Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

feedback requested on NRHP dab pages

Comments requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#feedback requested on NRHP dab pages. Please note, those of you who have been bothered by the creation of minimal NRHP stub articles to support disambiguation, that I am asking there for dab-focused editors to approve of dab pages having all red-links, without concurrent creation of stubs. --doncram (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

updates on nrhp dabs

Update to NRHPers: Happily it seems there that dab pages with all items being primarily red-links (but with properly formed supporting bluelinks) are now being accepted. That is a big change, relative to past discussions and drives by other editors to delete NRHP disambiguation articles in the past. So, it seems completing out disambiguation supporting the system of NRHP list-articles can now proceed without requiring a lot of new stub articles. As I noted there, there are many NRHP names which are used by 2 or 3 or 4 different places, in different states, which haven't been properly disambiguated (I and others have already dealt with almost all cases having 5 or more NRHP places). It seems fairly important to me to fix the NRHP list-system, so that multiple red-links or bluelinks from different states don't point to the same article name in a different state. Creating dabs for those cases will force some page-move decisions sooner rather than later, when no place has wp:PRIMARYUSAGE for a term but one place's article has been started, and it will avoid a lot of future edits by avoiding such situations going forward. So I am planning to proceed with a concentrated effort to create the missing dab pages. Which can be followed by one concentrated effort to "solve" the resulting dablinks in the NRHP list-articles (using User:Dispenser's dab-solver tool). If you haven't used that tool yet, you could try it: See this application to look for dablinks in the Pittsburgh NRHP list-article. The dab-solver now works, a bit kludgily, with MSIE, while it has been working great with Firefox for a while already. --doncram (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Who knew that there are:

3 places named exactly Chestnut Street Historic District, one in Kansas, one in Maine, one in New York

3 places named exactly Douglass School, in Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Virginia (separate from the 3 named Douglass High School)

4 places named exactly Grimes House

4 places named exactly Holy Rosary Church

4 places named exactly Logan House

2 places named exactly Confederate Park

2 places named exactly New Era Building, in Iowa and in Pennsylvania

2 places named exactly Patrick Ranch House (leaving aside Patrick Rancheria, which should probably be covered too)

2 places named exactly Queen Creek Bridge, and

2 places named exactly Scott Covered Bridge?

All of the above and many others are currently red-links, needing dabs to be created. See here for lists sorted 2 ways, and here for cut-and-paste ready draft dab pages, which require just a little knowledge to apply. I'd be happy to have help completing these out quickly. --doncram (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Done--Pubdog (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for creating those. I started all the remaining ones whose names start with A and B. When all the dab pages are created, it will then be efficient to make one pass through the NRHP list-articles to fix the disambiguous links, using the dab-solver tool. For few more, who knew that there are:

2 places named Cottonwood Creek Archeological Site, one in Nebraska and one in Alaska? (Or is there a typo in the state code for the latter one?)

2 places named Tecumseh Historic District, in Michigan and Nebraska

2 places named Tucker School in Arkansas and in Oklahoma

2 places named University Apartments in Illinois and Montana

2 places named Union County Jail in Georgia and South Carolina

2 places named Oak Hill Cemetery Chapel in Vermont and Washington D.C.

3 places named Keller House, in PA, TX, WA

4 places named Chicago and North Western Railroad Depot and 2 named Chicago and North Western Depot?

All those are currently red-links, and there are more starting with letters C-Z that need dab pages, too. :) --doncram (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: A through M, S, X, Y, Z all done, in terms of setting up all the most obviously needed disambiguation pages. Maybe a week more for me to work through the rest of the alphabet (or less time if others want to create dabs needed, too). There have been some interruptions as a few editors scanning new pages have questioned whether dab pages consisting just of red-links need to be created, but their questions seem to be answered well enough by the still-open discussion at the Disambiguation Wikiproject. So, knock on wood, the disambiguation is proceeding well, and soon the NRHP list-articles can be checked for dab solving and then they will be pretty well free of cases of name conflicts for suggested NRHP articles. --doncram (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: All most obviously needed dab pages set up. In the process i moved/renamed dozens of pages to make way for needed disambiguation. But mostly it avoids future conflicts by preventing article-writers to inadvertently create a local article at what should be a dab article, in several hundreds of cases now where i have just set up new dab articles.

This now allows NRHP list-articles to be corrected to link to specific places rather than to dab names, using Dispenser's tool. Applying Dispenser's tool to the bigger NRHP list-articles within a few states (e.g. TX combo county pages and the individual counties having more than 100 NRHPs, same for MS, same for GA), I quickly found and fixed more than 100 dab links. Anyone else, please feel free to do the same for NRHP list-articles in other states, and for smaller county's list-articles in those ones. Using Dispenser's tool (linked above) is really easy. --doncram (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A little help? Paul Harvey Deming House and OR

I just created an article on the Paul Harvey Deming House. Most of the information in the article comes from this description of the house, courtesy of the state of Michigan. Note particularly this image, which corresponds in every way to the text description. Contrast that to this image, which is in the article infobox. It's in the infobox because that house is what you see when you go to the location the Paul Harvey Deming House is supposed to be. And I'm pretty darn sure the location is correct, as a) the Paul Harvey Deming House is also called "Cherryhurst," which is the name of the lane the house is sitting on, and b) the lot size and fence location matches the description from the state of Michigan.

So: right location, wrong house, which leads me to believe the Paul Harvey Deming House has been demolished. However, I can't find any confirmation of that. In fact, as of 1996, it was "a well preserved and significant example of the eclectic architecture and landscape to which Grosse Pointe Farms' budding society was drawn." (And, truthfully, it could have been moved.) I've always understood that images were a sort of "acceptable OR," in that images are allowed in articles, as representative of the subject, without a reliable source confirmation that the image is, indeed, representative of the subject. So this image is clearly not the right house; is that enough to support the conclusion that the Paul Harvey Deming House no longer exists? Andrew Jameson (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, this says it all. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! I am humbled by your superior Google-Fu. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

coords and other Massachusetts houses issues

I just created John Ward House (Newton, Massachusetts) article related to John Ward House disambiguation, as it turns out it is a house that has an NRIS entry but it is not listed due to owner objection, and i didn't want to leave a complicated item like that as a red-link. I wonder if someone local could add more to the article, currently a stub. Also, there is a NRHP refnum for the place and I have added an E-generated infobox, which currently displays as if the place is NRHP-listed. Is there some way to show an NRHP infobox for an NRHP-eligible-but-not-listed place, or does it need to be switched to infobox historic sites.

Also, there's a bit of a mess at Valentine Soap Workers Cottage in Cambridge, where another editor objected to my setting up disambiguation between two houses of that name. It was incorrect, previously, to have one article describing just one of the two houses of that name, with one link from the corresponding Cambridge NRHP list being actually incorrect then, and my setting up disambiguation made that clear. It would also be okay to have one article covering both places. But, the current article seems mistitled and it still provides infobox and coordinates covering just one of the two places. I'd appreciate if anyone else could fix it up better, leaving it merged, or de-merge it. Separate coords are needed for the two entries in the Cambridge NRHP list-article, too, which currently shows same coords for both places (hence wrong for one or both coords).

I also note there are three other same-named houses in Cambridge, a few rows up in the Cambridge NRHP list-article, which could be left as separate articles or combined, too. Two of those three show identical coords, so one or more of their coords should be fixed, either way. --doncram (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is sometimes useful to combine two similar sites into one -- I did this with the Downer Rowhouses. Although separately listed, they are back to back on one lot, built at the same time, very likely to the same drawings. I showed them with one infobox, and the coords pointing to the middle of the lot. Some might use two infoboxes -- I'm ambivalent. At first blush it looks like the Cambridge articles above should be done on a combined basis. I would do the same with Town Line Boundary Marker (410 High Street, Barnstable, Massachusetts) and its two sisters -- I have to wonder why they were listed separately, given, for example, the forty surviving 1767 Milestones spread over 90 miles, but all listed together.

On the other hand, we have cases where a two houses have the same name because they were successively owned by the same person, or, perhaps, by two unrelated people with the same name. We should, I think, be careful to write two articles in these cases.

As for John Ward House (Newton, Massachusetts), take a look. If you don't like my solution, feel free to revert it.Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is an article on an "NRHP-eligible" site necessary? Is it even notable? The way I figure it, if building wasn't listed due an "owner objection", it wasn't listed; therefore it doesn't have any inherent notability and probably wouldn't survive an AFD.

Also, I'm working on a double-infobox for the Valentine Soap Cottages. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 22:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both for showing new things. Jameslwoodward, I didn't know u could put in a bolded line like that, good workaround within the existing infobox code! Thanks. That's about the John Ward House (Newton, Massachusetts) article, which indeed is about a non-NRHP-listed place. It's a perfectly well-sourced article though, so I don't see the problem with it. Certainly there are non-listed historic places of higher importance than many NRHP-listed ones. The Charles Scribner's Sons Building is a more prominent NRHP-eligible one, also non-listed due to owner objection. It would sometimes be helpful to have an NRHP-like infobox that helped present those.

Thanks also to Niagara for making the double infobox in this version. I didn't know u could embed an NRHP infobox in another NRHP infobox like that! I like it. It is clear in that infobox version that there are two separate NRHP listings being described, and it complies with our usage on NRHP infobox to show the actual NRHP listing name(s) of the NRHP-listed site(s). I don't know what to think of the version that replaced it already; the current version seems less clear than having two separate stub articles or than having the double-infobox version. Thanks again! --doncram (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm the evil interloper who dismantled that double infobox in Valentine Soap Workers Cottage. I, too, was impressed with Niagara's work, but I dismantled it for reasons unrelated to his technical acumen. The problem was that the itty-bitty article was totally overwhelmed by the humongous infobox -- depending on one's display settings, the infobox was two to four times the total length of the body of the article (and that's only if you consider the "this is a stub" language to be part of the text of the article).

Note that infoboxes are supposed to be auxiliary to the text of the article -- the text is the main content, not the infobox. As Help:Infobox puts it: "Infobox templates are like fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarise important points in an easy-to-read format. ... They are only supposed to summarise material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text, because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox." Furthermore, the essay Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes declares: "If the infobox is longer than a third of the article's body it is a disinfobox."

I think that moving the two photos out of the infobox improved the Valentine Soap Workers Cottage article for most users (the exception is someone with a narrow screen and large settings for image width and font sizes, but that user would have problems with many WP pages). It made it possible to see both images at once (without scrolling), it allowed captions to be placed directly below each image (to avoid confusion), and it made the page far more balanced (although at most display settings the infobox is still longer than the article).

Niagara also made the wonderful addition of a reference to the online MPS nomination document that includes these two houses. (NPS Focus doesn't link to it.) That nom form document supports my decision to combine these two houses in one article (and to provide just one infobox). Although these two houses have separate refnums in NRIS and addresses on different streets (and presumably are on separately owned parcels of land), they are adjacent to one another, NRIS has the same lat-long coordinates for both (coordinates that are inaccurate, by the way), and they were nominated together as part of a large multiple-property listing. The MPS document mentions them only as a pair. The only information about them in the MPS is: "In 1828 Charles Valentine opened one of the largest manufacturing firms in the Port, a soap factory located at the corner of Valentine and Pearl Streets. Associated with this industry are a pair of modest cottages (1835-36)(CPT.II.C.4) built by Valentine for his soap workers. They are rare survivors of a type once common on the Port." Thus, the only documented distinctions between these two houses are their refnums and their street addresses. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you're developing a stub article on an NRHP topic, Orlady, but you should know that in fact there is more information available about the two houses. The MPS document linked now from the article would come in also with any fresh Elkman-generated infobox, due to a number of editors' indexing work at wp:MPS that Elkman rightly and helpfully included into the infobox system. The on-line portion of the MPS document is, however, only the cover sheet and summary information. It does not include the separate descriptive section 7 material that would provide some more specific description about these two houses. I don't know how to say this more politely than to point out you have held to mistaken understandings about NRHP documents, which has previously interfered with rational discussion about a number of other articles. This now is the same misunderstanding you repeated in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cathcart, where you insisted there was no more information available about that place, despite my and another editor's explanations to you that the on-line version of the MPS document was not complete and/or that there would be separate documents for each site. So there is more information available here too, which you could obtain by request to the National Register, like i did for The Cathcart. Also, there may be sources cited in the MPS document which could possibly also be obtained and which could have other documentation about the two houses.

About the current infobox, i think it gives the appearance that "Valentine Soap Workers Cottages" is the name of an NRHP listing, and that the listing had a boundary increase hence has 2 refnums, when in fact what should be clarified is that the article is covering both of two same-named NRHP listings with separate refnums. There are editors, including me in the past, who have been adamant that the NRHP infobox title should be exactly the NRHP listing name, not anything else. I think that may be written into wp:NRHPmos, a guideline that should perhaps be updated. --doncram (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes are supposed to exist as adjuncts to the main text body of an article, to provide a ready-reference summary of the information in the article and/or to provide useful details (such as an NRIS ref number) that don't belong in the body of the article. When the scope of an article is constrained by the constraints of the infbbox template (as you are insisting is vitally necessary), it's the kind of out-of-control situation that led somebody to compose that disinfoboxes essay.

I first touched this article because I had looked at your contributions list, Doncram, to see what you were doing besides messing with the Natchez Trace. I saw that you were actively engaged in your ongoing (and seemingly endless) project of disambiguating problematic terms like Turner House and Walnut Street Bridge. The name "Valentine Soap Workers Cottage" jumped off the page as something exceptionally uncommon (much less a term that would be likely to require disambiguation), so I looked at it to see what a Valentine Soap Workers House is and why there are more than one. I stand by my position that, given the available information (and probably even if someone gets the additional information you think I should write for), this pair of adjacent houses are best covered in a single article. Since there are exactly two of them, they definitely shouldn't have a disambiguation page. --Orlady (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Charles Scribner's Sons Building has notability regardless of not being on the NRHP (i.e. desgined by a famous architect; in Manhattan), whereas the John Ward House does not. Also a well-sourced article doesn't automatically get notability. Sorry, I'm ususally not one to get involved in discussions like this. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 12:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. Considering it more, although i liked the workaround suggested by J, i guess it is best to keep the NRHP infobox for actually or formerly NRHP-listed places, and to use template:infobox house or template:infobox historic site or another if an infobox is desired. I just tried changing the John Ward House article to use infobox house, and won't advocate for revising the NRHP infobox to handle cases like this. By the way, any place in New York State like the Scribner building that reaches the NRHP-eligible status has already been designated a state historic place. Owners can opt out of NRHP listing by the Federal statutes involved; they cannot opt out of the NYS designation and similar designation in at least some other states such as California, too. I don't know for sure if the John Ward House is similarly designated a Massachusetts and/or a local historic site already, but such designation is likely and would further support keeping the article. The house is also possibly covered in regional history/architecture studies, including perhaps some of the sources used in the Newton MRA document. It's a stub; more can be added. Thanks again for commenting. --doncram (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Review on Article.

Can a few editors go and look at the Union Avenue Historic Commercial District article. I've added a lot of info and pared down in other areas. I would like to see what the current opinion on it's status is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is O. Henry Hall in the NRHP?

It would seem like a likely candidate for it. bd2412 T 01:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It is listed as the U.S. Post Office and Federal Building (#70000771). I can add an infobox if you like. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:CfD discussion on categories for "of religious function"

Some NRHP Wikiproject members are likely to have useful opinions regarding the proposal I posted at WP:CfD to adopt a consistent name for the categories for religion-related listings on the National Register. Please comment there. --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Two more discussions at WP:CfD

And two more CfD discussions related to NRHP: Category:History of the National Register of Historic Places (only article in this category is History of the National Register of Historic Places) nominated for deletion and brand-new category Drinking establishments on the National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts nominated for merger to the parent category. --Orlady (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Parkway (Brooklyn)

I want to bring this article into attention. It is almost unsourced, it appears like a patchwork of WP labels, not to speek from formal deficiencies. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC) (knowing that they're articles out wich are much worse)

Translation problem with some articles I am translating

Hi. I have ran into an issue concerning the term tile which has several meanings. However I feel that the translations available in dictionaries (printed as well as online) do not meet the meaning used within two articles I found. Worse, it seems (at least for me) that the term is used with different meanings in British and American English in the respective articles not speaking of tiles used for roofs or floors. Actually the article Tile does not help in this case very much.

• The dining room's ceiling has been redone in tile. from Lace House (Canaan, New York)
• A red-brick facing was applied to the south face in the 18th century, and the west side is partly brick-faced and partly tiled. from Ifield Friends Meeting House#5 Langley Lane
• ...other walls are brick to the ground floor and tile-hung on the upper storey.' (several times in Listed buildings in Crawley)

Could please one check if there's English synonymes for those meanings so I can find a translation? --Matthiasb (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The upper story of this house is tiled.

The meaning of "tile" in Lace House (Canaan, New York) is unclear to me. I infer it means that ceiling tiles were added to the dining room, but I'm not certain. If that's the case, then "the dining room's ceiling has been redone in tile" is synonymous with "a dropped ceiling has been added to the dining room."

As for the other two references, I presume based on this, that a "tile-hung" or "tiled" exterior is an exterior surface covered with clay "shingles." I, in the Midwestern US, have never seen such a thing. I imagine that "tile-hung" may be self-explanatory to Britons, but to me it's an unfamiliar concept. I would say that the structure on the right was "shingled with clay tiles," but that phrasing is only because of my ignorance. Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My guess on the "tile" ceiling is that some form of ceramic or porcelain tile was affixed to the ceiling. It's also possible that the appearance of an historical ceiling type was replicated using modern material -- such as the tile illustrated in File:Ceilingtile medallion.jpg. I think it unlikely that a dropped ceiling would be installed in the dining room of an historic home. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Andrew Jameson is correct with respect to the Crawley example and 5 Langley Lane. In American English if a similar material were used on the roof, we would call it a "tile roof", as in . This is very common in Florida and the Southwest USA.

I think it's even money whether the Lace House dining room is nice ceramic tile or just fiberboard acoustic tiles (dropped or not) -- perhaps Orlady has not seen some of the horrible things done to historic houses in Massachusetts -- just look through my images of Quincy for vinyl siding.... Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wel I guess that Andrew Jamesons suggestion might be working in German language, since actually shingle translates to Schindel and this word is used as well in German language for wooden roofs as well as for pieces of woods used for siding of houses. We don't have an expression for clapboard (architecture) though. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Shingle" in English is also used to describe roof shingles as well as "siding" shingles--see Cape Cod style architecture or, well, Shingle Style architecture. When used to describe siding, "shingle" normally implies wood material. I've heard "shingle" also used to describe asphalt siding shingles, but with the qualifier, i.e. "asphalt shingles." I've never heard of "clay tile shingles," but as I say, that would be the descriptor I would use for the buildings you're referring to. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on federal courthouse naming conventions at WP:USCJ

Please weigh in on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Request for comment on federal courthouse naming conventions, since many of the buildings currently at issue are NRHP buildings. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Center City Philadelphia NRHPs

I may have jumped the gun a bit on listing the Center City Philly list as "fully-illustrated." I'm still trying to double check that the demolished buildings (esp. those in the Pennsylvania Convention Center expansion area) are really demolished. But I have to get out of town for several days - might I ask that folks here take a look and see if there are any obvious flaws that I've overlooked? Given the historic importance of this area (birthplace of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, capital under Washington, etc.), I'd like to eventually take this to a featured list. That will take a while, but any help or pointers on that would be greatly appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

RHPs in the news

Just saw this in the paper and it made me think of y'all. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011608445_preservation15.html?prmid=related_stories_section Murderbike (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mill City Museum

I need help editing a draft of the Mill City Museum article. Also please consider contributing to the discussion on the Washburn A Mill article Talk:Washburn A Mill, Washburn A Mill constitutes part, but not all of the Mill City Museum, so I need to know if it would be better to place the article under Mill City Museum or place a redirect on the Washburn A Mill article. It could use some good pictures as well. Thank you. Wkaardal (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)