Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

Criteria for Fully Illustrated Lists

From above - "Can we consider lists fully illustrated if we can independently confirm that buildings without pictures have been demolished? I know some people like to use pictures of the empty lot in this case, but the lots aren't always empty."

I don't know that we've had formal criteria for this - except that, after some discussion and a small amount of opposition we decided that "Address Restricted" sites need not be included (though they may be if they don't encourage looting, ...). RE: the specific question, I'd say "Why not just take a photo of the occupied lot?" Certainly note in the table that the original building has been destroyed. In general I wouldn't include the photo in the article unless it showed something really special. Also I might focus the photo on the lot, rather than on the new building.

I do think that the pictures of the lots (empty or otherwise) do add something to the lists - credibility. If you put up a photo of a lot on the county page, you are putting up your reputation as an editor, saying I researched this, I checked it out in person, and the building ain't there. Maybe that's not needed in some cases - I'll let others decide on that. It does take a lot of work, for a small actual benefit. A couple of examples of the benefit of doing the research.

• • For Jayne Estate Building I searched several times in an area where addresses had changed or were unclear and the coords were off, until I was finally sure the building could not possibly exist. Another editor added the info later that it had been torn down decades ago.
  • For Building at 813-815 W. Second Street in Davenport, Iowa, it had been mistakenly recorded that the building was torn down. Not being able to find it - not even the lot - I later double checked on Google Maps and found it (it's a bar - next time I'm in Davenport somebody should buy me a drink!)

My particular concern about "unphotographable sites" is about ships - they move, sink, get raised, burn down, move again, etc. (See e.g. State of Pennsylvania (steamboat) - though I did find a pic) Taking pictures of a place where the ship once docked rarely adds much IMHO. (See MUSTANG at National Register of Historic Places listings in Anne Arundel County, Maryland - does it add anything?)

I'd think that, after some discussion, we could come up with some reasonable rules on when some photos need not be in the list and still have it be FI. Smallbones (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If a building (or whatever) is demolished, it's demolished. A picture of a place where something once was, but no longer is, adds nothing (except perhaps if its a heap of rubble). I understand why such pictures are added, but to me personally, it seems like adding pictures of empty lots treats these lists as if they were part of a scavenger hunt, not an encyclopedia. Teemu08 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as photos of demolished building sites, I include them only so there's not a gap on a list. Sometimes there is a new building there, sometimes it's an empty lot. When I can find information about the demolition, I add a reference to that. But sometimes I can't find any info as to whether a building is demolished, moved or whatever. For documentably demolished buildings, I'd be happy if we came up with a graphic like for the "address restricted" sites.

With sunken ships, I've photographed the area where the ship sank. I don't like doing that, but since I'm not a diver, it's my only alternative. --Ebyabe (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I have a bit of the scavenger hunter in me, and that gives me a certain motivation. I do love completing a list and I do think that the extra effort does have some benefit (but at what cost?). I'd be willing to waive pix of demolished buildings and similar, IF there is a reliable source clearly documenting this. But I don't know what others think. Perhaps we could put in an honorable mention category right below the FI list for 96% or more - no particular reason needed why it can't be photographed. The 4th of July weekend is not the best time to decide this - let's wait a week and see what others say. Smallbones (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The "honorable mention" group seems like the best idea I've heard yet on this subject. For those of us who put in the effort to get the difficult-to-photograph sites (e.g. Elkman's underwater photos of sunken ships, or my photo of the Epsilon II Archaeological Site that required a ten-mile hike through the hills), it seems somewhat unequal for other lists that could have such work but haven't yet to receive a similar fully-illustrated recognition. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with pictures of empty lots (though I don't normally upload pictures of empty lots unless there is something special about the site), I suggest searching extensively on the free image sites (Google Books full view, Library of Congress, etc.) to make sure there isn't an old photograph of the building before settling on an empty lot photo. Bms4880 (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point, but I'll generally take and upload a site photo even if we already have such a photo; I'll soon be uploading one of the site of the Harrison-Landers House, which was photographed by HABS before its destruction. The empty lot photo won't go in the list, but it can be useful in the article if I ever get around to expanding this NRHPBot stub. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, for our WP:WLM project, we have decided empty lot pictures are not only important for conservation awareness, but can also even win a photography prize! Jane (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Honorable Mention" list idea, or better yet, "90% fully illustrated" list seems to get better and better the more I think of it. Moreover, I can't think of any reason that anybody would oppose it. Unless somebody says otherwise, I'll include such a list directly below the Fully Illustrate list in a couple of days. Smallbones (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've included "90%+ Illustrated" lists right below the NRHP fully illustrated lists (as a sub-section) and included 7 lists that I know about. Please post any comments on the format here, and find other lists that qualify I'd guess there will soon be more total photos in the 90%+ list than in the fully illustrated lists. Smallbones (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

List of National Historic Landmarks in Wyoming has 23 out of 24 illustrated. Should this go on the regular 90%+ list, or should there be such a section in the NHLs list? Ntsimp (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I found several other NHL lists at 90%+, so I added a new section in the NHLs list. Revert if appropriate. Ntsimp (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Who knew that so many NHL lists are so close to being fully illustrated?! Smallbones (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably because NHLs are more prominent and thus more likely to be photographed by people in general. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Drake Well

Having been able to go to Drake Well Museum over the holiday weekend, I was going to set about expanding the article (with photos and, maybe, a video), but am no longer sure of the best way to do so. Should I move the article to Drake Well, with the main focus on the historic site? Or keep the article where it is and focus on the museum? Or split the well from the museum and have two articles? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Why "Drake Well" instead of "Drake Oil Well"? Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME, it is almost always referred to as "Drake Well". The nom form appears to be one of the few instances of where "Drake Oil Well" is used. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I've never heard a name for it (other than "the first oil well") aside from the NPS designation. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, oil wells tended to get named based on who owned them or where they were located. I not sure if that was the name when it was drilled, or whether it was named after the fact. I've started the researching/writing the well article, and it does appear I can get another article dedicated solely on the museum. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 19:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, I think I have a little bit more on its status as a former PA state park from two books on the history of the PA state parks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, anything you have would be appreciated. I think that is the one era I have very little on. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Back to the original question, I think that Drake Well and Drake Well Museum should probably be a single article. My opinion on combining "historical" and "present use" topics is that IF historical and present-day locations are substantially similar, and IF a detailed discussion of the historical context would not put undue weight on the site's history, then the topics should be combined. In this case, the historical context of the site is sort of the whole point of the museum, so that seems OK. And I assume that the present park boundaries are such that nothing historically important is excluded, and there aren't potentially notable structures included that weren't involved in some way with the Drake Well. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That is what I thought initially, but after doing research, there does appear to be a lot more to the museum besides the well. The historic site covers an acre, whereas the museum itself covers 22 acres and has acquired a bunch of stuff relevant to the whole Pennsylvania petroleum industry.

Also, if there is one article, where would it be Drake Well or Drake Well Museum? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO, if the other stuff isn't independently notable, then there should still be one article--in that case, the raison d'etre of the Museum is still the Well, and the addition of other stuff to the site doesn't dilute the historic connection between the Well and the Museum. It's like if Coca-Cola purchased a bunch af new bottling facilities. It's still the came company, and the addition of even a substantial amount of new assets doesn't change that. However, if othre aquisitions of the Museum are indepently notable, such that the well itself forms a much smaller portion of the notability of the museum, then perhaps two articles are warranted.

Assuming only one article is preferred, I would lean toward Drake Well Museum (with a redirect from Drake Well, of course) because that's presumably the current common name of the site. Andrew Jameson (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. When the museum was formed in the '30s, it would have most likely fallen under the first example, but in IMO is notable on its own today. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 21:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Having read the current versions of both articles, I think it is OK to have two separate articles. I would make sure each has hatnotes so if someone gets to one looking for the other it is easy to find that too. While most oil wells are probably not notable in and of themselves, I think if any oil well merits its own article, the Drake Well does. The museum is on the history of the whole oil industry in Pennsylvania, not just one well. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

14 new NHLs

Two of these have already been mentioned above. Here is a full list of new NHLs that were added on June 23rd: list. I have already included some of them in the lists. But some are still missing an article, an image and an description. -- Firefox13 (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I also need to check their type. Some might be NHS or something else.. -- Firefox13 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Two additional sites were added in mid-July, reflected in this week's list. Also one NHL boundary change and one delisting. Teemu08 (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lighthouse for Sale

Thought it would be of interest here...if you've got a spare $5,000, why not buy a Lake Erie lighthouse. We don't have an article yet, but the Conneaut Harbor West Breakwater Light in Conneaut, Ohio, which is listed on the NRHP, is being auctioned off by the government [1]. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And for less than $2.5 million Oakdale (Hillendale Road near Chadds Ford, Pennsbury Township, Chester County, PA) [2] Can real estate listings be considered as reliable sources? Smallbones (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable for what purpose? Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For a source in the article, e.g. on the house's area, existence of a swimming pool, additions, and other amenities, the size of the associated land parcels (being divided up into 3 pieces now), all the stuff that is listed on the whatchamacallit sheet (perhaps it's just called the "listing sheet," "fact sheet" or maybe "spec sheet.") Smallbones (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancies

I have found some discrepancies in Alaska, Virginia and California. The last one I already fixed. Maybe someone can check the other two talk pages and help fixing those issue. Thanks! -- Firefox13 (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

GLAM Wiki events on July 22-23 in Baltimore's Mount Vernon Neighborhood

Join us at the Walters Art Museum on July 23

Please join us next weekend for GLAM Baltimore 2011 -- a series of two events organized by Baltimore Heritage on July 22-23 to build relationships between cultural heritage organizations, archives and museums and the Wikipedian community in Baltimore and Maryland. We'll start on Friday, July 22 with a happy hour at the Midtown Yacht Club in Baltimore's historic Mount Vernon neighborhoods. On the morning of Saturday, July 23, we'll meet at the Walters Art Museum for an introduction to GLAM Wiki partnerships around the country and break out into smaller groups to develop new ideas for projects we'd like to work on here in Baltimore. We'd welcome any members of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject who are interested and able to attend one or both programs.

You can sign up and find additional details on our meetup page or on the Baltimore Heritage website where you can also use a form to RSVP for the July 22 Happy Hour or the July 23 GLAM Wiki partnerships meeting. I hope you can join us! --Eli.pousson (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a question

A four over four sash window

One of Delphi Baptist Church's "20 over 20" windows described as a salient feature of the 1815 church. They are quite large

Good day altogether! In an article I am preparing now to translate into the German Wikipedia I found that:

The rear bay has two smaller four over four windows.

Now that is not really difficult to understand but what does four over four windows mean? Is this a window which has between bars in the bottom four panes and above another four panes or does it have in total 16 panes, as in four in a row and four rows on top of each other? In the latter case, i.e. if meant as a simple multiplication, that would have it's equivalent in the German language as "vier auf vier". The article window isn't much enlightening on this topic, and also dictionaries seem not to deal with that "<number> over <number>" expression. Any ideas, hints? --Matthiasb (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It usually applies to sash windows only, meaning that the upper sash has four panes of glass and the lower sash has four panes, for a total of eight. Altairisfar (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the help; I've encountered this term multiple times in sources but never learned what it meant. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad that I could be of help. I guess that all those years of watching This Old House weren't for nothing after all. ;) Altairisfar (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Stoney Creek Independent Presbyterian Chapel of Prince William Parish

The article on the settlement claims unsourced, that it was used as a filming location in Forrest Gump. Maybe one could verify and source this and add into the church article as well. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

IMDB does list filming locations in Yemassee, South Carolina, which is nearby. So it does seem likely to be true. I'll keep looking. Altairisfar (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, found it at [3]. Altairisfar (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Kuerner Farm

Kuerner Farm is one of 14 new NHLs listed at the end of June 2011 (mentioned in a section above). Going through articles with infobox errors, I found this one. The error comes from not having an NRIS reference number. Usually this is a quick fix: I find the reference number in Elkman or in a weekly list and just insert it. Problem is, Kuerner Farm appears not to have been listed on the NRHP before it was designated an NHL. This pdf (page 3) says the farm was designated on 6/23/11, but the weekly list that includes June 23 does not include the property, so I don't know where to look for any reference numbers. Anyone know anything about this?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes things fall through the cracks. It may be listed in a later release. I'd suggest e-mailing the NRHP folks, since they may not have realized. Possibly the relevant Pennsylvania agency may know more as well. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The NHLs all show up on this week's Weekly List. Teemu08 (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

New National Register database loaded

I've loaded the most recent version of the National Register Information System into my infobox generator. This contains the properties up to July 9, 2010.

The reason it took me so long to load this is because they changed all the schemas around when they upgraded their database from .dbf files into Microsoft Access. Fields that were in sub-tables in the previous database are now rolled into some main tables, so the data was denormalized. I had to rewrite some queries as a result. I've been experimenting with the database on my own, though, so I believe things should be working now. Still, if you see any discrepancies or odd behavior, let me know. Also, you can tell if you're using the new version if the text shows up in dark red instead of dark blue.

The queries are as follows:

• Query by city
• Query by county
• Get a formatted list by county
• Get an infobox for a given property
• Get a semi-formatted list by architect
• Get a list of multiple property submissions by state

Oh, and one thing to note: If the infobox lists an architect for a given property, that could be either the architect or the builder. The National Register nomination forms, and consequently the database, don't distinguish between architects and builders. My infobox generator lists it as the architect, but it could actually be a builder. A careful examination of other references should reveal the difference. In fact, I would greatly prefer it if people used the infobox generator only to populate the infobox, and use other reliable sources to write the rest of the article.

Finally, I've added links to the National Register nomination forms for states where they're online. Certain states have all the forms digitized in NPS Focus, but many don't.

Again, if you have any comments or questions, you can either ask here, or on my talk page. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. --doncram 18:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi ... thanks for the updated database. It does not appear that Historic District tags are being included in the infobox, nrhp_type? Check generating Vancroft and Wellsburg Historic District in the Elkman tool; I already added hd to the infoboxes in the articles. Cheers--Pubdog (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't seem there are coordinates being included in the HD infoboxes. I don't recall this being an issue previously, but none of the last three HD infoboxes I've generated (two above, plus Bethany Historic District) have had coordinates included.--Pubdog (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Same thing happens for me; it's probably some minor coding error that will take an hour to find and twenty seconds to fix. I really like the links to the Focus URLs for sites in certain states, although I hope Elkman will add links at least to Kentucky nominations, which are almost all online. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the coords issue is fixed. Is it possible to get an "importance=" for the talk page template? "importance=Low" might fit 80% of the articles. Thanks for making and keeping up this great tool. Smallbones (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to previous suggestions to include linking to NRHP nom and photo documents where those are available. I see you do this in your lefthandside material in states where the NRHP noms are mostly available. A couple simple suggestions:

1. Could you please draft a copy-paste ready reference for the NRHP nom and photo documents? It could be left in the lefthandside material. Forming a reference like <ref name=nrhpinv3>{{cite web|url=http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/REFNUM.pdf |title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: NAME / ALTNAME |date= |author= |publisher=National Park Service}} and [http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/REFNUM.pdf ''Accompanying photos'']</ref> with REFNUM, NAME, and ALTNAME filled in would save a lot of tedium for many future editors.
2. For states where NRHP noms are mostly not available from the National Park Service, it could be better to provide message: "Nomination forms and accompanying photos usually aren't available yet for West Virginia; check the NRHP Focus search page for this one if you like", rather than "Nomination forms aren't yet available for West Virginia; check the NRHP Focus page for status, code = 0".
3. For the architects, builders and engineers, associated with a site, please output into one NRHP infobox field architect-builder-engineer=, rather than put into architect= field. That combo field will not display in a wikipedia article. It properly leaves it to the editor to split any contents into architect= or builder= fields (note the contents are very rarely an engineer). This will avoid future errors of interpretation.
4. Please drop the line-break after the refnum, so the reference will appear on the same line
5. Please do put "importance=Low" into the WikiProject NRHP talk page template, as it should be the default, as articles for all National Historic Landmarks and other higher importance articles have already been started.
6. Please convert dates to avoid leading zeroes, i.e. want "added=April 1, 1982" rather than "added = April 01, 1982".

--doncram 00:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram: I thought you weren't using my infobox generator. Since you're using your own draft article generator, I think you should incorporate those enhancements into your own generator, and not ask me to do anything for you. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Elkman, my comments are in response to your statement that you would welcome suggestions, and are more for benefit of future others who might use your generator than for me. It seems odd that you would generate statements "Nomination forms aren't yet available for STATE", given that nomination forms are in fact available upon request for all NRHP-listed places. And where nomination forms are even available on-line for hundreds and thousands of items where your generator says they are not, as for National Historic Landmarks and others. So I suggest, respectfully, that you revise that statement. Also I would request that you stop with the accusations that others have been saying you were lying. I myself am not aware of your making deliberately false statements, except perhaps on this matter of what others have been saying. --doncram 12:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't get to make enhancement requests on behalf of other users, either. Oracle Corporation doesn't have the right to call IBM and tell them that they need to enhance DB2 so other DB2 users can do certain things. As far as "nomination forms are not yet available", I meant that they aren't available in NPS Focus. Sometimes they are, despite what I've assumed. I'm not going to go back and say "Nomination forms aren't available in NPS Focus, except in the case where they are, and you could look for the nomination forms in another place, or call your state's SHPO, or write to the National Park Service and ask them to send you a copy." I'm simply providing a convenient link to the form in a case where I'm reasonably sure one is available. I can't possibly be the arbiter of truth and say, "This nomination form is not available online, and I checked everywhere," or, "This nomination form is not online at the usual spot, but you might be able to find it via Google, Bing, Yahoo!, or even AltaVista if they're still around." You may love that sort of wishy-washy, disclaimer-loaded, all-alternatives-considered language, but I don't.

Now, does anyone other than Doncram have any enhancement requests? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Another Set of Eyes

Hi all. Working on Brooke County, West Virginia. While preparing Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion, it seemed to me that the pic posted on the list did not match the description since it's not Spanish Colonial in style. See the pic of this house included near the end of the NRHP nom form. From what I can tell, the pic on the Brooke County list page, File:Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion from the northwest.jpg looks more like the Lewis Hall Mansion, see pic in NRHP nom form. However, another picture, File:Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion front.jpg shows "1312" on the front and that is indeed the address for Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion.

To me, the pic File:Lewis Hall Mansion.jpg looks to me like it is the Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion; I can tell it is a Spanish Colonial and it has the tile roof, etc. It also looks very much to be like the Harry and Louisiana Beall Paull Mansion pic included near the end of the NRHP nom form.

I think everyone would agree something is messed up. Perhaps the addresses in the nomination forms, or perhaps they renumbered since 1985? Is this possible? Communicated this to User:Nyttend, but I thought have another set of eyes look at this would be helpful. Hope this makes sense.--Pubdog (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Paull mansion is part of an MRA of large houses along Pleasant Avenue. When I photographed them, I had a significant difficulty: several of them didn't have visible addresses, and with one exception, the houses other than 1312 were difficult at best; since I virtually never work with West Virginia (these photos were from the first time I was in the state for over a year), I didn't think to check the nomination forms when I was photographing. Pubdog already talked with me about this, and his arguments seem to make the most sense, but I agree that more eyes could be helpful. When you're looking at the various bits of evidence, pay attention to the maps in the nomination forms — it's a lot easier to mess up on the numbering or to have the numbering change than to mess up on the map of the house (which shows it far back from the street, similar to the Duval mansion photo) or for the original house to be moved.. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

New NHLs

New NHLs in the latest Weekly list Einbierbitte (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that the long hot weekend is over, I have been able to take care of Woodlawn Cemetery (NYC now has two NHL cemeteries within it, Green-Wood Cemetery being the other one). As for the other ones:

• National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, all. We need an article about those specific buildings unless they have some other names I don't know about.
• Olson House, South Cushing, ME. No article
• Grand Mound, no location given. Needs article.
• Split Rock Lighthouse, Two Harbors, MN. Got it.
• Arch Street Friends Meeting House, Philadelphia. Good

Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Also forgot:

• Mountain Meadows Massacre site: That article itself may probably suffice, as it did when the Kent State shootings site was listed on the Register. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the Northwestern Branch, National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers Historic District is listed on the NRHP in Milwaukee. It is included on the 2011 list of America's Most Endangered Places.--Pubdog (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Grand Mound is 17 miles west of International Falls, Minnesota. It used to have a visitor center, as listed in this article from Minnesota Public Radio, but the visitor center has since been closed. I think it would be useful to have an article on it, but I've had to fight other fires. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I started the article on Olson House (Cushing, Maine). It's a very interesting property with lots of source material available. Any suggestions or assistance would be appreciated. Cbl62 (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Stretching arguments to their logical conclusion

If the NRIS database is not a reliable source for whether somebody is an architect, a builder, or an engineer, does that mean that any articles on architects/builders/engineers sourced only to NRIS should not be created in the first place? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, there's an idea! --Orlady (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Architect vs. builder in the NRHP infobox generator

Since I've been criticized and accused of lying in several venues, I've updated the NRHP infobox generator to say "architect OR builder =" to display the name listed in the "architect" field in the NRIS database. I'm not happy about being forced to make this change, but at least it will FINALLY stop some criticism. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I know of which you speak and am truly sorry. The idiotic drama seems to never end and I'm sick of it. All of this BS can only hurt the project and diminish the enthusiasm that brought most of us here in the first place. I for one greatly appreciate all the effort that has gone into building, maintaining, and hosting the infobox generator and other National Register tools on your own site for the benefit of all. I most likely would not have been as gracious and would have either taken it down or made it a password site by now. Altairisfar (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well... it stops some criticism. Now you get to be criticized when the person listed isn't the Architect OR the builder (ie when they are the designer, or some other designation that the NRHP has lumped together under the word "architect"). And that is the real unfair thing here. The problem is that the flaw isn't with Elkman's generator... the flaw is with how the the NRHP database is set up. Elkman is being criticized for a problem he did not create.

It's a case of garbage in, garbage out. I really think the best solution is to deem the NRHP database to be "unreliable for this specific set of facts". (Note: That does not mean it is unreliable for other facts. A source can be reliable for most of what it says and yet considered unreliable when it comes to a specific fact). Since the NRHP database does not distinguish between an architect, a builder, a designer, or some other designation that indicates he played an important but unclear role in the construction, and instead lumps them all together under the catch all of "Architect" I don't see how it can be considered a reliable source for this sort of information. Really, all the database is telling us is that the person was involved in some way with constructing the building. Personally, I would prefer to have the information completely omitted from your generator... and make people have to find another (reliable) source for the relevant designation and enter it into the info-box by hand. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The accuracy really comes down to whoever submitted the original National Register nomination form. The form has one field saying "Architect/Builder", which doesn't differentiate between the two. Here's a site where you can download a form and fill it out. Also, here's a detailed guide of how Section 7, the description, should be filled out. Presumably, the person responsible for nominating a building or structure would write up a summary paragraph of who designed the building, followed by a detailed description of the interior and exterior appearance, any modifications since it was built, and so on. From the narrative description, it's usually possible to determine whether the people involved with the design were architects, builders, craftsmen, engineers, or landscape architects. Sometimes it may not be possible to determine this from the form, though. In any case, there should always be an architect or builder listed on the form, and hence in the database. It's just that the specifications for this form don't tell the writer to indicate who did what. As for what's in {{Infobox NRHP}}, I don't remember when or why we had to start listing the distinction between architects and builders. It sure has become an issue of contention, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well... how do we handle a situation like Flat Rock Camp, where two people are listed... neither of which was was a professional architect, craftsman, engineer, or landscape architect... one was the owner of the building (who did play a role in the over all design and in choosing materials)... the other was his neighbor, who acted more like a general contractor - supervising the carpenters and stonemasons who did the actual work. The NRHP database lists them both as "Architect"... at the moment the info-box lists one as "Built by" and the other as Designer (although for some reason that is not showing up in the box)... by the way... I know the details on this one because I am a descendant of the original owner and the house is still in my family... I don't have any RS for it. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to chime in here as someone who is greatly appreciative of the tools Elkman provides our Wiki community. I've been lurking in the background following some of the drama around here lately and have been worried that he would just throw up his hands in disgust and take down his query pages. Please don't, Elkman. My guess is that there are a heck of a lot more of us out here (the silent majority) who truly appreciate what you provide than there are who seem to prefer looking a gift horse in the mouth. For my part, I decided quite some time ago that I'm much happier avoiding the Wiki-drama and just quietly going about my business out here. Although I must confess to being a bit of a voyeur. Soap operas don't hold a candle to some of the stuff that happens around here. --sanfranman59 (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI... In case I was not clear... I agree. I may have questions and concerns with Elkman's generator, and may very much disagree with how a few editors misuse it (treating it as if it were a source)... but I do appreciate Elkman's generator and don't think we should abandon it... and (more importantly) I appreciate the all the other work Elkman does for this project. Blueboar (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as Flat Rock Camp goes, that is kind of a nebulous situation. I checked out a couple sources in that article, and you're right in saying that Augustus G. Paine wasn't a professional architect and Lyman Smith wasn't a professional builder. I think there are a couple ways to solve it: Either leave the "architect" and "builder" fields unpopulated in the infobox, and just mention Paine and Smith for their roles in the text; or leave the infobox as-is and indicate somehow that Paine wasn't a professional architect. I'm sure there are other cases, like Monticello, the residence of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wasn't an architect by trade, but the design of Monticello certainly attributes him as the architect. (In fact, he also did other designs; see Jeffersonian architecture.) Or, there's my favorite, Peavey–Haglin Experimental Concrete Grain Elevator, where the architecture is credited to Frank Peavey and Charles F. Haglin. Frank Peavey was a grain merchant, though, and I believe Charles F. Haglin was known more as a building contractor than an architect. Yet together, the two of them came up with the prototype reinforced concrete grain elevator that you see all over the place. So, to sum up: Fields in an infobox may give the reader some quick facts, but there are usually nuances, exceptions, or explanations that need to be credited in the actual text of the Wikipedia article. That's where we can tell the reader the details of the design and construction. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the only things I can see, are to capitilize "nrhp" in "Infobox nrhp" so as to avoid using the redirect and, I am not sure of this but, the categories "YEAR architecture" seem to be deprecated in favor of "Buildings and structures completed in YEAR", so that may need to be changed. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's only deprecated by one user, not by people in general. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It takes a lot of people to build a Wikipedia. The mostly good things usually should be credited to many persons: the system of recognizing fully illustrated lists, for example, and what's included in Elkman's generator, which reflects collected consideration of many people. The things you might not like, usually shouldn't be blamed on one person either. I don't happen to think it is right/good to blame Vegaswikian for the not-great status of the year information in NRHP articles, which I agree doesn't make sense often, but is not V's fault. It's not great, now, either, for Elkman to have implemented "Category: Buildings and structures completed in YEAR" into his generator. Editors should be aware that in many cases, that will provide incorrect information, because the YEAR that Elkman uses is not in fact a "completed year" field, and it is not even necessarily a "built year" field. It is just the first of up to four significant year-dates that the NRIS database provides for coding of info from the NRHP nomination documents. For some churches, it is the year of foun ding of a cemetery that far predates the construction of the NRHP-listed church building that a listing is named for. For many more, it is the first date in a construction date range, i.e. for a building built during 1892-1897 where NRIS has both dates entered, Elkman's system will now report "1892" as the "completed" date.

In particular on the date info, there is a significant dates field now available in the nrhp infobox, per Template talk:Infobox NRHP:Built dates, in which Vegaswikian and others did good work setting up something better. Any generated infobox should better put all 1, 2, 3, or 4 available significant dates from NRIS into one significant dates field labelled properly as what they are, and leave it to editors to split out a built date if that is confirmed. --doncram 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It may take a lot of people to build Wikipedia, but their work is only acceptable if it fits YOUR standards. Let's see: So far, you've accused me of lying about whether someone is a builder versus an architect, you've accused me of lying about the significant year of a structure, and you're accusing me of... oh, screw it. The NRHP infobox generator is down until Doncram will approve of it again. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please show diffs of any accusations of lying. Your repetition of such claims, which I think are false, are hurtful. Some other editors believe your claims. Again I am not aware of Elkman being deliberately deceitful, except perhaps in this aspect of making claims about being called lying.

About taking down your generator, you are free to do that. I suppose this will work for you to solicit sympathy, but it is your action, your choice. I do thank you for your past service, in your providing the infobox generator that did in fact implement many peoples' suggestions for many years, although it was always a bit quirky. If you will keep your generator down, then I am sure that others can replace its function. --doncram 15:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Doncram: Don't ever presume to thank me for anything I do on Wikipedia. Since the work I do is not up to your standards, and never will be up to your standards, any "thanks" coming from you is cheap, patronizing, and is designed only to make you look good. And if you consider my accusations of lying are hurtful, then maybe you deserve to have hurt feelings. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a specific example: At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#goals, you specifically accused me of lying about the build date of the Floyd B. Olson House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), suggesting that because of your experience with the database, the cited build date of 1922 was incorrect. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, it is not true that I accused you of lying there. The relevant passage, copy-pasted and smallified:

The National Register database has fields in it to indicate that a building has "significance" in one or more particular years. For example, the Floyd B. Olson House in Minneapolis has significant years of 1922 and 1936. The database doesn't indicate why 1936 was significant. There's another information source, the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, which indicates a period of significance from 1922 through 1936. I'm checking out another book, Larry Millett's AIA Guide to the Twin Cities, which states that the house was built in 1922 and Floyd B. Olson lived there until he died of cancer in 1936. But, the database itself (which is where Doncram is getting this information) doesn't explain why 1936 is a year of significance. My assumption is that the earliest date for "year of significance" is when the structure was built, so that's what I've been putting in the infobox. It takes more research than just looking in the database to determine other years of significance of a property. In fact, one of my frustrations is that Doncram is generating articles based only on the database, without consulting other research materials. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That Olson was created by Elkman in 2008. From what you say here, plus informed understanding of how the NRIS database works, it appears the "built=1922" assertion in the article is incorrect. Rather, the house was likely built earlier but is significant for its association during 1922-1936 with notable person Floyd B. Olson. If i were Elkman, I would rant on and on about how terrible it is that an erroneous assertion has been out there in Wikipedia since 2008. --doncram 17:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, it appears it is correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I also checked out the Hennepin County Property Information System. 1914 49th St. W. is listed as being built in 1922. It's also listed as lot 28 in the Harriet Heights Minneapolis addition, with a market value of $646,000. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, great, good. I thought Elkman was confessing to having relied upon imprecise information in a mainspace article, as the article then and now shows no other source for the built=1922 interpretation of NRIS, but I stand corrected. Or Elkman lucked out in this case that assuming the NRIS info meant built turns out to be the case (usually a pretty good bet). I thought the info he was providing here suggested a different reason why NRIS included a 1922 date, and the one other source he mentioned here could have been echoing that, but it sounds like the facts are it was built in 1922. Thanks. --doncram 22:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your accusing, then and since, that you had been called lying, is not true AFAIK. Show diffs, stop inflaming. --doncram 16:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Mixing firms and architects

Should architectural firm articles have the architects redirected to them, and have the architects' works included in the article whether or not they were designed by the firm? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Most architects are closely associated with a single firm, or their name and the firm's name are indistinguishable. For architects who were members of partnerships, the possibility of an article on the individual would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If included in a firm's article the notable work by an architect without their own article could be mentioned as pre-dating their association with the firm. Some architects are notable enough to merit their own articles in addition to their firms (i.e., Charles Follen McKim, William Rutherford Mead and Stanford White all merit their own articles in addition to the McKim, Mead & White article), or served apprenticeships with notable architects before establishing their own firm or partnership. Examples of the latter would be Louis Sullivan, who worked for Frank Furness, and who in turn employed the young Frank Lloyd Wright. The short answer is no, it shouldn't be some sort of default or action-in-lieu-of-research.Acroterion (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So, it was correct to remove the list items from Harvey & Clarke that were claimed to apply to only one of them? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, yes, if it was clearly the work of the individual and is not so stated in the compny's article. If you're talking about Doncram's attributions, I don't think NRIS is an appropriate source, nor do I think Elkman intended that the database be used in that manner. NRIS's architect/designer/contractor attributions are often suspect or confusing, and sometimes just plain wrong. Citing NRIS doesn't take the place of additional research, just as reference solely to NRIS isn't a sufficient foundation for an article on an individual property. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Acroterion, I don't quite know what you mean by "and it is not so stated" in your first sentence. The Harvey & Clarke article clearly, and even more clearly now, is about the firm and its two principals, whose names redirect to the joint article. Attribution of firm or individual is given in list of works. So I think you mean that it was incorrect for SarekOfVulcan to remove the individual works, clearly stated as what they are, based on best available information so far. It is premature to argue for splitting the article, too (not that SarekOfVulcan was advocating that, he was just removing material).

I agree that NRIS often has incorrect spellings or other problems, and it is now widely enough understood that it does not differentiate between architects, builders, and engineers. To support good development of NRHP place articles, it seems important then, to sort out what type of role a given NRHP-associated person has, and often to document that in a separate article, where a person is clearly wikipedia-notable. NRIS is a fine starter source for identifying the NRHP-listed places with which a person is associated. NRIS alone will not usually be enough for a good architect article, i also agree.

Note, just after starting this thread here, SarekOfVulcan opened same topic at [4] at WikiProject Architecture Talk page, which i noticed first and already responded to. wp:FORUMSHOP? --doncram 19:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For another example, consider George P. Washburn, where SarekOfVulcan has not deigned to actually state his objection, or to explain what he finds to be "inaccurate", when he removes all works of George P. Washburn (about 10 works), and of firm George P. Washburn & Son or Sons or other variations (about 8 works), and of successor firm Washburn & Stookey (1 work), which IMO are all best discussed in one article. This version shows complete list. Help restoring the complete list there, and dealing with the too-aggressive-in-my-view editing, would be appreciated. --doncram 20:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I would expect the article to clearly state (from sources) who did what projects when, if it's all combined in one article. That's what I mean by "is not so stated." Attribution of work by an individual to a firm or vice versa is a matter of considerable contention in the real architectural world, and we shouldn't just lump in works by John Smith to an article on Smith and Jones unless we clearly state which works by Smith predate Smith and Jones. Partnerships and corporations change more often than you might think, and it's not always tidy, nor is authorship of a given design as clear-cut as people might assume. As for NRIS, I would prefer attribution be made on the basis of a deeper source, since NRIS, as we all know, is subject to transcription issues, inconsistency or oversimplification. As you say,it's a starter, good for lists and infoboxes with an appropriate backcheck, but I'm not convinced that it should be used as a sole source for "buildings by Mr. Architect Jones." Acroterion (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. If an editor is concerned that an existing combined article should be split out into separate articles about the firm vs. the individual involved architects, that should certainly be considered at the Talk page. Obviously the firm article should continue to link to the separate architect articles. In the Harvey & Clarke article case, there were not separate articles about the individual architects and no one has suggested starting separate ones, so for the moment including information about them (that might eventually be split out) seems good to me. I don't know yet whether the individual architects merit separate articles. --doncram 15:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I perceive that an unstated assumption of this discussion is a perception that it is vitally important for Wikipedia to have an article "about" any architect, firm, or group that is named in NRIS as the designer of a property listed on the National Register, and that said article must contain a complete list of all NRIS entries that mention said architect/firm/group, even if that list is a badly formatted/punctuated list created in a rush from an NRIS data dump, and even if the list contains duplicate entries and buildings designed by other people with similar names. I happen to disagree. IMO, users are better served by a short biographical article that is supported by solid sources but does not yet include a comprehensive list of buildings, or by no article at all if solid sources have not been identified. There is no value in hurrying to create content if the hurry results in creation of poor-quality dreck.
What this means with respect to the topic at hand is that the scope of an article should be defined by the scope of what is (1) verified to be notable and (2) covered by reliable sources sufficient to create a coherent article (and please note that data dumps from NRIS do not constitute "reliable sources sufficient to create a coherent article"). Common sense has been lacking in some of the recent article creations. If a prominent 19th century architect founded an important firm, there is good information on that architect's life and work, and there is documentation that his firm still exists under the management of the architect's last partner's great-granddaughter, write a biographical article about the 19th century architect and mention the continuing existence of the firm, but don't pretend that the article is a comprehensive discussion of the architect, his work, the architect's partners and their work, the last partner's great-granddaughter, and everything in between. Let separate articles about those other topics get created when good information is available. --Orlady (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Au Revoir Cass Technical High School

Cass Technical High School, which was placed on the NRHP on March 29 of this year, has been demolished (demo will be complete on Monday). See the article her: "A final farewell to old Cass Tech." With 80,000+ listings, this probably isn't the shortest time between listing and demolition, but it's got to be close. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a type of "list to demolish" phenomena. Developers announce their plans, preservationists protest and start the listing process, courts might hold up demolition until the NRHP decides, then, within months a) listed, b) demolished. The Jewel Tea Company Building in Barrington, Lake County, Illinois seemed to worked this way in any case. I don't have dates but certainly it was demolished within a year of listing. Smallbones (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Another question comes to mind since delistings occur after a property was demolished, what's the quickest a property been listed and then delisted? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

About -1 year. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)