Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Alphabetization

So, I've been alphabetizing things like Ezra Meeker Mansion in the "E" section, instead of the "M" section like the official list seems to do. Does this seem like the right thing to do? Murderbike (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would order it using "Meeker". Other opinions are welcome.--Appraiser (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The main reason i do that, is that i don't imagine many people looking for the Meeker, Ezra, Mansion. it looks weird. Murderbike (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not list it as Ezra Meeker Mansion but alphabetize it with the M's? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Meeker, Ezra, Mansion indeed would look weird. That's the main reason in the NHL lists that we adopted the numbered rows approach, which prepends a small number signifying nothing but the count in the table, to each row. With that, as in the Dakota County RHP's example, you can put "Ezra Meeker House" among the M's. You order the rows by the "first significant word". For houses named after a person associated with them, the first significant word is the last name of the person. For ships named after the person, the first significant word is the first name of the person, however. Implemented flawlessly (knock on wood) in many NHL lists such as List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City. I personally like to have the tables numbered so you can state there are 109 NYC NHLs and that is an obvious fact, while without the numbering it would be a debatable(sp?) question. I think it was Ipoellet who initiated the numbered list format in the California NHL list. doncram (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Implemented today in List of National Historic Landmarks in Rhode Island. There remain only a few NHL lists not yet organized that way. doncram (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Drafting a sample request for permission for our photos of plaques and artworks

Okay, browsing the following does not give me an obviously relevant example for our requesting permission to use our own photos of plaques and artworks (including historic photographs that a site may have available on display) and of building interiors (interiors may not be copyrightable, but it may be nice to ask permission before using photos of them so as not to violate an owner's sense of what should be kept private for any reason):

• Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission
• Wikipedia:Example requests for permission
• Wikipedia:OTRS

So we need to develop our own sample request, and run that by the OTRS people and perhaps others. Here are my first draft of three sections: a cover note, a version of Wikipedia image policy, and a permission form. Please comment / make changes! doncram (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

SAMPLE COVER LETTER DRAFT

To Whom It May Concern:__________________

Date:_____________________

I am one of thousands of volunteer writers for the free encyclopedia Wikipedia. I participate in a project within Wikipedia that focuses on historic sites and properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I am currently working on an article related to ________________________________. Photographs would enhance this article.

I have taken photographs of ____________________________ today, one or more of which I hope to add to this article. In the United States, many types of photographs, such as of exteriors of buildings, can be taken freely and used in Wikipedia with only the permission of a photographer such as myself. I intend to grant my own permission for Wikipedia to use some of my photographs today of that kind.

I intend also to grant my own permission for Wikipedia to use some interior pictures and pictures of copyrightable works that I have taken today. However Wikipedia policy on use of photographs of interiors and of copyrightable works may additionally require explicit permission from the owner of the property and/or the copyrightable works. For example, some assert that the text of historic plaques (even plaques displayed in public places, even with no copyright claim indicated upon them) is copyrighted information. Also artworks are copyrightable. Some plaques and artworks are very old or for other reasons may be uncopyrighted and then photographs of them may be used without owners' permission, but I want to be extra careful and ask for your explicit permission today.

It is Wikipedia policy to accept only images that are public domain or that are licensed under one or more of several broad licenses, so that others may have free use of the images as well. This means that I must ask you for a broader permission than just to use the photographs in one article, and I want to use the Gnu Free Documentation License (GFDL) permission type which ensures a kind of perpetual freedom of the image.

Specifically, I would like your permission to use the images that I have taken today, ____________(date), under GFDL. It is possible that the images would be used only in the article I am contributing to, but this would further allow others to use these photographs in other wikipedia articles and in other ways outside wikipedia. For example, a firm might commercially publish a guidebook that included this photograph, although according to the terms of the GFDL they would have to give notice of the perpetually free nature of the photograph under GFDL, and any competitor could freely publish the same photograph.

One way to give your permission to use the photographs in this way is for you to fill out and sign the following statement. I will provide a scanned image of the statement including your signature to the Wikipedia permissions management system. The statement will itself be kept as a confidential document in the permissions management system.

sincerely, (name:)___________________ (signature:)__________________

SAMPLE INFO HANDOUT, including WIKIPEDIA IMAGE USE POLICY STATEMENT (somewhat edited). This may perhaps better be exactly the statement from some particular Wikipedia page, or this edited version may need to be placed in some permanent page:

INFORMATION

GNU FREE DOCUMENTATION LICENSE The GFDL is available at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt, or you may browse the article "Gnu Free Documentation License" within Wikipedia.

OTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES You may be interested to browse Wikipedia articles

"List of Registered Historic Places", and
___________________________________

To find these, search at http://en.wikipedia.org/.

For your information, here is one version of Wikipedia's image use policy:

WIKIPEDIA IMAGE USE POLICY STATEMENT

Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited by volunteers from around the world. Our goal is to create a comprehensive knowledge base that may be freely distributed and available at no charge.

Normally we ask permission for material to be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely -- and even potentially use them commercially -- so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, nor prevent others from using or copying them freely.

You can read this license in full at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL

This license expressly protects creators from being considered responsible for modifications made by others, while ensuring that creators are credited for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

We choose the GFDL because we consider it the best available tool for ensuring our encyclopedia can remain free for all to use, while providing credit to everyone who donates text and images. This may or may not be compatible with your goals in allowing the public to photograph your plaques / artwork / interiors. Please be assured that if permission is not granted, your materials will not be used at Wikipedia -- we have a very strict policy against copyright violations -- unless it is otherwise determined that copyright is not held upon the materials.

SAMPLE PERMISSION FORM:

PERMISSION FORM FOR PHOTOS OF INTERIORS AND COPYRIGHTABLE WORKS

There is an INTERIOR or COPYRIGHTABLE WORK which is a:
___plaque, (describe, giving partial text:) ___________________________________________
___artwork, (name/describe:)________________________________________________
___photograph, (name/describe:)_____________________________________________
___interior of building
which is located at _________________________________________________
and which was photographed by _______________________________________
on the date of ______________.

There are / are not other interior areas and/or copyrightable works listed on attached page(s), photographed on same day, which are intended to be covered by this permission.

I hereby assert that I am:
___the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the WORK(s) photographed
___authorized representative or agent of _____________________________, which is
the company / non-profit organization / church / other entity:_____________(describe entity type)
which owns the WORK(s) photographed. My contact information is:
name:________________________________________________
title:_______________________________________________
organization:________________________________________
postal mailing address:______________________________
email address:_______________________________________

I agree to give permission for publication of any and all of the PHOTOGRAPHS of the work(s) taken today, under the GNU FREE DOCUMENTATION LICENSE (GFDL).

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the photographs in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the GFDL license.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses these photographs in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the photographic images may or may not be kept permanently in Wikipedia or another Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER / REPRESENTATIVE OF COPYRIGHT HOLDER

Outsiders aren't going to know what "WP:NRHP" or "WikiProject" means. I would just say that we're working on a project that focuses on historic sites and properties on the National Register of Historic Places. We could also throw in something about how Wikipedia would increase awareness of these historic resources, since I'm sure that the historical societies involved would appreciate knowing how these images would be used. They might even help us out with additional information or documentation. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed about not using WP:NRHP acronym of course. I don't want to make promises of awareness that could sound optimistic/unrealistic and which might not be met as I think that could undermine the usefulness of the simple request; I would prefer to suggest in person that kind of stuff as informal positive reasons why to give the permission. doncram (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Relevant URLs should be provided, especially a direct link to OTRS so people can verify the info or use that system directly. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed about providing URLs to more information, but I am not sure I want to mention OTRS and get into that. For one thing OTRS is a name of a generic piece of software, not specifically about permissions tracking in wikipedia, and I don't want to introduce unnecessary detail on this unrelated fact. For another, the current OTRS system used in wikipedia permissions tracking is focussed on getting specific permissions for specific images. As you see this sample request is geared to asking permission for me to upload and use all the photos that I take this day, on this visit, and not to involve the organization in seeing the specific images. I would be afraid they would get bogged down in saying oh this one does not show our beautiful moulding as it should, and so on. Also, many people at places we visit could be non-computer-literate and the OTRS discussion could be intimidating. I would like to have a simple, non-computerese request. And I would take away their signed permission, scan it myself, and submit that into the OTRS system.

I do think a handout of info on OTRS could possibly be useful as part of a "Plan B" approach, to go into only if the place clearly says no up front to the more general approval for any and all photos taken on this day. That is the intent of my idea for this; it may or may not fly legally I don't know for sure. But, SEWilco, if you have an idea for how to describe OTRS, could please expand, perhaps by drafting what you mean as replacement for this request or a draft Plan B request? doncram (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked for comments at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, in fact specifically at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Request for assistance on new sample permission form, for photos of copyrightable works. The comment received there was "I think that's very good. I do think, though, that you should link to or include the text of the GFDL in that first letter. Otherwise, I think you explain the issues very well, although it might be a good idea to also include some mention of derivative works. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)". I didn't understand and asked back what kind of mention of derivative works would be helpful, but didn't get a further reply. doncram (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I also asked for comment at Wikipedia talk:OTRS#request for assistance on new sample permission form, for photos of copyrightable works and got no separate comment there. I think the upshot is that the above draft text is probably fine, and the way to find out is to use it for getting photo permissions in practice and see what happens. doncram (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Current and comprehensive official NRHP list?

What do people use for a current and complete list of NRHP sites in a locality? The NRIS search page has a note at the bottom that says the database was "refreshed on January 9, 2007". I take this to mean that I have to click through each weekly update link on this page to learn of site that have been added since 1/9/2007. Does Elkman's infobox creator tap into a comprehensive list? It doesn't appear to have the latest sites since it returned neither Coit Tower nor the Colombo Building when I did a search. Both of these sites were in the 2/8/2008 NRHP weekly list.

The reason I ask is because there are sites listed at List of Registered Historic Places in San Francisco, California that I don't think are on the NRHP list. I think someone may have added a bunch of sites that are designated by the city and/or state, but not the NPS. I'm reluctant to simply remove them without first confirming that they're truly not on the official NRHP list. Here are a few examples: Castro Theatre, Carmel Fallon Building, Nightingale House. There may be others. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My infobox generator is using a version of the database that they last updated on January 23, 2007. Apparently, they haven't updated their database since then, even though there have been new listings that are included in their weekly updates. I wish they would update their database; it's more than a year old. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice that for the entries which aren't in the NRHP database you could try a Google search for the site name and "site:nps.gov" to try to find mention within the NPS web site. If a change is in the updates, the web search engines should have crawled the pages. Nevertheless I also wish they'd keep the database up to date. Maybe they have an internal database so this one's age does not slow down NPS work. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried this, but these searches seem to yield somewhat unpredictable results at the NPS site. Sometimes I end up with a boatload of false positives and sometimes it doesn't return a result when I know that it should. I think I'm just going to have to bite the bullet and go through each and every weekly link one at a time and look for San Francisco County listings. It really shouldn't take too long. It's just too bad that they can't keep their database up to date. Then again, it's our tax dollars (not) at work. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to do that a few months ago, now I just get to check it every friday. Murderbike (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know the update process / frequency followed by the commercial National Register of Historic Places.COM website? It is useful for comparison. Sanfranman59, you should try checking it, if you are trying to build out a more complete SF list. I added an external link to the corresponding NRHP.com list for each of the Dakota County, Lauderdale County, Onondaga County, and San Francisco county list-tables. I think a link at bottom of each county RHP page to the commercial site is helpful, while I wouldn't want to build a link from each NRHP article. Oh, it appears the way they make revenue is in the "Travel Sites" tab they offer corresponding to the tab for regular NRHPs and the tab for NRHP HDs they offer, for each county. doncram (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know their process, Don, but it seems to me that their list corresponds to the database that NRIS accesses (i.e. it's more than a year old now). I don't think they have any of the more recent San Francisco listings (SF State Teacher's College and Coit Tower are two that come to mind). I think all they really do is present the same stuff that's available from NPS NRIS search page, but formatted a little differently and with a point-and-click interface for selecting states and counties. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

NATIONALREGISTEROFHISTORICPLACES.COM is registered to someone in Ohio and the site does not identify who operates it. Looks like it's a private NRHP database mirroring site. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I check http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/nrlist.htm on a weekly basis, to see which sites are new. If I see a new one for Indiana and Kentucky, I post it.--Bedford 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

New photos posted of NRHP sites in San Francisco

I've posted new photos of San Francisco NRHP sites at Commons:Category:Photos by User:Sanfranman59. I plan to add these photos to my prototype for the list of NRHP sites in San Francisco. If you create articles for these sites, please feel free to use these photos. Also, since I'm new to posting photos at Commons, I welcome and encourage any feedback from folks here about the photos as well as the summary, licensing and category information I included with them. Finally, please let me know if I should be posting notices of this kind somewhere other than here as I plan to continue uploading photos as I take them over the coming weeks and months. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice pictures!--Appraiser (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not crazy about the lighting on some of them and may re-take them on a sunnier day. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

About where your photos should be posted, I like how Infrogmation has been doing it in New Orleans area articles. He creates a Commons categories specific to the extra photos he takes for a given site and puts a link to the commons category in the article about the site. For example, see the Commons category link towards the bottom of Garden District, New Orleans. A general category like San Francisco County RHP pictures could work for u to add the gallery to the SF county RHP page, but you could have more specific categories like Swedenborgian Church too, if u took more pics of that one site than could reasonably be put into the article itself. doncram (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your list of RHPs in SF county is good, but you are working in your own user area. Can you please copy it over into the main space, replacing what is at List of Registered Historic Places in San Francisco County, California? That way future edits will be saved in the edit history there. Of course check whether there have been any recent edits by other editors there adding info that should be captured, before you cut and paste yours into that article. doncram (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to write over the existing list since there were aspects of my prototype that folks didn't like. I was going to wait until we decided upon a final format for these lists before I replaced the current list. It doesn't seem to me to be a great idea to put yet another list format out there.

BTW, I spoke to my district supervisor's office today and was again told that there are no official, city government-defined boundaries for the neighborhoods. How about we use a real estate map like this one? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In the mapping field it has been found that neighborhoods without physical barriers have fuzzy edges; I could install neighborhood polygons in a map server, but many of them are from unofficial sources so I think we shouldn't use them as authoritative. I notice your real estate map has large green areas which are in no neighborhood, and I suspect some are parks where historic locations do exist. I'll list some options below for discussion. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Location labeling options:

1. Mandatory city locations. Sometimes the table will have a column full of the same city name.
2. Omit redundant locations. If the list says it is for a city or county and all the Location columns are the same the column could be omitted.
3. Use popular location names. If there are official or unofficial neighborhood names, use those. If you get one wrong then someone else will fix it, or a location may get labeled "between X and Y".
4. Use arbitrary grouping. Use a nine-cell grid (3x3) and labels such as "central" and "northeast". Or compass directions from City Hall.

You're correct that the green areas in the real estate map are parks. Only the Presidio (northwest portion of the map) and Golden Gate Park (west-central) have historic sites. I've categorized them as Presidio and Golden Gate Park in the table I'm editing in my user space. It's clear what to do with sites that don't fit into a neighborhood (shipwrecks, the Bay Bridge, cable cars, Farallon Islands), so I'm just going to leave them categorized as San Francisco, unless someone has a better idea.

In keeping with what seems to have become the consensus in the development of the Dakota County, MN list, I'm going to include a column with street addresses (where applicable) and a second column for locality (mostly neighborhood, in this case). --Sanfranman59 (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Geo-code info in photo documentation You asked also "about the summary, licensing and category information" that you included included with them. I took a look at , just now, and see that you have a new feature which i have not seen. In your documenting, you include geo-code for where you were standing when taking the picture, and one can click on Google maps or other options to the right to walk around. And in the Google map version, you see where other specific photos in the area are located, and you can go see those photos. Seems neat... I hope others who know more about geo-coding can comment further. To do any or all of that, do you need your own geo-locator? How would I add such to a photo i took? doncram (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Click on it, then click on the Wiki Commons link to see the information page. You can click on edit to see the wikicode. It's the Commons template "Location" used for that. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's WP page with information about getting geographic coordinates: WP:Obtaining geographic coordinates. I've found Earth Tools pretty easy to use. I just zoom into the location where I was standing when I took the photo and the coordinates are shown on the left side of the page. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Contributing properties

Is there an easy way to find out what properties make up a historic district? Murderbike (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, assuming you mean a National Register-listed historic district, rather than a local historic district. Get the NRHP inventory/nomination/registration document for the district. For those that have been named National Historic Landmarks and a few others, those are available on-line at the National Park Service, and you can search for them online here. Some states (NY, PA, IL, KY) make all NRHP documents available on-line. Otherwise, you may need to request a copy from the National Park Service by email to nr_reference at NPS.gov, provide your postal address and expect to receive within a couple weeks. If the NPS gets enough requests, they will probably put them all on-line. doncram (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Our priorities

Ok, so I was just thinking about our lists, and was kind of thinking that it didn't make much sense for me to concentrate on creating articles for sites, while the lists are all inconsistent. It seems that after getting all NHL lists in order, getting the NRHP lists into a consistent format should be a higher priority than creating stubs for the articles in the lists. So, I'm not gonna tell anyone else what to do, but after I get the three remaining NHLs in Washington created, I'm going to concentrate on putting the new table design in as many places as I can. Murderbike (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were working towards creating a standard for list-articles, but do not have one example completed. AFAIK, the only list-article of NRHPs that has gone to peer review, even, and it has not even gone to Featured List review, is List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. And its peer review happened before the new color scheme system was invented; Featured List reviewers may well hate the idea of such a coloring scheme for list-articles. Several example list-articles are under development towards being models by several of us, in a discussion to which you have contributed over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Standardizing NRHP lists discussion. And IMHO, creating articles for the sites in any one list is essential to bringing any proposed model list up to snuff. P.S. FYI, I created a reference-rich stub for one of your WA NHLs, Yakima Park Stockade Group, which is also in List of Registered Historic Places in Pierce County, Washington. doncram (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. What's AFAIK? Murderbike (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK = As Far As I Know. doncram (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NRHP infobox for multiple designations: NRHP date, NHL date, NM / NMON date

A reader of List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City asked, why is the row linking to African Burial Ground National Monument colored differently; the answer was that it is a National Monument not just an NHL. Also in response, i edited the NRHP infobox to give nrhp_type= nmon, so that the current coloring for national monuments would show in the article consistently with the List of NHLs color for the site. However, that wipes out the NHL mention and color in the NRHP infobox. I think it would be appropriate to have 2 colored lines at the top of the infobox, one for the NHL and one for the NM / NMON. Also, in the infobox, it would be appropriate to allow for date of National Monument designation, as well as NHL designation and NRHP listing. The same applies for Governors Island which is a National Monument and NHL, and perhaps for more of the 80 or so National Monuments. Could the NRHP infobox be changed to allow for this information? doncram (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I encountered the fact that nrhp_type = nmon works, but nrhp_type = NMON fails, while the color in the List of NHLs is designated by "NMON color". It seems the NRHP infobox code should allow either nmon or NMON. That NRHP infobox coding issue may apply also to codes for National Military Park, National Historical Park, National Historic Site, etc. doncram (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Added a "to do"

In the open tasks section, it's at the top of the list on the right side. Hadn't realized it'd been so long since it was looked at... -Ebyabe (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dakota County, MN preview

I'd like people to take a look now at List of Registered Historic Places in Dakota County, Minnesota, primarily for the purpose of deciding on standards for "List of nrhp in county..." articles. Within six months there may be dozens or hundreds of these, so the more we can nail down now, the better. I think I'm "done" except for filling in the missing pictures. There's still ongoing discussion about whether or not to put a distinguishing color in column one based on property type. Other issues are:

1. is this the right quantity and content of columns?
2. is this the right number of citations?
3. does the map add interest/value?
4. placement of the "map all coordinates" button
5. should the summary column be written in complete sentences, fragments, or is a mixture OK?
6. which templates should be at the bottom?
7. should we re-take all the pictures when the snow melts?

--Appraiser (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the buildings are in Minnesota, we're pretty much guaranteed to have snow on them about three or four months out of the year. Since we're showing buildings in their natural environment, I say leave the snow in.  :) As far as the map is concerned, it would probably add value better if it showed the locations of the cities where National Register properties are located. (Maybe not all of them, but at least the cities that have the most properties, such as Hastings, Farmington, and Mendota. South St. Paul and West St. Paul might be a little close together to label them on the map.) I don't think we need to write complete sentences in the summary column -- we just need to keep it short so we don't clog up the table.

By the way, if we agree on the format here, I'm working on a county list generator that will generate county lists in this format. Here's a sample of the output for Hennepin County, although a generated list will need some work to clean up disambiguation links or article titles that differ from their official National Register name. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the map, though agree that it would be a lot better with towns on it. I would also put it in a frame. I've also wondered about the sentences/fragments thing. I had started out doing it more fragmentary, then switched to complete, but don't really know what it should be. I wouldn't worry about the snow either. There's no reason why summer should be the standard view of a site. Oh, and Elkman, a list generator is AMAZING. I wouldn't want to know how much time that will save. Murderbike (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was kidding about the snow; it's snowing again today.--Appraiser (talk) 00:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Snow's relevance depends upon the subject. Doesn't matter for some buildings. Some look better with green landscaping. Snow does greatly reduce my options in photographing examples of plants. "This white surface is a tulip bed." -- SEWilco (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, my compliments and thanks for all the hard work you folks have done on the list. It looks great. My only substantive comment is that the text at the start of the page reads like something I'd expect to find in the Dakota County, Minnesota article, not in an article about NRHP sites in that county. It seems to me that an overview of the sites is more appropriate for the list article. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. It seems like it would be better to have a little less general history, and more of a summary/description of the types of sites in the list. Murderbike (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

About the map: The map definitely adds. But it should show all the RHP locations, and perhaps entirely replace the external link to the Google map. Maps along these lines include List of Pennsylvania state parks and List of Minnesota state parks. The google map may be helpful, for the moment, as a tool to guide your manually placing dots on your map, and it may still be helpful as an external link for those who might want to plot routes to visit the sites (but i think that this way into a google map doesn't switch into that mode properly). It is better to have the map in the page, rather than as an external link. Doing such a map is setting a high standard for List of RHPs articles, which is a good thing. We could all figure out how to do such maps more and more efficiently. Perhaps the Elkman generator will do maps soon, i am intending to use it to bake a pizza tonight.... :) doncram (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Pizza? That explains why the machine has been running so hot. I'm not so sure that we want to display all the historic places on the map, since it might become rather dense. I actually prefer having the maps available in a separate application, like Google Maps or Google Earth. Those systems give you the ability to pan around and zoom in or out, and to plot the sites out along streets. Putting a static image in an article with dots on it doesn't really give you that ability. As far as the history of the county goes, it would be helpful to have a brief history of the county to give some context to why historic sites developed in the patterns they did. (For instance, Hennepin County, Minnesota grew up around St. Anthony Falls and the industry there, while Ramsey County, Minnesota had the state capitol and was the home of a number of industrialists.) Just a broad overview would be sufficient. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I can provide panning in addition to fixed image generation from my map server, but it doesn't have the coordinate info for a specific Wikipedia article (which is what is wanted for this use). As for the county info, the List articles should have links someplace to the county article (often in the Location column for multi-county lists). The intro to an article could include a summary of the location, and that can probably often be grabbed from the intro to the location's article. Making it specific to the list can be problematic because the NHRPs might not be much affected by major events in the local history. Some sites get named due to the architect or the age of the site more than significant events. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely prefer to keep the Google Maps option, and just show a map of the localities that have RHPs. If a map with all the sites in Pierce County were put on the page, it would have to be really huge. And unless SEWilco wants to make an interactive map for every single list (and future lists, and maintain the maps as sites get added, ooh, today's friday, better check the update), I doubt that it would be a very user-friendly option, since most people don't have the tools or skills for such things. As for the intros making them "specific to the list" seems like a necessity for quality. People should know if a particular architect's work was significant in an area. It's more relevant to the list than a some general history. Murderbike (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, someone else's tool would have to be used which extracted the coordinates from the article. You're not getting such a tool from me for several years. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

An intro which is specific to the location and the contents of the list may be nice but optional. Mention it in guide. I suspect the lack of such an intro in most of these lists is due to such difficulties. In Dakota County I see churches, farmhouses, Fort Snelling, three historic districts, several homes whose summary highlights the architecture, mill, stockyards. Looks like it's a farming history rather than steelmaking or mining. The Fort is due to frontier conditions (there are still Viking outposts a few miles away). -- SEWilco (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I appreciate all the comments. What I was trying to convey in the introduction was that most of the sites of historic significance exist as a result of three eras of the county's history:

1. In the first half of the 19th century, Mendota was one of the most important sites in all of Minnesota Territory, at the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers, where Indians and fur traders met, and the U.S. asserted itself in opening frontiers for settlement.
2. In the second half of the 19th century, power and influence shifted to Hastings, a major center for processing and shipping the products of the county.
3. In the first half of the 20th century, the only new historically significant sites centered around the stockyards in South Saint Paul.

If one analyzes the sites, most can be pigeon-holed into one of three groups:

1. mansions of men of wealth or power
2. churches and social gathering spots for residents, including "new" ethnic groups
3. commercial and industrial sites, representing new wealth on the frontier.

In order to understand why these sites are on the list, the reader needs the map and some historical context. The first paragraph doesn't add much toward that goal, and should be scrapped or modified. But I think the subsequent ones are pertinent to understanding the significance of the list. Or perhaps analyzing the list leads the reader to understanding the history. It seems to me that one of the purposes of the nrhp program is to lead to an understanding of history. Did readers unfamiliar with the county pick up what I was trying to convey? If not, maybe that theme should be expanded in the lead (thinking out loud).
I want to keep the google map link.

1. It allows a site to be added without having to re-make a map.
2. It allows zooming, panning, and identifying site names.
3. Adding dots to the static map would cause a jumble of dots, mostly in the three cities, without room for labels, so I'm not enthused about that idea.

--Appraiser (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not just go with something like what you wrote above in the list article and perhaps expand it a bit to mention a few of the more prominent NRHP sites? I think what you wrote for the history of the county is excellent and I would strongly encourage you to add it to the virtually nonexistent history section of the Dakota County, Minnesota article. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah. It's a process. :) Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you need some carbon paper for copying the text over, maybe the Historical Society has some. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it! You put a lot of work into this list. I think the map is fine as it is. The map should identify the county seat and some of the more important (populous?) communities. I don't think it needs to get cluttered with every populated place. The body of the list itself has the coordinates to allow someone to locate the property if they're interested. I agree that the summary of the county should provide background into the context of the NRHP properties - things such as aboriginial settlement, European/American exploration/settlement, military, commerce, transporation, and the like. All the county lists should look this good! Einbierbitte (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This week's update

The updated list of sites this week has a TON in South Dakota and Virgina, for anyone that's trying to keep up. Murderbike (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Photos of NRHP sites

Moving this discussion to it's own page, b/c I think it deserves such, imho:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Photos of NRHP sites

-Ebyabe (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay.... But for a separate discussion, what is the separate discussion about? I see more clearly what a separate discussion about standardizing the NRHP list-articles about, that is better defined. Anyhow, I put the two now-separate discussions on my own watch list, and will keep going with them if others continue in them too. Again I am not sure what the first separate discussion is supposed to cover. doncram (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please consider joining discussion at Talk:List of Registered Historic Places in San Francisco, California. The discussion under this section here was largely about RHPs in San Francisco, before it was moved. After moving, the discussion did not thrive. After further discussion at :Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Photos of NRHP sites, I moved the original discussion to Talk:List of Registered Historic Places in San Francisco, California. doncram (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Standardizing NRHP lists?

Since this discussion has gotten so lively, I'm moving it to it's own page:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Standardizing NRHP lists discussion

Hope that's OK with everyone. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Some discussion continues there, well now slightly renamed to be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Standardizing lists of NRHPs. I guess i understand that a separate Talk page there can keep a discussion of this topic, which can get kinda bureaucratic, open for longer than is appropriate here on the main talk page of WP:NRHP. Discussion about several specific list-articles also is welcome on their own Talk pages, at:

• Talk:List of Registered Historic Places in San Francisco, California
• Talk:List of Registered Historic Places in Onondaga County, New York
• Talk:List of Registered Historic Places in Dakota County, Minnesota
• Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Washington
• Talk:List of Registered Historic Places in Pierce County, Washington
• Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in New York

Please consider watching any or all of those. doncram (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

pre-Peer Review review for List of NHLs in Washington

Would anyone care to check out List of National Historic Landmarks in Washington and give me any input about things to take care of before submitting it to the rigors of Peer Review? I know the Port Gamble listing needs a Summary, I'll be working on that this week, so don't worry about that, but any other advice would be greatly appreciated. Murderbike (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. A low-level issue that I notice is that the first 2 sort columns don't work properly. Clicking on either one of them brings the "Bonneville Dam Historic District" entry to the top of the list, and that is not one of the 23 NHLs of Washington being described in the list-article; it is an NHL primarily in another state. In numbered list-articles, the first column of numbers is intended to allow a reader to get back to the original presentation order, if she/he has clicked on a different sort order. It does not accomplish that, even if you click on it repeatedly to cycle through all possible sorting options. I suggest that you move the Bonneville Dam Historic District to a separate table, further below, even if it is just a one item table, and that its title does not need to be italicized, and that you provide the description for the site, here, duplicating what may be available in an Oregon list-article. Otherwise, I personally think it is ready for peer review (where I would have further comments to make). doncram (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the Bonneville Dam sort problem by removing the <center></center> coding from that cell. I suspect that format codes may also explain the difficulty in sorting the first column that contains sequence numbers. --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As for where the Bonneville Dam Historic District should be listed, I believe it should be treated as one of the 24 NHLs in Washington. It's just a bureaucratic technicality that Oregon is its listing state. List it just like the others (including a short description in the last column -- don't send people to the Oregon list to read a short description), but in the intro and in its description say that it straddles the Washington-Oregon state line and is classified under Oregon in the National Register Information System (if that's where the listing is). --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If the sorting was being affected by a <center> incantation, that implies you were putting HTML in a text field. Check the tables wikisyntax help for the alternative centering style incantation. Maybe '| style="center" | text' ? -- SEWilco (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, style="center" was already set for the table. The cell in question had redundant formatting, which I deleted. (All fixed!) --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Actually I realize I have a concern that I think would need to be addressed, at least before Featured List review, if not before Peer Review. This is that the NHL articles indexed by the list-article need to be developed further, in some cases. The list-article looks good on the surface. But at least some of the list-article descriptions have gotten ahead of the NHL articles that, in my view, they are supposed to summarize. (Some background: a while ago I put forward a proposal that an NRHP list-article should not be rated Start-class (B-class) until every article it indexes is at least a Stub (Start) article. At least some of the WA NHL articles are not Start-rating-worthy, IMO. About what brings something up to Start, I also proposed that NHL articles should not be rated Start until they included, at a minimum the NHL webpage reference and the NRHP text/photos PDF doc references that are available for almost all NHL sites. We don't necessarily have to go back into the details of my proposals, now in NRHP talk archives.) My main point was/is that articles about NRHPs/NHLs are not stable until they include the basic, available sources; often the basic sources provide major development for the articles that changes the list-article descriptions, and so on. I myself put those references into some of the WA NHL articles, but I note that at least the WT Preston, Virginia V, American and English Camps, San Juan Island lack these basic references, and/or are not rated at least Start in WP:NRHP. doncram (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on specifics of WA NHLs for its list-article is continuing at Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Washington. Also, I and others have been contributing on adding sources and developing the individual WA NHL articles. doncram (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)