince William County. Or keep them in 3 separate articles. --doncram 13:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In view of the fact that several listed properties are address-restricted, and most of them seem to be related to Civil War battles, Wouldn't it make more sense to create an article about the National Register listings associated with the Battles of First and Second Bull Run (a.k.a. First and Second Manassas)? IMO, that would be far more informative and useful to most readers than a bunch of formatted lists that are slavishly tied to jurisdictional boundaries, but don't have much content. --Orlady (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

continuing

The Virginia DHR statewide list, mentioned in another discussion section, and now linked from wp:NRHPhelp#Virginia, shows 4 items in Manassas and 2 items in Manassas Park:

CITY OF MANASSAS
Liberia Manassas 12-18-79 03-20-80 155-0001; Liberia, mapping update Manassas 02-15-07 Pending 155-0001
Manassas Historic District Independ. Hill, Manassas 02-16-88 06-29-88 155-0161
Manassas Industrial School (44PW505) Independent Hill 04-20-94 08-01-94 155-0010
Cannon Branch Fort (44PW227) Nokesville 03-20-96 08-26-99 155-5020

CITY OF MANASSAS PARK
Conner House Manassas 01-20-81 10-06-81 152-0001
Louisiana Brigade Winter Camp Manassas 08-15-89 11-16-89 152-5001

Since it is pretty few items, and there is some agreement (not unanimous) above that it's better not to split out smaller lists when not needed for size reasons, I am inclined now to merge back or redirect back the separated National Register of Historic Places listings in Manassas Park, Virginia and/or National Register of Historic Places listings in Manassas, Virginia, combining/directing them back into National Register of Historic Places listings in Prince William County, Virginia and moving/renaming that list article to be clear about it. I may just proceed with some edits, and maybe comment more at Talk page of the last-linked. --doncram 19:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to wait six days before voicing my objection. The title is way too clunky. No other Virgina list has a title that lists the cities, and the lead does a good enough job of explaining that the list includes PWC's independent cities. Placing independent cities in their own section isn't done on any other VA list ether, and aside from being clunky, it damages the ability to use the table to organize the list by date listed, or alphabetical order.

The Manassas and Manassas Park lists should not have been redirected. Every VA independent city gets it's own list, even when it overlaps with a county list. While I wouldn't necessarily be against removing these city lists, to redirect just these two is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would overlapping lists be a problem? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This is partly about the current title of the combined list-article, which is National Register of Historic Places listings in Manassas, in Manassas Park, and in Prince William County, Virginia. I agree that is a mouthful. I repeated the preposition "in" to clarify that the three items are different areas. Perhaps it could be renamed; I am certainly open to a different name for the combo list-article. It is accurate and descriptive though. Or i am open to them being split back out to 3 lists in 3 separate Misplaced Pages articles (but there is advantage to being in one Misplaced Pages article, including that all locations can be seen in a linked Google/Bing map). My view about "overlapping" lists, is that it is a problem. One way is that it calls duplicatively for descriptions to be created, and it is perhaps calling for more maintenance. I think nowhere within our nation-wide system of geographical lists do we keep duplicate lists of any area.

About this being possibly different treatment than for any other Virginia or other cities and surrounding counties, I am not sure. Could people point to any other examples? It is often not an issue, say for Waynesboro and its surrounding Augusta County. National Register of Historic Places listings in Waynesboro, Virginia is a long enough list to have a separate article for it; I don't feel tempted to combine it into National Register of Historic Places listings in Augusta County, Virginia. But Manassas has just 4 and Manassas Park have just 2, so I am tempted to include them in a combo with their surrounding county. Are there any other similar examples? --doncram 23:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

redundant?

Is there a need for National Register of Historic Places listings in Winchester, Virginia since it's very similar to National Register of Historic Places listings in Frederick County, Virginia? (not sure what List of historic sites in Frederick County, Virginia is all about...) Winchester isn't that large of a city and the list for the county is only 25, although judging by the city-specific list, some appear to be missing on the county list. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that duplication. This indeed seems to be another example of a Virginia city-county situation, as discussed in above subsections. Assuming that Winchester is an independent city, not included in Frederick County, I think one good option is to remove the Winchester items out of the Frederick County list-article, and have two list-articles. The other option is to have two sections in one list-article, titled perhaps National Register of Historic Places listings in Winchester and in Frederick County, Virginia. --doncram 06:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Description column

I've reverted a major contribution by a newbie in a SC NRHP table of the description column I'm guessing that everybody here will agree that a couple of paragraphs of material for each entry in this column overwhelm the table, and the paragraphs should go in the article instead. Perhaps the description column should be limited to a couple of short sentences per site.

Still, I hate to discourage a newbie, especially when we've got these big, mostly empty columns that we seldom, if ever, discuss here (and frankly, use poorly). Is there any consensus guideline that we can give on the use of this column?

All newbie-friendly responses welcome.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the new contributions to a length I thought was reasonable. (National Register of Historic Places listings in Greenville, South Carolina) (Edited as a suggestion only - if someone else wants to revert/tinker, be my guest.) As a general rule, I usually shoot for about three sentences worth of information in the infobox, which seems like a reasonable short summary. In this particular case, though, a lot of the original contribution was redundant or uninformative, so there wound up being about three sentences of informative content within each description anyway. (The contribution reads like an eighth grade history report to me.) Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones that there's no real pattern. Frankly, I'd say that's good: while the diff you linked is definitely too much, we really should have lots of latitude regarding the amount of text for each site. In my opinion, you've gotten to the "too much description" point when the text is taller than the photo, i.e. the line on the table takes up more space because of the amount of text. I don't use the column for this purpose very often, but when I do, I tend to write substantially less than Andrew does — not that I think he's wrong, but that I simply don't care to write as much as he does. I'll normally do a sentence or sentence fragment summarising what's in the article, and if there's no article, I'll not add a summary. See National Register of Historic Places listings in Champaign County, Ohio, for example; I've put in summaries for all the properties with articles (except one useless substub) in what for me is a typical style. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My only stipulation would be that any blurb use complete sentences. At least if you're seeking some sort of recognition for the list. Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

New page from Arkansas Post National Memorial?

What would you guys think about moving Arkansas Post National Memorial to a new page dedicated solely to the historical settlement (Arkansas Post (Historical Settlement)?), while keeping a separate page for the memorial itself? I'm planning to do an overhaul of the page soon anyway, along with other related articles (just organizing some sources). The page mostly discusses the history of the settlement anyway instead of the actual memorial. I posted on the article's talk page about it. Feel free to reply there or here with input/opinions. Samuel Peoples (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for asking! I see that Arkansas Post is currently a redirect to Arkansas Post National Memorial article, and that the article does not currently describe much about the current site or any memorials present. The "Arkansas Post" is a U.S. National Historic Landmark; "Arkansas Post National Memorial" is how the place is listed on the National Register of Historic Places's NRIS info system; the NRHP registration document gives both names, with the shorter name first. In this WikiProject, we have usually used the NHL name rather than the NRHP name, for a place that is listed on both, if the names differ. If I was naming a new article about the NRHP and NHL, I would use "Arkansas Post". From what I see, the article could be moved to "Arkansas Post", with no need for any parenthetical addition to the name. And, it would be improved by adding some section about recent/modern commemorations and memorials, and include narration of it being NRHP-listed in 1966 (right at the beginning of the NRHP program), how an when it became an NHL, how and when it became a National Memorial. The linked NHL page suggests there is an "Arkansas Post National Monument": is that possibly an error? National Monuments are different than National Memorials. After developing some such section, then I'd consider splitting it out. But my guess is one article at the simpler, historic short name, would suffice. My 2 cents. :) --doncram 19:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict, although it looks like I agree with Doncram) My personal opinion would be to move the page to Arkansas Post (currently a redirect) since it's mostly about history and looks like it will be even more about the history soon. The amount of material there about the monument itself is not enough for a standalone article. If at some point in the future, the memorial part is expanded enough, it could be split out via WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, guys. The one-article (renamed to Arkansas Post) idea sounds good to me as well. I'll go ahead and make the move. Samuel Peoples (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually... I get this error trying to move it to Arkansas Post: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid." But there is no page named simply Arkansas Post. There's Arkansas Post, Arkansas (an article about the unincorporated community), but Arkansas Post is simply a redirect to the memorial article. I guess that means the name is somehow not valid? Samuel Peoples (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Samuel Peoples (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Better split for Westchester County, NY, list

If anyone's interested, I have a proposal to better split the Westchester County, NY, list. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NRHPPROGRESS question

Any chance that we could get a set of statistics on how we're covering sites with non-stub articles? It would be a useful supplement to (or potentially a useful replacement of) our current stats on how many bluelinks we have in our lists, since it would show the parts of the country with articles that are substantially useful to readers. Shouldn't be that hard to judge (and could presumably be done automatically), since by "stub" I simply mean "a page with a stub template". Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There's been some discussion of this on the talk page here and here, though it ultimately turned into a debate over differentiating two-line stubs from more substantial articles that are tagged as stubs and didn't accomplish anything. TheCatalyst31 01:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I could work something up in a few days time that could give us quality stats for every county, including which articles in every county are not tagged with the {{WPNRHP}} talk page template so we could tag them. I envision adding a # of Stubs, # of Start, # of C, etc., and then a %Start or greater column which IMO would be more indicative of quality than quantity. As TheCatalyst31 said, however, I would really like to get the sub-stub vs. good stub debate settled before we start to look at any kind of quality stats so that 1-sentence stubs with no information are separated out from actual quality material.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

To show that this is technically possible, I've just edited the NRHPstats script which makes the little yellow box appear on list articles to show stats about how many articles are stubs, how many are start or higher (with a percentage), how many are unassessed, and how many don't have the talk page tag on them. It is very simple to extend this code to the full Progress page, but as I said, I would prefer to wait until the whole sub-stub vs. good stub debate is settled.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The script appears to be doing strange things with articles that are tagged by other projects but not NRHP. For instance, at National Register of Historic Places listings in Creek County, Oklahoma, it's claiming there are three stubs, three start-class or higher articles, and one untagged article. However, there are three stubs, two start-class articles, and two links pointing to U.S. Route 66 in Oklahoma, which is C-class but isn't tagged by this project. TheCatalyst31 12:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, this seems to be a quirk with the API where if you query the same page twice in a single call, it only returns one result. That means my script is only counting US Rt 66 in OK as being untagged once, then when it calculates start or higher, it subtracts one less than it should (my script gets the start or higher bit by taking bluelinks - stubs - unassessed - untagged). Adding the project tag to the Rt 66 article fixed the list-article in question, but you're right that this is a flaw that I'll have to see if I can patch. The fact that it is related to untagged articles, though, is actually a blessing because that datapoint was meant to get people to add the NRHP tag to those articles' talk pages. It appears that once a page that is linked multiple times from the same list is tagged, there's no problem.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, this isn't really addressing my exact proposal — do all of you understand my idea and think there's a better plan, or do you misunderstand what I meant? My primary concern was with the data for File:NRHP Articled Counties.svg, and I was suggesting that we judge purely based on the stub template so that (1) we could avoid debates over substubs and (2) we wouldn't need to worry about article ratings. I'm pretty sure we'll have to accept my idea or reject it and stay with the status quo, since I can't see how we could reflect everything from stub to FA in a single map. Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the only way I know currently how to check if an article is a stub is to check the article quality rating on the talk page. It's much harder and takes much longer to find out if there is a stub template on the article page itself, unless there is some feature in the API that I'm not aware of. And even so, the two should overlap exactly.. If an article has a stub template, it should be rated stub on the talk page, and if an article is rated stub on the talk page, it should have a stub template. Any discrepancies between the two should be fixed.

As to your concerns about a map, I would imagine a map that showed the percentage of a county rated start or higher would be pretty informative as to the quality of articles in that county. It isn't perfect, but it will definitely distinguish "stubbed" counties from those with extended information about each site. Of course the map we have now would still be useful as an idea of the quantitative coverage in each county. Both have their niche.

Parenthetical: I fixed the code, so it should take duplications into account now.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(1) I guess I was the one misunderstanding, since I assumed that checking for the presence of a stub template would be at least as easy as checking the quality rating. Completely agree thahat the "stub" rating should be given if and only if the article has a stub template. (2) I thought you meant a map reflecting how many starts, how many Cs, how many Bs, etc., rather than one showing how many starts-and-above. Apparently you meant exactly what I did, yet I didn't realise that. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussions foundered upon interest/insistence that short articles be identified with a derogatory label, e.g. "sub-stub", clearly a non-starter for participating in the Misplaced Pages project, where any started article is a "stub" or higher. If the primary purpose is to be insulting, then please let's extend that courtesy towards new and old contributors of photographs that we all may choose to follow vindictively. :) Let's create a "sucky photo" category and a WikiProject Talk page rating to insult snapshot quality pics, or to insult pics that turn out to omit key features of an NRHP listing (once that can be determined from a real article-writer finally building an article about a given listing). :) --doncram 12:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Any started article is not necessarily a stub and not necessarily useful. Newly created articles are frequently deleted for having no context of notability.. that's kind of the whole point of Misplaced Pages and it's the reason why there isn't an article about you or me or any of the other 7 billion "common" people out there. The only reason NRHP sub-stubs have previously gotten a pass is because it has been assumed that listing on the NRHP makes a topic notable enough for its own article. Part of the consensus before was that since there existed a nomination form for each site, there would probably be ample sources for each. This was, however, before many forms were digitized and uploaded, and now we're beginning to get a better sense of the quality of them. Please tell me how I'm supposed to write an entire well-sourced and helpful article with this. The idea that listing on the NRHP alone is enough to warrant the creation of an article is, in my opinion, incorrect. At the very least, there should be some "claim to fame" if you will about WHY a property is listed on the register that isn't just a lazy longquote from the nomination form as you're so inclined to do.

As to pictures, yes there are some horrible pictures, some taken by me a few years ago with an old non-digital camera then scanned in with a crappy scanner. It would be great to mark these pictures for improvement, but the fact is there is no "rating" scheme already available for pictures. The idea of adding a new category to the article scheme is a lot more feasible than adding an entirely new image rating scheme.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Lots of articles that I've put together in Ohio, such as the Leftwich House, are derived from sourcing that's no more extensive (and perhaps less extensive) than the Dabney-Green House, and anyway mini-forms like this one are submitted with MPS forms that have additional information. Sometimes photos are bad because nothing better can be done, e.g. Kintner-Withers House and Elm Spring Farm, but stub articles can be expanded, whether by spending more time with nomination forms or by using non-nomination sources like county histories. We can do better than stubs, while the higher ratings are more subjective than simply length and tracking them would be much less benefit for the amount of work it would take — that's why I've asked for us to track better-than-stub articles. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

(In reply to Nyttend) As to the Dabney-Green House, yes this nomination form was submitted with an MPS form, but nowhere in the MRA document is the house even mentioned other than in the list of properties being considered for listing on the register. The only information about the house I can find is what is in that nomination document.

The reason it is named "Dabney-Green" is because, according to the nomination form, it is the former resident of former mayor of Meridian, Mississippi John Milton Dabney. The "Green" part is simply added on because the owner of the house at the time of nomination, 1979, was Hilda Woodward Green, someone who as far as I can tell is not notable in the slightest. It's even tough to find any information about the former mayor Dabney. The only thing I've been able to find about him (and that was from a printed book, mind you.. not online) was that he served one term from 1917–1921 during WWI. Nothing about his accomplishments or anything that would make him notable beyond his title. There is literally nothing out there about this structure that would warrant an article.

The same goes for the Porter-Crawford House, which was recently created by Doncram, although I would tag it as one of those "sub-stubs" we've been talking about above. In its nomination form, it lists the current (i.e. 1979) owner as Dr. M. Crawford, and it doesn't even include the name "Porter" in it. There is seriously no way one could write an informative, better-than-sub-stub article with this kind of sourcing.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Photos

On the sucky photos theme: I have observed lots of photos in various states where it is pretty clear that the pic was a "drive-by", where the photographer didn't bother to get out of the car to take a better pic. And many taken in poor light, probably at dusk, where they likely were trying to complete out the pics in a county. And many of replacement buildings or empty lots where there was a listed building that has been demolished. These are all sucky in different ways. We oughta have a way to mark them as sucky. :) Okay, that is meant as sarcasm, i don't really want to add a photo rating scheme and give them derogatory labels. But actually on the last type, I do believe that photos of a vacant lot or a replacement building really should not "count", should not be included in the NRHP list-articles. I rather think they can/should be included in an article about the NRHP place, but not included in its NRHP infobox, and that we indicate that we want a proper photo of the historic building by showing a blank in the infobox and in the list-article. And, I actually really do think that photo quality is an issue of concern. --doncram 23:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that the photos of empty lots and replacement buildings definitely should not be in the lists. On the other hand, drive-by photos and photos at dusk, if they clearly identify the building, and if there are no other photos available - why not? We should just need to accept that if a photo in the list in of an inferior quality, it can eventually be replaced by a better photo. For example, last March I was in Dublin, NH, where I went on purpose to take missing photos. For a number of reason, I took my last photos at dusk (in my opinion, they are still of acceptable quality, but day photos could be better). I added them to the lists, since I was not sure that any other Wikipedian in the next 15 years would get to Dublin, NH, which is in the middle of nowhere to take the pictures. As a matter of fact, User:Magicpiano did it the same year and replaced a couple of my articles with theirs, which was perfectly fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to differ with Doncram and Ymblanter on this. I agree that in the case of a demolished property, it'd be better to use an old photo or drawing than a shot of the vacant lot or the Applebee's currently on the site. However, such a shot definitely illustrates the site. As Doncram points out, it'd be used in an article of any length, which would presumably cover the removal of the historic structure. In the case of a building that's still listed despite being demolished, it serves to document the fact of the building's absence; in fact, it may be the only such documentation we can get, if we can't find media coverage of the demolition. Including it also warns photographers that there's nothing to shoot on the site today, which could save them wasted trips and allow them to focus their efforts in more useful places. I'd say: use such photos, but try to replace them with something that actually depicts the historic structure, just as we'd use a poor-quality photo of an existing structure until we could replace it with a better one. Ammodramus (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ammodramus on this one (sorry, Ammo). The pix of empty lots may be some of our most valuable photos because they do 4 things:

• lets our readers know that the building is no longer there (the NRHP does a terrible job of this)
• lets photographers know not to waste time trying to snap them
• lets "archivists" know that we're looking for old pix of the site
• lets the NRHP and SHPOs know that they should remove the listing for the site.

Done right - and I think most people take incredible care in photographing these empty lots - these are also some of the most difficult photos to take. Given the inaccuracy of some of the coords a long search through the neighborhood, the nomination, and the internet is usually needed. A couple of examples: Jayne Estate Building was extremely difficult to find because streets had been rerouted due to the construction of a new boulevard, and ramps for 2 interstates and a bridge, resulting in 3 "pocket neighborhoods" that had to be searched. The building was listed in 1987, demolished soon after, and delisted several months after I posted the photo. The Jewel Tea Company building in Lake County, Illinois was almost as frustrating. It was clearly somewhere in a 55-acre park consisting mostly of clumps of trees and big empty lawns. Turns out it was listed in 2003(?) during a break in the demolition, and somebody on Flickr managed to post a photo and give the full story. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if there's need for a placeholder image, like Address Restricted.PNG, for properties that are demolished but not yet delisted. Just something that says "Believed demolished" or "Not at location" or "Demolished, archival photo needed." I agree that something in the image column will help alert other editors not to waste their time on that property. However if I casually see an image of a vacant lot, I might assume some building in the background is the intended subject, and instead prioritize that as a property in particular need of a better photo.-McGhiever (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There's something to this proposal (even if I'm very proud of my photos of empty lots). FWIW you shouldn't use the word "placeholder" on this page! The x-image proposal does all the 4 things I mentioned above, perhaps in a better way than the empty-lot photos. But perhaps not. The counter arguments will be that it uglifies the page (well, let's see it first) and that appropriately detailed text like "Believed demolished, archival photo needed" would be especially ugly or unreadable. Maybe "See comment" and then put the above text in the comment column. Obviously a discussion needed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd put moved-or-demolished information in the "Summary" cell: with a citation if we've got a source for the building's fate; otherwise, a statement like "Apparently no longer extant: see photo".

I'll add a use for a vacant-lot photo that's not included on Smallbones's list: it provides a pointer from the list article to the Commons category for that and any other photos taken at the vacant site. This is particularly useful when a site's official NRHP name isn't very specific (e.g. "Bridge"), and the Commons category has to have a more specific name. In such a case, it might not be easy for an editor working on an article to find the photo(s) at Commons. An archival-photo-needed graphic analogous to the AR graphic wouldn't be much help to an editor looking for an illustration. Ammodramus (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What type of readers are envisioned, who want multiple pics of an empty lot? It's hard to imagine readers to serve this way. If the point is to serve editors / potential photo contributors, that seems like a non-encyclopedic, Talk-page like function that perhaps we shouldn't cater to, very much, in mainspace. Anyhow, one photo of the vacant lot can/should be included in the article for the site, and can be found that way. I think we can/should begin to plan on photographers having smartphone access to the information, and a photographer would properly be alerted to all the available info by an article. Any photographer would naturally be looking up what is the info about a site, in its article.

This version of Jayne Estate Building, edited just now puts its nice photo of a vacant lot as I would prefer, outside the NRHP infobox, and with clear caption about it being a vacant lot. A key visual clue is that there is no pic in the infobox; an archival pic is wanted, implicitly. That edit is my suggestion for the J E Building which I'm gonna revert right now and let Smallbones or anyone else choose to accept it, or not. --doncram 19:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll accept the Jayne Estate Building for now. Doncram may have a useful convention there, but I'd think it all depends on how it appears on Mobile - does it confuse things over there? Anybody should fell free to revert my reversion of Doncram's self-reversion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think "Apparently no longer extant: see photo" in the description cell is a fine solution. I withdraw my placeholder image suggestion (and humbly request that someone PM me about why that word is verboten). -McGhiever (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Doncram—I must've expressed myself poorly. My point re. Commons was that if we've only got post-demolition photos of a site, and if we don't put one in the list article, then editors interested in writing an article on the site might not be aware that we've got photos at all. It was actually a talk-page conversation with you that made me realize that not all WP editors were as familiar with Commons as those of us who regularly upload photos there: see this diff and its context, in particular: "IMO your work is not findable, is not really available, from just being in commons; it needs to be linked from a wikipedia article."

I'm not suggesting that multiple vacant-lot images should be incorporated into an article. However, it's better for an editor to have a choice of photos. Multiple images are also more likely to include different backgrounds, which might matter in verifying that the Applebee's in the photo is actually on the site once occupied by the Smith-Jones Building.

I get along very nicely without a smartphone, and suspect that I wouldn't get coverage in some of the places where I go searching for NRHP sites. Beside, I enjoy my solitary photographic expeditions, and don't really want the NSA for company... Ammodramus (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Numbering of counties in statewide lists

User:Jimboradley just made this edit to delete the numbers column in National Register of Historic Places listings in Utah, since "it wasn't really showing any actual data". Looks like all the other state lists have the numbers; what is their function? Ntsimp (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The column isn't meant to convey much information; it provides a way to force the table to sort all the entries the way we want them. Re-sort a numbered list any way possible, and you'll still be able to put it back to the original form by sorting the numbered column. Re-sort an unnumbered list, and you'll have a much harder time getting it back to the original form. In the unnumbered table, I can't figure out how to get it to put Salt Lake City before Salt Lake: Other. We could use the {{sort}} template on the county names, but that would prevent us from using the county name column for any other purpose, and if we split out any additional sublists, we might have to rearrange lots of numbers instead of simply adding a .1, .2, etc. in the numbers column. Finally, this column does provide a little information, as having a number next to the county name is mildly helpful for showing at a glance the county's alphabetical place, but the sorting is the primary purpose. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that i created many of the state list article tables with those numbers. But, a table can be resorted back to its original order by simply hitting "reload" of the page, using your browser. Not sure there is any real value to having the numbers. It is not of great interest how many counties there are in a state, or that is otherwise known. So the purpose is not to accomplish the counting function that the number column in the individual county list-articles accomplishes. Maybe the numbers should be dropped now. --doncram 03:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a *lot* easier to edit specific rows if you use the number. Please dont remove them unless you otherwise make it possible to edit one row at a time. dm (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Forcing someone to refresh a page just to get the order back would be unhelpful with no benefit. Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Check my work please (duplicate across county lines)

In writing an article on the Main Street Historic District (Milan, Michigan), I discovered that the district actually spans a county border. Most of it is in Washtenaw County (its "official" home), but the southernmost few buildings are definitely in Monroe County. I added a line to the Monroe County list, then updated the total and noted the duplicate in both National Register of Historic Places listings in Michigan and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress. Is everything correct here, and any place else this new duplicate should be noted? Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

All looks correct to me, and I don't see anything that's missing. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that this is not an original question

but I have looked around and not found an answer so I'll toss it out. But first a preface. I have noticed and been annoyed by this before but while at Stan Hywet Hall and Gardens I clicked on the reference number 1 in the infobox, which was for the NRHP listing, but the link just takes me to page 1 of the NRHP website rather than to the registration information for that particular site. I attempted (think I succeeded) to change it but am wondering if the original way is how the project wants it to be? So my question is, should a reference to the NRHP in an infobox take you right to the particular building or whatever that the article is about or is close (NRHP website) close enough? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

There has been much discussion about the use of {{NRISref}} as the preferred citation in NRHP articles, mostly because of the fact that you mention that the reference doesn't point directly to the listing in question but rather the front page of a search engine. Your changed link is one that I have never seen, but I don't think we should use that, especially because it can simply be replaced by a link to the PDF for that file (See WP:NRHPMOS#References for info about how to construct a citation template from that pdf). The reason NRISref is generally used is that the nomination document does not include information such as the reference number and the listing date, while the NPS skeleton record does. In the case of Stan Hywet Hall and Gardens, the ref tag is attached to the reference number, so the nomination document should not be used in that case. If there were some way to link directly to the skeleton record, that would be great, but the NPS website does not currently allow that, so NRISref is the most accurate thing we can get.

That said, I have brought up many times the fact that there is a {{NRHP Focus}} template which takes the reference number as an input and links a tad bit closer to the actual skeletal record for a site (one click away rather than a whole search engine away). The output for that template for Stan Hywet Hall is

Staff. "NPS Focus: 75002058". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service.

I've suggested on numerous occasions that we somehow combine this into the NRISref template, but it has never caught on for whatever reason.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Stan Hywet Hall and Gardens is actually National Historic Landmark. For NHLs, there is almost always an NRHP Inventory/Nomination or Registration document available. I just added that to this article:

1. James H. Shiere (May 27, 1981). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Stan Hywett Hall and Gardens (Frank A. Sieberling House)" (PDF). National Park Service. and accompanying 10 photos from 1973

I would very much support a campaign to revisit all 2,500 or so NHL articles, to ensure that each has such a good reference.

(further statement by me, removed by me) --doncram 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The main point behind linking to the Focus database is that, like I said in my first post, the nomination documents don't include the reference numbers or the listing dates for properties, and that is usually what the NRISref is used for in articles. If there does exist a nomination document online, that's great, and no one is saying that shouldn't be included as a reference in the article (although it appears in the Stan Hywet Hall case, you've just thrown the ref onto the end of the article in your trademark quick-fix, let-someone-else-clean-up-my-mess style, which is definitely NOT the way we should be including the reference), but you can't use a source that doesn't include certain information as a reference for said information.

The link I included above is one step away from the reference number/listing date, which is closer than the front page of a search engine. Yes, the skeletal record may also include a link to a non-existent pdf file, but the reference isn't claiming the pdf exists. Maybe would could put a qualifier in the ref where if you set |pdf=no, it will include something like "The pdf linked from this skeletal record has not yet been digitized; this citation is only meant to apply to the reference number and/or date of listing for this property." Regardless, I think changing the NRISref link to point to the search results rather than the search interface would definitely be an improvement, although not perfect by any means.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that idea is that our information comes from the database, which is a single downloadable document. If we could link directly to the database, we'd be at what I'd call the best possible solution, but I dimly remember trying and failing to get a good link to the database; if I remember rightly, that's why we link to the search screen, since it's the best way to go to the database. Prove me wrong and I'll be happy :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If "although it appears in the Stan Hywet Hall case, you've just thrown the ref onto the end of the article in your trademark quick-fix, let-someone-else-clean-up-my-mess style, which is definitely NOT the way we should be including the reference" is referring to me and my edit I'll just say that I feel that I left the reference in a better state than when I found it and move on. Carptrash (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That was directed at Doncram. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I don't think you, Carptrash, did anything wrong.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, Nyttend, I agree that it would be great to link to the database, but as you said that isn't possible. I do think, though, that linking to search results rather than the search input would be a step in the right direction, though.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I feel better (men have feelings too), but I am a bit out of my league here in any case. I just feel that the NRHP web page is not much of a reference. A bit like saying "You'll find it in the Bible" and letting it go at that. I expect (perhaps "hope" is a better word) that a reference, at least a web one, will take me pretty close to the information being referenced. But you (singular and plural) know a lot more than I do about how NRHP info can be accessed than I do. Carptrash (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(a statement by me, removed by me, was here) --doncram 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

NRHP project and Wikidata

I've been playing around Wikidata for some time now. One of the things I've been looking at is how to replace the monuments database (which also contains all the NRHP listings) with Wikidata, we even created a task force for that. I think it's time to also start looking how the NRHP can fit into this. I proposed a property so we can add the reference number. In this list you can see how I did the breakdown of data to include for Rijksmonumenten in the Netherlands. We should also do that for the NRHP. A lot is the same, but I'm not sure yet how to handle the classification yet. National Historic Landmarks is understand, for example the Empire State Building is an instance of that, but how to handle normal listings? Making it an instance of National Register of Historic Places feels a bit weird. Maybe make a new NRHP listing with NHL, etc. subclasses of that? Wikidata supports sourcing of information. Once we have the url type, we can include a link to every listing records as a source (a solution to the problem in the previous section). We would also get rid of the data redundancy we have now with the same data in the list and the infobox. Who wants to help? Multichill (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that article<->refnum mappings are not one-to-one, so Wikidata should accomodate that (I don't know enough about Wikidata to know if your proposal addresses this). Some articles include things listed under more than one refnum (the easiest example is separately-listed properties that are also in one or more districts; some articles also cover multiple objects). Likewise, some refnums appear in more than one article (e.g. contributing property articles). Magic♪piano 22:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Your penultimate sentence concerns me: why is it a problem to have the same piece of information in both the list and the infobox? They're different articles, so all information that's relevant to both should be in the list and in the infobox, and if it's not relevant to both, we should remove it regardless of a Wikidata project. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your issue. My point was that structured wikidata should account for these variations; none of the cases I describe seem to me to be problematic (i.e. requiring remedial action) or particularly unusual, and has nothing to do with what's in lists vs. articles. Magic♪piano 00:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't replying to you — I'm sorry for being unclear. I meant to reply to Multichill and wasn't thinking of the fact that I made it look like I was replying to you. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

NRHP architectural styles page -- does it belong in article space?

I'm wondering whether National Register of Historic Places architectural style categories truly belongs in article space. It seems to me that it exists mostly to help contributors to this WikiProject work with the NRIS architecture codes. Also, since most the sections are templated as "requiring expansion", it is not exactly an example of Misplaced Pages's best work. I recognize that many articles link to it, largely because a bunch of terms are redirects to this page. Explication of the codes used in a database is important, but it doesn't seem like an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia article. Is there any hope of ever doing away with the need for those redirects so that this can be repurposed as solely a resource for contributors? --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Half-way

Hey, we're almost halfway there, in terms of creating articles about NRHP-listed places. :) Per wp:NRHPprogress, out of 87,834 current NRHP-listed places, 43,718, or 49.8%, have articles. It's a moving target, but 199 more right now, for a total of 43,917, would hit 50.0%.

Hmm, 4 yrs from wp:NRHPprogress tableization July 4, 2009 to wp:NRHPPROGRESS, a different page, now. --doncram 04:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if any "halfway" image is suitable for a barnstar or some other celebration. FYI, "halfway house" NRHP items (about half having articles as of time of this note, maybe more links will turn blue soon) include:

• Plainfield Halfway House, Plainfield, Illinois
• Half-Way House (Parkton, Maryland) (and boundary increase)
• Half Way House (Chatham, Massachusetts)
• Daniel O'Sullivan House/Halfway House, Flushing, Michigan (was redlink)
• Halfway House (Columbus, Montana) (was red)
• Halfway House Archeological Site Bloomfield, New Mexico (was red)
• Greyhound Half-Way House, Waverly, Tennessee (was red)
• Halfway House (Ansted, West Virginia)
• Halfway House (King, Wisconsin) (was red)

Some other half items:

• Half-Chance Bridge, Dayton, Alabama
• Methodist Episcopal Church at Half Moon Bay, Half Moon Bay, California
• HALF MOON (shipwreck), Miami, Florida (was redlink)
• Halfway Creek Site, Carnestown, Florida
• High Point-Half Moon Bluff Historic District, St. Marys, Georgia (was red)
• Halfway Rock Light Station, South Harpswell, Maine (was red)
• Halfway Diner, Red Hook, New York
• Halfway Lake Dam, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (was red)
• Half-Moon Inn, Newtown, Pennsylvania

Attaining a halfway point for WikiProject NRHP, by this measure, could easily be reached by July 4. --doncram 12:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The latest update as of June 18 brings us up to 43,752, which is 34 more than we had on June 16 (which was the update you saw). At that rate (~17/day), we should hit the 50% mark in about 10 days, or June 28. Looking back to May 18–one month ago today–we had 43,041 articles. That means over the past month, we've averaged ~23.3/day. At that rate, we would hit 50% in about 7 days, or June 25. The minimum rate of creation to hit 50% by July 4 is ~10.3/day, so we're pretty much assured that we'll get there, assuming everyone doesn't stop creation all at once. How should we celebrate?

P.S. It should be noted that the Progress page will show "50.0%" before we actually cross the halfway point of 43,917 articles because of rounding. So technically when we get to 49.95%, which is 43,873 articles, the Progress page will claim we're halfway there. If we take that as a benchmark instead, the numbers associated with the average over the past two days and past month are 7 days (June 25) and 5 days (June 23) respectively, and the minimum rate of creation to get there by July 4 is ~7.6/day.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Suspicious similarity btwn our "alpha" site and newly redirected Halfway Lake Dam; progress? (Aside: R. B. Winter pk has long been linked from National Register of Historic Places listings in Union County, Pennsylvania, but oddly with no explicit treatment of the NRHP; should it be a redlink or should it be covered there in a new section?) --doncram 04:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I redirected it since it didn't make sense to have a redlink there when the county list pointed somewhere else, but if someone wanted to write an article about the dam I'd be fine with (and probably encourage) it. TheCatalyst31 04:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

One more day, 16 more articles to put the total at 43,768.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Do your projections take new listings into account? There are 18 new listings in the June 14 new weekly listings of the NRHP, for example. It is reasonable to assess 50% achievement off what we have covered in wikipedia, but then our chief editor/updater of the NRHP list-articles, User:Sanfranman59, might have something to say about whether or not we seem to achieve that... Sanfranman59 keeps our list-articles updated by adding new NRHP listings, I think usually every week but sometimes with a couple of weeks lag, which is fine of course. I dunno how recently the current List of RHPs was updated. Addition of a bunch of new NRHP listings would change the apparent achievement of 50%. Perhaps effort could be expended to bring the lists up to date very promptly, for the next couple weeks?

Also, I wonder about achieving a subgoal of bringing coverage of articles in every state and territory to 10%. I am trying now with an article that would take care of 3 Guam NRHPs, currently drafted at User:Doncram/As Sombreru Pillboxes, which, if moved to mainspace (and redirects set up for the 3 Japanese Imperial Army fortifications that it covers, would bring us close to achieving that. List of RHPs in Guam is the only remaining state or territory under 10%; it currently needs 4 articles to be brought to 10% I think. --doncram 18:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't take into account new listings, but even with 18 new listings (or more), we are still very likely to hit halfway on or most likely before July 4 because our rate of creation is much faster than the rate of new listings. Going back to that May 18 diff above, there were 87,789 total listings then and today there are 87,834, giving a rate of new listings as ~1.4/day, and we're creating an average of ~23.3/day, so we still get a net of ~22/day even with new listings. With today's update, we're at a total of 43,777 articles, 9 more than yesterday and 140 from the current half-way point. At 22/day, 140 articles would take ~6.4 days, in which time approximately 9 new listings will have been added, meaning we would have to create 4.5 more, which is within a one day margin of error. Accounting for all of that, if we keep going at our average rates, we should get to halfway even with new listings by June 27. We would have to average a measly 11/day not to make it by July 4, which is highly unlikely.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I've not been nearly as active out here over the past two or three months. The last time I updated the lists with newly announced listings were those announced by the NPS 4/5/2013. --sanfranman59 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The June 21 update shows 10 new listings added to the lists since yesterday and 12 new articles. That means we netted two yesterday. The halfway point now is 43,922, and we have 43,789. We need 133 more.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears that over the past 2 days several users have been updating the county lists with new listings. As of the June 23 update (from which the map was updated.. I was busy Friday and Saturday), there are now 87,879 listings, 35 more than before, meaning our halfway point has moved forward to 43,940. We currently have 43,837, 48 more than 2 days ago, so we still netted 13 over the past two days. We now have 103 to go to make halfway, which should take no more than a week, so there is still no need to worry about making it by July 4, assuming there will be no more days of 40+ listings added between now and then.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

June 24 update: 1 new listing, 33 new articles, 76 to go before July 4.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have drafted about 20 articles that I hope will be in mainspace soon, and I have a scheme to take care of a further 165 listings at once...by redirects to one common article. If interested, see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Utah#summary treatment of NRHP-listed archeological sites. This discussion section initiative(?) to get to "half-way" isn't seeming like much of a collective, collaborative push, this doesn't qualify as a collaborative editing drive, there's nothing different going on right now. Halfway seems more like just a milestone that's gonna be passed no matter what. It's probably worth mentioning in that Misplaced Pages newsletter though. A short news blurb, to effect that WikiProject NRHP, which began in year X, which completed "tableization" of all NRHPs on July 4, 2009, has now hit the half-way mark of creating articles describing each one (some being combo articles, some being sections in articles about bigger topics, but most being individual standalone articles about individual historic sites. This brings American history to the people blah blah blah (all of which I believe in). This represents Y% of all mainspace English Misplaced Pages articles, and leaves the wikiproject in good position to support the September 2013 WLM photo uploading campaign. --doncram 16:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It also doesn't help that several of the state lists are still two months out of date, so if we don't update them soon we risk going over the halfway point and falling right back under it as soon as someone updates them. I'm trying to do it now so that's not an issue, but depending on how long it takes, either it could happen anyway or the new listings will make it harder to get to halfway by the Fourth. (Though if we can take care of 165 listings at once, we probably won't have that problem.) TheCatalyst31 00:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Signpost draft about halfway milestone

I submitted a Signpost announcement. I dunno if one negative comment will torpedo Signpost coverage, but it might. Our 44,000 articles created is about the same as the number of articles addressed in the big Unreferenced BLP drive that I participated in, a couple years ago, now, which got positive coverage. I think ours is a pretty amazing, major milestone that can properly be covered as a great positive for Misplaced Pages. Please consider a positive comment--or suggested changes to the drafted submission--at the Signpost suggestion, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#NRHP at 50% news, for July 3 signpost. --doncram 03:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Need a link

Could someone find a link for me? Trying to get the nomination for the Wendell August Forge, but I'm on a public computer whose version of IE can't navigate past the CRGIS page for the Pennsylvania SHPO, and their URLs don't have consistent naming. Could someone please find the URL and either add it as an external link to the article or just dump the link on the talk page? Nyttend backup (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Got it: https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/ce_imagery/phmc_scans/H102379_01H.pdf. CRGIS is being ornery today. Niagara ​​ 14:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Back up on my own computer now, and I can't get the AskRegis to do anything; perhaps I'll just have to wait a day or two. Planning to be back in PA this weekend :-D and trying to get nominations for sites that I'd like to visit. Nyttend (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability tags

Hello all - In trying to fully article and picture the list of National Register of Historic Places listings in Iredell County, North Carolina, I created George Houston House. Upon creation, with NRIS as it's sole reference, it was promptly tagged with a refimprove template. I'm still figuring out how things work on WP:NRHP, and while I know over at my usual stomping grounds of MILHIST, an article with one sole source would rightfully be challenged, I was under the impression that for NRHP stub articles, a cite to the NRIS was sufficient for verifiability purposes. Could someone tell me if I'm doin' it wrong? In the meantime I've dug up a few sources to add to NRIS on the Houston House. Cdtew (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

While a citation to the NRIS database is technically enough, according to current consensus, to establish notability, it is suggested that other references be used as well upon creation of an article to edify the NRIS data, which can sometimes be faulty. From WP:NRHPHELP#North Carolina, it appears that there is a pdf of the George Houston House's NRHP nomination form online at http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/ID0026.pdf. That would be the best source to use to expand the article, but feel free to browse that help page as well as WP:NRHPMOS to get acquainted with common practices.

As a side note to project members, should we add something to WP:NRHPFAQ about notability and use of the NRIS reference?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Cdtew, the George Houston House appears to be the "Walls-Houston House" mentioned at several places within the Iredell County "Multiple Resources Assessment"-type document or MRA or Thematic Resources or TR type document available at http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/64000457.pdf. I found link to that at wp:MPS, and knew to look for that because there is an indication of the "Iredell County MRA" in the NRHP infobox in the article. Perhaps it is sometimes called "Wall-Houston House" and sometimes "Walls-Houston House"? It seems to be an important type of early planters house in the area, being built of logs but including some "high style".

It is true that you could improve the article by adding more sources and information. The document that is found by following WP:NRHPHELP#North Carolina advice, which Dudemanfellabra points to, would usually be a complete NRHP nomination document. But here, in this case, it turns out to be a North Carolina form (not a National Register form) used to document the place briefly as part of a bigger Multiple Property Submission. It could be considered an adjunct form to the Iredell County MRA document. Both should be used together in the article. I won't comment further here about how to cite them; I may try to compose citations for use in the article and add them directly. Or i might not contribute further; maybe someone else could help compose something.

The initial tagging of "refimprove" was nonsensical because you had clearly used NRIS as your source for the NRHP listing date and location and so on, and no improvement on the sourcing is needed. Everything was sourced (unless perhaps you had used some judgment in characterizing the location, and that would not have required a source probably. If NRIS is the source it is the source it is the source. And NRIS is held by consensus to be reliable in general, though it like other databases has errors which we document in a workpages system (e.g. see wp:NRIS info issues NC for North Carolina errors noted). So the tag could simply have been removed and it would have been no big deal. Again, it is nice that you have added more to the article.

Hope this helps. --doncram 21:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Doncram, that helps immensely! I will be taking much of this with me while I create other NRHP articles. I sincerely appreciate your advice, and yours too, Dudeman. Cdtew (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments in Canada

Does anyone know how it is being organized? I'm going to the Montana and Canadian Rockies in late August and I might be able to contribute to their 2013 contest too! Royalbroil 14:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The lists are here. This is their starting page, but I am not sure they have a centralized discussion place for questions.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've not found a discussion point; the Canadian listings are very rough, and need a lot of work (duplicates, not always sortable by geography, not mappable, overlong). I started working on the Newfoundland list, since I'm planning to go there. Magic♪piano 00:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Experiment - feedback requested

At Swigart's Mill I've included a slideshow masquerading as a video. I think the general idea is better than many galleries and that there are other things we could do with video/slideshows, but this is obviously still a first-stage experiment. Other things might include a full house tour, highlights of county lists (with maps), or photos showing change over time. Does anybody know how to make better slideshows or videos? I'm very much a newby on this.

Any comments appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

After uploading, I found that the quality looked much worse here, made a few changes (just learning all of this) and uploaded a new larger (5 MB) version.

Basic feedback question - Is this as good or better than a gallery? Or is it better to just let good-enough alone? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for creating that, Smallbones. I liked seeing multiple views of the property, but I don't think the slide show worked real well. For some reason, I saw blank screens for seemingly long periods (in the transition between images). Also, when I saw images, I often wanted them to change faster or slower than they were changing for me. IMO, a static gallery is preferable. Congratulations for thinking creatively about how to improve Misplaced Pages, but I don't think this idea is ready for "prime time". --Orlady (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It might be related to your downloading speed, but 5 MB isn't that much. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

However, video tours of some sites might be a good idea... --Orlady (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

While it's not something directly in the article, Commons has a slideshow feature for categories. Chris857 (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That's the 1st thing I tried, but I can't control the order of the slides. If you know how to do this, please let me know. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that there is a way to custom order images there. There are Mediawiki extensions for slideshows, but it doesn't look like any are enabled on Misplaced Pages. Chris857 (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making this. I tried it in Internet Explorer and got the message that a video player was needed. Firefox played it without any issues. My guess is that more people use IE, so that would be a problem. If something like this is implemented, I think a note that the images can be found on Commons should be part of the video (last image - would be great if it were clickable). I would much prefer if the reader could click on a frame and see multiple images in succession (with each linked to the original on Commons or en). There is something sort of like that on the French Misplaced Pages (for two images). See the bottom map in the French article here on Black Moshannon State Park - there is a link below the map and clicking on it switches between two different maps (PA and the USA). Overall I like the idea in theory, but am not so sure in practice. Ruhrfisch _><>° 01:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for all the responses. I would have thought that with YouTube so popular everybody could play videos on their computers, but it's interesting that IE can't play it. Could people try it from a few other setups to see if this is a common problem? It looks like there are many technical solutions for a simple slideshow tool, but nobody has implemented it here yet. Who would be the best person to contact to get it implemented? What kind of Wikiprocess would be needed? I'm sure lots of folks could use a simple ordered slide show on lots of articles.

After working with it a couple of days though I'm starting to like the movies. This is just the simplest thing in the world to do in iMovie - actually the hardest work was figuring out how to turn off the fancy effects (e.g. pan and zoom) and converting it to the right format. A major source of inspiration for me is a woman I only know thru her videos on YouTube, but who does many movies (really fancy slideshows) on sites where I've taken a few pix, see Woodmont and Dolobran (which does not actually seem to be on the NRHP despite the plaque) What I found out this weekend - those are all done in iMovie, and give me a few days, some good photos, and the right to include music - I could do something just as good. I guess it all comes down to what is "encyclopedic." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I like the movie (only got a chance to run it just now).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. With just a little more encouragement (I'm easy), I'll try experiment 2 in a few days. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Port Gibson Battlefield / Battle Site, Mississippi

We have an old worklist Misplaced Pages:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP articles needing attention covering various old problems. One is about proper treatment of Port Gibson Battle Site, an NHL, vs. Port Gibson Battlefield, an NRHP, which seem to overlap but not cover the same areas exactly. At this point, i think they should be merged and treated in one article. Does anyone have the energy? It was an interesting Civil War battle, in which Grant's army landed below Vicksburg and pushed inland, leading to the July 4, 1863 capture of Vicksburg. --doncram 19:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting problem! The one article about this topic that is reasonably well developed is Battle of Port Gibson. As one option, these two articles could be merged (and redirected) into that one (that is, by creating a new article section about the NHL and NRHP designations, and adding information about the designations in the lead section of the battle article). Since Battle of Port Gibson gets a whole lot more pageviews than either of the other articles, a merger would give these topics a lot more visibility than they are getting now. --Orlady (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

We should have a discussion about how to treat the separate articles Port Gibson Battlefield and Port Gibson Battle Site, both of which seem to cover the same general topic. What should we do about them?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've put all three of this thread's comments in their chronological order; it's quite confusing when you remove a question after a reply is posted. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed a comment by me, above, which Dudemanfellabra replaced in a way, and then Nyttend restored my comment. And I just removed my comment again. I retract my question about Port Gibson. Also, I am offended by the use of vulgar language about me within an edit summary of this thread, language which I have to look up to understand but which basically means that the commenter expressed contempt for me, in a particularly vulgar way. I don't want this. I wish that administrators would take appropriate action--to warn and/or to block, the responsible party--rather than seem to condone and encourage such behavior. Please don't harass, follow, insult and so on. Please stop. --doncram 15:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Do not refactor talk pages. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

IMHO: Dudemanfellabra - that particular edit summary was unnecessary, regardless of what you thought of Doncram's actions. Doncram - you asked a great question and people responded in good faith. If you didnt want to participate after that, fine, don't. No need to delete the original (very good) question. dm (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, dm. However, Doncram, if you wish to delete a comment after someone else has responded, the better way is to use the strike-out markup: <s> at the start of your comment and </s> at the end. That shows you've retracted your comment but allows the response to make sense in context. 69.95.203.110 (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

User:KLOTZ milestone, Happy July 4th

User:KLOTZ who started uploading during WLM last September has recently blown through the 2,000 photos milestone. About half of these are NRHP sites - he usually uploads just one photo per site, for sites that were not previously illustrated. The other half of of his uploads are for similar historic sites spread throughout the world. He's been to places that nobody else in this Wikiproject has ever been - I guarantee it.

In lieu of a barnstar, I've made the video at the right to present to him. (Comments on the video would be appreciated)

Happy Independence Day to all!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow! That's an impressive diversity of buildings and locations. - Thanks for pointing this out. dm (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:KLOTZ! This is a great way to honor his many photos - thanks for putting the video together (and for all your work adding categories to his photos and adding them to Misplaced Pages articles). Ruhrfisch _><>° 04:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Happy 4th of July, late. I didn't see it until just now, but the July 3 Signpost's "News and Notes" page included mention of WikiProject NRHP getting "halfway". The full text published:

NRHP: The halfway mark has been reached in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject's goal of having an article on every listed place. The register is the United States' federal government listing of various locations that are considered worthy of preservation. The current total number of NRHP-related articles is just over 1% of all articles on the English Misplaced Pages.

Congrats, all! --doncram 16:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Cities that don't seem to exist

According to National Register of Historic Places listings in Menifee County, Kentucky, the nearest city for the Red River Gorge District is Menifee, Kentucky. However, as far as I can tell there is no such place as Menifee, Kentucky. It doesn't have a listing in the Geographic Names Information System, it's not marked on any of the three county highway maps in the area, and it's not on any USGS topographic maps of the region. If there was ever a place named Menifee, Kentucky, it probably hasn't existed for several decades. However, the site's address is restricted, and the coordinates in Red River Gorge suggest it's a few miles away from any other community. What should we list the city as for places like this? It doesn't make sense to list it as a nonexistent place, but there's no other clear "nearest city" to list. TheCatalyst31 04:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The National Register is known to contain errors -- this could be one of them. Also, rural Kentucky is known to contain many locations that are not clearly identifiable with any named "place". My guess (and this is only a guess) is that that the person who filled in the form was entered the name of the county in the space for the city -- perhaps because they couldn't find any particular named place to list on the form. --Orlady (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree, UNfortunately, finding an old map with what could have been an older community NOT listed in GNIS yet (been there and done that) will be a challenge........Coal town guy (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Being about 30,000 acres, the district is kind of big enough to be treated as its own entity if you ask me. I would either just leave the city column blank or include another link to Red River Gorge or possibly Daniel Boone National Forest.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the Red River Gorge article to include some information about the NRHP district and its archaeological resources. Since the district is about 30,000 acres (as Dudemanfellabra notes) and is located in three counties, it is not meaningful to attempt to identify it with a particular city or town. (The "Address restricted" entry in the county list also is, at best, quaint. The location of the district is very well documented; it's the locations of the 664 known archaeological sites in the district that are "restricted".) --Orlady (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not leave the city column blank; it will confuse the bots that use our lists for Wiki Loves Monuments and other purposes. If you don't include the name of a city, please put in something like "Not applicable", like what we're doing for the Delaware Boundary Markers at National Register of Historic Places listings in northern New Castle County, Delaware. Nyttend (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed the entry in the list to "Daniel Boone National Forest" -- not a city, but an unambiguous indication of where the district is. I have not yet tried to figure out why the historic district isn't also included in the lists for Powell County and Wolfe County. I also haven't added latitude-longitude to the list. --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's only listed in Menifee County because the National Register only lists it in Menifee County, though I suspect that's another error. TheCatalyst31 22:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Clintonville in Clark County, cant find it there at all. Stupid question, do we know if these places cross multiple counties??Coal town guy (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I determined that the Red River Gorge district crosses county lines from documents such as the Memorandum of Agreement (which I cited in the Red River Gorge article) regarding the management of the district. Although a lot of Misplaced Pages content about National Register sites was written solely on the basis of NRIS (which is just a computer database), every site has other documentation ... somewhere. --Orlady (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be the most logical. Turns out that Clintonville is in Bourbon County or rather JUST at it, and from Clark, SO, while the Registry says, oh yes Clintonville in Clark, GNIS says, Clintonville in BourbonCoal town guy (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing says the "nearest city" has to be in the same county as the National Register property. --Orlady (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thats a good point and I honestly did not think about that.........HOWEVER, a consideration, in all of the county li8sts for any of the states I have looked, do we, yes or no, have a disclaimer or descriptor that would state something along the lines of what you just said?? Example, NRHP is near or in the city or town of, as opposed to city and town which we have now in the article lists?Coal town guy (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not in the lists right now; there's sort of an implication that the city listed is the nearest city for rural listings. It's not perfect, but changing it to "nearest city" wouldn't make sense for urban listings. There's a box on each NRHP nomination form that indicates if a listing is in the vicinity of the nearest city rather than actually in it, but unfortunately we don't have access to nomination forms for every state yet (and besides, looking that up for all ~90,000 listings would take far more time than it's worth). TheCatalyst31 21:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

EGAD, thats a HUGE dataset isnt it? Oh well, one could always, note tha the specific place is in the vicinity of place x, where plae x is in a different county etc etc. However, I very much appreciate the reply.Coal town guy (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Kentucky

All- I have started to create articles for the unincorporated communities in Kentucky that have a place on the NRHP. As KY has over 100 counties, I have found quite a few places in need of a basic article for its location. Clark County is on my to do list. IF any of you out there know of a specific county which should be addressed, feel free to drop me a line.Coal town guy (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing NRIS numbers

What happens (if anything) when we change the NRIS number in a list's |refnum= parameter? I've just found an error for site #7 at National Register of Historic Places listings in Portland, Louisville, Kentucky — two sites have similar names, and the same refnum was assigned to both on our list, even though NRIS gives different numbers. Once I finish uploading and adding a batch of photos, I'll change it to the correct number (please don't edit the page in the next couple of hours, lest we edit-conflict), but I'm unclear if this might have some sort of problematic effect. Nyttend (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• 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