Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 35

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Since reporting in September of stubs completed for all current Elkman NRHP infobox database entries for Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Genesee, Livingston, Niagara, and Wyoming counties in Western New York, I've now completed additional stubs for Broome County, Cayuga County, Chemung County, Monroe County, Ontario County, Schuyler County, Seneca County, Steuben County, Tioga County, Tompkins County, Wayne County, and Yates County counties. Again, there are some recent NRHP additions without stubs because they're not yet included in the Elkman infobox tool. I also found a great collection of photos on Flickr by dougtone - Towns, Waterfalls, etc. that includes a lot of NRHP sites in New York.--Pubdog (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! You're doing great stuff here, Pubdog! To take one random stub, I think Almeron Durkee House is great, including the infobox plus the NRHP document reference plus a good starter description based on the NRHP document. And I see you've come east as far as the edge of Onondaga County in central new york, one county which is all stubbed and almost all photographed by several people including me. I'd surely be glad if you'd keep up the good work! You do know, though, that NYS has more NRHPs than any other state? I think it is impossible ever to finish NY.... :) doncram (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind and encouraging comments. Quickly completed the few remaining Onondaga County stubs and have moved onto Oswego County. Gotta ♥ NY. Cheers--Pubdog (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please remind me why the hell we have individual lists for almost every single county/borough in the United States? National Register of Historic Places listings in Alaska has been divided into 28 lists, one for each borough with NRHP listings. I was bold and merged ten of these very short lists into National Register of Historic Places listings in the Alaska Panhandle, leaving redirects. The Alaska Panhandle is a region of Alaska that is the most visited by tourists. This was reverted by User:Nyttend without a convincing explanation. Tourist region or not, I find it idiotic to have pages as short as National Register of Historic Places listings in Yakutat, Alaska or any of these other pages. While a full statewide list may be too long, most county lists are WAY too short. Having so many subpages not only clutters the system it inconveniences readers by spreading the information too thin across many pages and brings them to nearly useless stub-lists. If this is followed nationwide, then I want to change it nationwide. While it may be simpler to just have alphabetical county lists, I find it downright dumb to have so many that are so short. Across the country we should divide long state lists by region, not by individual counties. The listings are still grouped by county, but are on a single page by region, which are easier to navigate and more convenient to read. This regional list has only 104 listings, in no way long enough to require a split. I am happy to take up the task of merging at least the states with the worst offenders of ridiculously short pages. We had the same problem at National Register of Historic Places listings in Indiana, where most counties have fewer than twenty listings yet for some reason those with only three were still split off. On the Talk page we discussed and agreed on merging them back by region, but it was never done. And, in fact, National Register of Historic Places listings in Puerto Rico is already well divided by tourist regions. Reywas92^Talk 03:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I was just suggesting to discuss the Alaska Panhandle situation at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in the Alaska Panhandle#Merge discussion (just opened). I don't agree with the strongest language you might apply here, Reywas92, but I do tend to agree that smaller county lists could be on a combo page, rather than split out. What is the best size range in terms of number of NRHPs to cover in a list-article is a subjective matter though. On the high side, I usually think that NRHP lists longer than 200 should be split, because Bing maps don't display properly with more than 200, but i don't have justification for any number other than 1 being too short. For the Alaska Panhandle ones, each "county" has more than 1. About Puerto Rico using tourist regions, it was me who first implemented that split there, but Puerto Rico just has municipalities and has no counties, so it is not like any U.S. state. doncram (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually Alaska doesn't have counties or direct equivalents (Louisiana's parishes) either :) --NE2 04:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See county-equivalent. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong opposition to merging the Alaska county-equivalent lists to the statewide list; my strong opposition is to merging to a regional list. Only in Texas, Georgia, and Missouri (as far as I know) do we have multi-county lists that aren't on the statewide listings page, and they're split into alphabetically-grouped pages of counties. I'm not at all trying to say that every state has a separate page for every county; just last week I merged several outstanding Indiana county lists (one or two listings per county) back into the statewide list, and I'd not oppose the merging of its tiniest outstanding separate lists back into the statewide list. Alaska is different in one major way from states like Indiana: with only 28 county-equivalents that have any listings (there are 29 total county-equivalents, and the Wade Hampton Census Area has no listings), it's not ridiculous to have a total of 28 separate lists, while it is ridiculous to have 92 separate lists for Indiana's 92 separate counties. By splitting out all 28 county-equivalents in Alaska, we avoid the necessity of deciding which county-equivalents get their own lists and which are merged, all without getting tons of list pages and without going into discussions of where to begin the definition of geographic regions. Alaska's regions are difficult: when we split Alaska into regions for stub-sorting, we attempted to use this map, but because it doesn't conform to the boundaries of county-equivalents, it was quite difficult to use. Finally, consider that Reywas supports merging both Juneau (22 listings) and Yakutat (2 listings) into a single list-article; counties with 22 listings get their own articles in virtually every state, so there's no good reason to merge especially Juneau. The same goes for three of the other county-equivalents, and why should we attempt to have a regional listing when the majority of the lists are split out from the region? Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, note that Hawaii also goes by a structure that's not based on its counties, but there we split by island due to its unique geography and its unusual county government structure, where (with one exception) all islands are located in exactly one county. Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Finally, if these end up being merged somewhere, would someone please update the Skagway link at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/full illus list? Nyttend (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

When a distinct multi-county region exists (such as the upper peninsula of Michigan or the Alaska Panhandle), where's the harm in combining all of those counties into a single list (if it's not an overly long list, of course)? I don't see any reason to insist that whole states and whole counties are the only allowable subdivisions. --Orlady (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it's ridiculous to have 92 county articles for Indiana if it had 10,000 listings and each county had many, but I would think it's ridiculous to have 3 county articles if there were very few listings. It's not just the number of articles I most concerned about, it's the number of listings on each one. I find it absurd to have numerous pages across the country that are so extremely short. Nyttend asks, "Why should we attempt to have a regional listing when the majority of the lists are split out from the region?" Why should lists be split out from that?? I do not see the comparison that 22-listing Juneau should not be merged just because 22-listing county-in-another-state isn't. Perhaps both should be merged then. If a state does not have well-defined regions, then I am also happy with alphabetical county groupings like Texas and Georgia. This is a nationwide problem. While New York and some other states indeed have so many NRHP listings that it is reasonable to have many county articles, most of the country's counties have too few listings to require such extensive splits. It is agreed that 200 is the absolute upper limit, and I think 50 should be a lower limit. Alaska has 407 listings. Whether alphabetical or regional, this will work just fine in four to eight good-sized articles, not twenty-eight really small ones. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way i worked on the List of RHPs in GA but hope it will not stay organized merely by groups of counties in alphabetical chunks. I would hope that Georgia regions would be identified so the state list could be re-organized into meaningful regions.

If the 28 Alaska boroughs and other county-equivalents were to be partitioned, would the Alaska Office of Economic Development's 5 region partition work? (See Alaska O E D regions)? This is what Nyttend suggested, above, had been considered already. Is there a previous discussion to link to? I wouldn't want to split off just the Panhandle which is easy while not solve the perhaps harder complete problem of how to partition all of the state. Is this one of the most salient partitions available for the state? How many would go into each one of the 5 O E D regions? Is there enough detail in the O E D's loose map to identify where each of the 407 NRHPs go? doncram (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are somewhat compatible with File:Alaska boroughs and census areas.png. Since most of them are in cities it wouldn't be too difficult. Reywas92^Talk 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hmm, am not sure. The two maps don't match up unambiguously.

"Far North" is perhaps 41:

• Nome (21)
• North Slope (18)
• Northwest Arctic (2)

(41)

"Interior" is perhaps:

• Denali (16)
• Fairbanks North Star (32)
• Southeast Fairbanks (12)
• Yukon-Koyukuk (17)

(77)

"Southwest" is perhaps:

• Wade Hampton (0)
• Aleutians East (4)
• Aleutians West (17)
• Bethel (7)
• Bristol Bay (5)
• Dillingham (11)
• Lake and Peninsula (11)
• Kodiak Island (18)

(73)

"Southcentral" is perhaps:

• Anchorage (29)
• Kenai Peninsula (33)
• Matanuska-Susitna (25)
• Valdez-Cordova (25)

(114)

"Southeast" is perhaps:

• Haines (6)
• Hoonah-Angoon (19)
• Juneau (22)
• Ketchikan Gateway (18)
• Petersburg (7)
• Prince of Wales-Hyder (4)
• Sitka (20)
• Skagway (3)
• Wrangell (3)
• Yakutat (2)

(104)

Is that a good partition in terms of numbers? It looks okay to me. Note "Panhandle" would not be the name, the name if following the O E D partition would be "Southeast" for that section. doncram (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nyttend, would these groupings be okay by you? I read a big part of your objection to regional grouping being that only some boroughs and equivalents were going to be grouped if panhandle area was done alone. Putting all of the state's boroughs and equivalents into these 5 groupings should be okay, yes? And about this particular grouping, I think it can be supported well enough, as being based upon the Alaska O E D's partition. In the case of Puerto, the grouping accepted by discussion at Talk:List of RHPs in PR was to use one tourism website's partition of the commonwealth. Then later someone came along with a more official partition to use, but it was not hard to convert over. So I am happy to go with the A O E D-based grouping for now, here, pending any Alaska experts' other suggestions. doncram (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks. I can do some this weekend if you like and there are no further objections. I would like to assess other states as well to see which have the most small counties and would have mergeable regions. Reywas92^Talk 03:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There are new and old requests for NRHP article assessments at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Assessment#Requests for assessment. I'd be willing to assess a few if others would too. :) doncram (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Benjamin F. Jones Cottage is in danger of being demolished. The new article really could use some expansion.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I will work on expansion first thing in the morning. Have you requested the nominations docs yet? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a category for endangered historic buildings? It may be useful to create one if none already exists. In addition to the National Trust list of 11 Most Endangered Historic Places many state and city preservation organization publish annual lists highlighting properties threatened with demolition or substantial alteration. Eli.pousson (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It might work better in list format, with a Comments section to explain the danger. Bms4880 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There is List of threatened historic sites in the United States, which is now tagged as an orphan and has not been very much developed. It's endangered, too, i guess.... doncram (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I added one of my own and linked back from a couple of articles, so it isn't an orphan any longer. Altairisfar_talk 00:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Today's new listings bring this one, to be added to this list here:

L. Ron Hubbard House
5501 N. 44th St
Phoenix, AZ
refnum 09000953

Oh. My. God. This could be the first WP:NRHP article to be covered by an ArbCom case.

Like the Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas Sign, this is one of those listings that make you feel old, if you're over a certain age. NPS hasn't announced the Featured Listing of the week yet, but can you imagine the flak they'd get if it's this one? I can imagine what the nomination document would say. It would be, uh, interesting.

Aside from that, what's up with all these cryptically named "address restricted" Utah listings? Are they UFO crash sites or something (and I'll know I'm really old when "Alleged Alien Spacecraft Crash Site" in Roswell, New Mexico, gets added to the Register). Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean there's actually a registration for that? Part of me wants to laugh, and part of me wants to say "Ugh! What a waste!" ----DanTD (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(I know, we already have this one, but didn't that have some sort of historic value apart from his residence there?) Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume that many (all?) of the new Utah listings in Nine Mile Canyon are archaeological sites. In my experience, this is a pretty unique situation. It makes me question if we really need separate table entries for each of these listings (there are 36 in Carbon County and 26 in Duchesne County). --sanfranman59 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, those funny names in Utah are so-called "Smithsonian trinomial" codes for archaeological sites. The 42 means they're in Utah; the two letters after designate the county: Cb for Carbon, Dc for Duchesne. Most of the hundreds of archaeological sites in Nine Mile Canyon have no other "official" name. Ntsimp (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

1960 is the new fifty year cut-off for listing. All those cool retro Googie Jetsons buildings are now eligible! Einbierbitte (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

All those Utah sites look to be included in the Nine Mile Canyon, Utah MPS - just write one article for the MPS Einbierbitte (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Address restricted sites. I understand that the Utah sites have been subject to much pilfering, pillaging and plundering, which is why their addresses are restricted. This is probably the same rationale for not listing the addresses of most of the archaeological sites elsewhere. clariosophic (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

By this edit, I just reduced down the 33 rows in the Carbon County NRHP list-article to just one row. I listed the sites in a hidden comment there and linked to a new section (with an explicit list) at Nine Mile Canyon#Archeological sites. That way, we are not seeming to call for local Wikipedians to come forward with coordinates and other info about these sites. I think this is better.... doncram (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Nyttend has reverted your edit, and I agree. Each site is a listed property on the NRHP, so should have its own entry. Besides, you arbitrarily collapsed only the ones listed by Smithsonian trinomial without given English names. I wasn't going to add the coordinates, but I certainly intend to illustrate these. As we've discussed before with regard to "Address restricted sites", there's nothing wrong with visiting the sites and taking pictures.Ntsimp (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion was opened at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Carbon County, Utah#Reduction of many archeological sites to one line, where I replied already to some of what you say here. Do we want to talk here or there? There are general issues involved, but also specifics for Nine Mile Canyon. I suggest talking there for now. doncram (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on an article about the William B. Dunlap Mansion, which is a contributing property to the Bridgewater Historic District that was listed in 1996, sixteen years after the house itself was listed individually. Is there a way to configure {{Infobox nrhp}} to say that it's both listed by itself and a CP to an HD? If not, would it be possible to change the infobox so that it had an option for "property individually listed on the Register"? I think it would be best to set it so that if we left the "nrhp_type" line blank, it would act as if we'd selected this option (therefore, the thousands of articles on individually-listed properties wouldn't be affected by this change), even if we had an "nrhp_type2" line that was different — for example, if the infobox were as I'm suggesting, I'd leave the "type" line blank and put "cp" in the "type2" line. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Currently there is no way, I think, to do anything other than including the CP option. This was previously noted as a glitch, that a mere CP's infobox looks just like an individually-listed NRHP that is also a CP in a different NRHP HD.

I like Nyttend's approach. Continue to use "nrhp_type=cp" or "nrhp_type1=cp" for infoboxes of properties that are CPs only. There are a few hundred existing articles like that. But when "nrhp_type2=cp" or nrhp_type3=cp or nrhp_type4=cp is used, add a NRHP display bar stating "Individually listed". Hopefully that phrase will fit on one line of text. What's needed is for someone to create a sandbox version of the nrhp_template and use the linked testcases to verify the code works.

If that input approach is acceptable, programming issues can be further discussed at template talk:Infobox nrhp#Places that are NRHP-listed both individually and as CPs. Relatively few people follow the Template Talk page. --doncram (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I recently created the list National Register of Historic Places listings in Buffalo, New York from National Register of Historic Places listings in Erie County, New York. It reminded me that I've long wanted to ask policy about the lists generated from the Elkman tool that contain duplicates. In the Buffalo case there are three: Buffalo State Asylum for the Insane and Buffalo State Hospital; D. D. Martin House Complex and Darwin D. Martin House; and St. Paul's Cathedral (Buffalo) and St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral. The upshot is that although Buffalo has 81 entries, there are 78 unique structures. Each duplicate shares a single article and I think the reason there are duplicates is that they were listed with different names as NRHP and then as NHL. Should these be merged on the list?--Pubdog (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No opinion on the Buffalo listings themselves, but I encountered a similar situation with the Indianapolis list — for some reason, the Register lists Oldfields twice, presumably because it was declared an NHLD a few years after it was added as a property to the Register. I combined the listing lines into a single NHLD list with the listing date of the original property and the boundaries of the combined properties. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

One single structure can have multiple names. We don't create multiple articles or list entries for each name, we create one article and redirect the the remainder. A structure can *also* be listed on the Register multiple times (for example as a NRHP and then as NHL). Likewise, we don't create multiple articles or list entries for each listing. I don't see why the (admittedly unusual) circumstance of different listings under different names would call for seperate articles or list entries--it just happens to be an artifact of the data parsing done by the Elkman tool. Write a single article and merge the list entries, is my opinion. Andrew Jameson (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings on the island of Hawaii has two such duplicates. Honokohau Settlement was added back in 1966, and then in 1978 the area was made into Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. In 1983 Kamoa Point Complex was added, and then in 2005 he area was expanded into a historic district and given the verbose name Holualoa 4 Archeological District (State Site No. 50-10-37-23.661). In each case I wrote one article on each place, explaniing the history of listings and expansions. But I was told to leave both table entries. Suppose they do not do much harm, in case someone is looking for them (of course redirect them in any case to reasonable names, e.g. Holualoa Bay in this case. W Nowicki (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If the NHL designated area is different than the NRHP listing area, I think the two items should be kept as separate entries in the NRHP list article. I am aware of some South Carolina church property, where the whole property including several buildings is NRHP-listed, but it is only one building designed by one architect (Mills?) that is architecturally significant at a higher level and is the only one included in the NHL designation.

So for these, depending on what the actual properties are, I think I prefer Nowicki's treatment in Hawaii (and perhaps that was me advising then too). The fact is there are 2 NRHP listings with different NRHP reference numbers and different listing dates and different boundaries and areas. Also there are websites like the National Park Service's and www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com (which i refer to as "NRHP.com") and others that mention the two places separately. So, while of course in some/most of these cases there should be just one Wikipedia article about a given place/complex, there should remain two entries in the table of NRHP listings.

But, notice we have treated mere boundary increases as not needing a separate table entry, even for cases where the boundary increase change to a historic district necessitated some revision of the HD name.

About the Buffalo ones in particular: Sometime i was aware of Buffalo State Asylum for the Insane and Buffalo State Hospital, apparently being duplicates in the county list-article, and I thought those should be consolidated because i had the impression the NHL designation with its different name was for the same property as the NRHP listing. But I believe the Martin house is different than the Martin complex, which includes additional Frank Lloyd Wright-designed building(s), so that should keep 2 rows.

Maybe we should be checking with the National Register over what they count as separate listings. doncram (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. If there is any difference in the structures included (like the nomenclatural difference between, say, "D. D. Martin House Complex" and "Darwin D. Martin House" implies) they should get separate table entries and separate articles. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your sage advice. I will leave things as they are. I think the argument that the different listings may encompass different areas / structures is likely the case with Buffalo State Asylum for the Insane and Buffalo State Hospital and D. D. Martin House Complex and Darwin D. Martin House. I'm not so sure this is the case with St. Paul's Cathedral (Buffalo) and St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral, but will leave as is nonetheless. Best wishes from snowy DC.--Pubdog (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I just combined the St. Paul's Cathedral ones which seem obviously enough the same. I thot the 2nd NRHP item could have been a boundary increase, like if another church building was added, but the cathedral occupies all of one just one small triangular block, per the linked NRHP document, so it's hard to see what changed. I don't understand what the different 2nd NRHP reference number signifies (why not use the same refnum in the NHL designation, as is often done?), but it seems clear enough that it is just one entire property that is being talked about. I'm not familiar enough with the Buffalo State Hospital situation to combine those, but I added a footnote about it and the other remaining duplicate case to the Buffalo list-article. Thanks, Pubdog, for raising this. I hope you might persist in clearing up what is the right treatment for these cases. I imagine that contacting the NYS OPRHP would be prove helpful. Hmm, i prefer sunshine for Xmas! :) Cheers. doncram (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

For historic districts, one has usually superseded the other or others. I leave it in the list, perhaps with a more apropos picture if I have it, make the link point to the current HD article, and note that the original district has been superseded by the current one (see National Register of Historic Places listings in Rensselaer County, New York for an extreme example, where five districts were absorbed into the Central Troy Historic District). Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Storm House. I know where I'm getting the idea from, but it really sounds like it should be a superhero's secret identity. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic Hall in Missouri burned more than 100 years ago. The only remnant of the building are the columns which are among the most recognizable structures in the state and the symbol for the University of Missouri. The columns are on the Francis Quadrangle which is on the National Register. Should Academic Hall be categorized as National Register of Historic Places. The stucture is not formally listed independently. Thanks Americasroof (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I noticed on the Francis Quadrangle page it references The Columns (Missouri) with a red link. My thought is that The Columns could be a redirect to a new sub section of the Academic Hall page. This section could talk about the post fire history of the columns and how they have become a symbol of the university itself. That way it really doesn't matter if Academic Hall is on the NRHP because the columns are and they would be one the main topics for the page.HornColumbia (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• • I understand the columns are a contributing structure in the district, per mention at Talk:Academic Hall. If "The Columns (Missouri)" is a redirect to a section in the Academic Hall article, i.e. Academic Hall article is the location of separate coverage of the columns, I think it is fine to put Academic Hall article into Category:National Register of Historic Places in Missouri or appropriate sub-category. Not sure this would help that article or not, but you could even add an NRHP infobox covering the Columns as a contributing property. The documentation at Template:infobox nrhp should cover how to set up a contributing property infobox that links to a historic district article. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • As usual, thanks.Americasroof (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania is unwieldy long (~130 K). I hesitate to split the table without guidance. Could some divide into several tables? It could still be expanded because we have only begun to post pictures on this long list. KudzuVine (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those pictures! One possibility would be geographic. Another would be to do it by bridge type - have separate lists for covered (wooden) bridges on one list, stone arch bridges, metal arch bridges, metal truss bridges, concrete bridges, suspension bridges, and tunnels. This is how PennDOT divided their NRHP submission of bridges. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think splitting by bridge type would be appropriate.--Pubdog (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we also consider in these state NRHP bridge lists having some sort of "notes" column where we can explain the reason the bridge is listed? Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello: I will shortly upload images for all remaining NRHP sites on National Register of Historic Places listings in Buffalo, New York, with one exception Laurel and Michigan Avenues Row because it has been demolished (what I did on my Christmas vacation ;->). I have one potential private source for an image, but if that does not pan out the only other is available at the OPRHP site. I'd really like to call victory on this list being fully illustrated. How can I do that if the structure is no longer extant and the only readily available image has the copyright potential issue? I don't think a photo of the vacant lot would be particularly illustrative.--Pubdog (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I think a photo of the vacant lot, if not a historic photo, is in fact needed. We have high standards here for our "fully illustrated" lists! Actually, you can inquire to the NYS OPRHP to request their release of one or more photos into the public domain, and I think they should jolly well choose to be helpful. (With a different state office, by the way, i found it was more successful to ask outright for photos to be release to the public domain, rather than explaining about GFDL or other license options.) And, you or I or someone else can contact them and/or the National Register about getting the listing dropped, as part of wp:NRIS info issues data corrections. Otherwise, it remains a NRHP listing and I think you need a photo. A photo of the vacant lot is perfectly acceptable by me, though. In fact a photo would be helpful in the article to document that the buildings have been demolished, and to use in corresponding about the NRIS info issue. Hopefully you did take a pic of the vacant lot when there? :) Good work about getting photos of all the places. It's another matter to get them all posted. I have almost all of a couple counties to upload sometime, too. doncram (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the outstanding guidance. I'm afraid I didn't get a pic of the vacant lot when in the 'hood. I'l see what I can do today on my way out of town. I can also follow-up on the other suggestions too. I'm thankful for high standards and glad there are so many who care.--Pubdog (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi --- I've sent an email to the FOIL office at NYS OPRHP to release photos. I'll let you know what happens! Another possibility might be to add Google Maps link. How might that work?--Pubdog (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm likely in the minority on this, but I think that having a picture of the vacant lot on the illustrated list should be preferred over having a picture of the demolished structure (although an image of the structure in the article is still a nice addition). I say that because I imagine one major use of the list is as a guide to visiting NRHP properties. In that case, it's useful to see what the location actually looks like now, as opposed to what it would have looked like had the demolished structure still been there. Andrew Jameson (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the input. I was able to visit the site on my way out of Buffalo today and the pic of the vacant lot is added at Laurel and Michigan Avenues Row. Best wishes!--Pubdog (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana is currently at WP:FLC at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana/archive2. Many nominations have been failed due to lack of reviews, so any input would be appreciated. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 02:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

General Services Administration find a building search links to public domain articles on several hundred federal buildings (including many NRHP sites) under the auspices of the General Services Administration, some of which are described in thorough architectural and historical detail. bd2412 T 05:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Also, I've previously copied about 100 of those to my userspace to format as articles, at User:BD2412/courthouses. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

United States Post Office and Courthouse (New Bern, North Carolina, 1935) is up. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

BD, you've been doing great work on courthouses. This one looks nice! I went searching for it in NRHP list in Craven County, NC and could not find it as a separate listing. Duh on me, your article points out it is a contributing property in the New Bern Historic District. Then i hoped to find the NRHP nomination document for that district. Contrary to recent reports and my hopes, the online NPS Focus system does not in fact have all NC docs now available, and not this one. Seems like the best supporting move someone here could make, is to get the NRHP doc (which can be requested for free) and create article on the district, and find out more by that process, to perhaps add in some way. The current courthouse article could benefit perhaps from using the NRHP infobox with Contributing Property info, but that is relatively pointless if there is no full district article to tie it in with. doncram (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - if that info comes in, let me know and I'll add it to the article. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello NRHP folks. I wanted to call to your attention a problem with the type of lists being employed in places such as National Register of Historic Places listings in Yavapai County, Arizona. I am uncertain if it is due to the number of images being displayed, or something to do with the code being employed to build the tables, but this list and at least two others I have tried to browse (here and here) have caused long load times (in excess of 15 seconds) and unusually high CPU load on my work computer when attempting to load them, and has crashed the browser once. I haven't tried to duplicate the issue at home yet, but I can say that the work computers, while not being state of the art, are not low-performance machines; they are running IE7 under WinXP on a dual core Pentium 3GHz processor/2GB ram machine. I am concerned about the accessibility of these lists to users on slower connections or with older computers, but you may want to consider taking a closer look at these lists and how to optimize them so as to make them accessible to users who may be running underpowered machines. Cheers, Shereth 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There was some recent discussion of this here (archived); load times apparently have to do with the coord template. Agreed this would be nice to fix, but I personally haven't the faintest idea how to go about it. Andrew Jameson (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. I did a little research of my own into the problem and I believe I have it narrowed down to the culprit; it's that pesky blue-globe WikiMiniAtlas. In short, each call to {{coord}} is producing a draggable Javascript map for that location. While this might be a nice feature for single coordinates, in an article like National Register of Historic Places listings in Maricopa County, Arizona there are over 100 draggable Javascript maps being generated on the fly, which explains not only the slow load times but the high CPU load as well. I can cobble together a workaround replacement template that will retain the useful Geohack links while dumping the WikiMiniAtlas implementation, but this will involve changing or removing some of the div classes that have been implemented and might break things like vcards and cause a fuss. I will also leave a message at the coord template talk page (and perhaps WT:COORD) to see if there is a way to rewrite the template to allow for an optional override of the javascript atlases. Shereth 16:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a breakthrough to me. Could you pursue a method of removing the little blue globes "WikiMiniAtlas"? Maybe if you could give us a short list (e.g. 10 entries) to show folks how it would work. Let us know what we can do, but I'm not a coder. Smallbones (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello all: Just thought I'd pass along progress made over the recent holidays on three lists: Buffalo, New York, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and Baltimore County, Maryland. I had a great time taking and adding about 100 pics. Best wishes for 2010.--Pubdog (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your creating good stub articles in western NY, and then adding pics for all the Erie and Niagara ones, has been amazingly quick. You got me curious, how are we doing in New York State? It's easier to tally pics than to rate and count good stub articles. So I just tallied up pics: there are about 2,059 imaged NRHPs out of 5,140, which is just over 40% now. NYS editors who have cumulatively done a lot of pics include User:Daniel Case and others in Hudson Valley, User:Dmadeo in NYC and elsewhere, User:Mwanner in North County and elsewhere, User:Americasroof and/or User:DanTD in Long Island, User:Lvklock and others in CNY, User:KudzuVine all over with HABS/HAER pics, and now User:Pubdog in Western NY. I am surprised how much is now depicted. Happy New Year! doncram (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done lots of work with HABS/HAER pictures nationwide. So far, I've confirmed that there are no more useful HABS/HAER pictures for Alaska, Florida, Indiana, and the states west of the Mississippi minus Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, and the Pacific Coast states, or 19 states in total. I've also done this with most counties in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bridge between East Manchester and Newberry Townships in York County, Pennsylvania was part of the Multiple Property Submission "Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Owned Highway Bridges" listed on the NRHP back in 1988. A clerical error was made at the time though, and it has been listed as pending in the NRHP database since. I noticed it was listed in the Pennsylvania ARCH system online and at the suggestion of Nyttend wrote the NRHP asking about it. Just got an email today saying that the pending listing was an error and they would be updating the database. I added the image on Commons and added it to List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania, but did not add it to the York County list. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

PS They said their internal database shows it is as listed, but the public database will not show this until its next update. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to let everyone know — because we use {{NRHPGoogleMapFootnote}} on so many pages, I've fully protected it as a frequently-used template. If any of you object to this move, tell me and I'll unprotect it. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In the process of beginning to overhaul Taconic State Parkway, I decided to check Category:Roads on the National Register of Historic Places to see if there were any longer than the Taconic, whose entire 104.12 miles is covered by the listing.

It seems that, indeed, the Skyline Drive in Shenandoah National Park is almost a mile longer. Are there any longer actively used roads whose continuous historic length is still extant listed? I think I can still say that the Taconic is the longest divided highway, and the longest state road, on the NRHP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There are bits and pieces of the Trail of Tears and U.S. Route 66 on the NRHP. I don't think those count. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. Interesting question, though ... what's the longest continuous linear NRHP listing (i.e., a canal or road). IS there something else longer than the Skyline?

I don't think so, although one day if the Appalachian Trail is listed (I'd consider it a good candidate for NHL status, really), it would easily leave anything else in the (ahem) dirt since it's over 2,000 miles long. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

what's the longest continuous linear NRHP listing - Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park. APK whisper in my ear 04:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Complication of this

The NRHP nom for the Taconic (see footnotes) gives a mileage of 105.3, which is possible if you include the onramps to the Thruway beyond the toll barrier at the north end, in the area under NYS Thruway Authority jurisdiction (NYSDOT's responsibilities end at the toll gate), as indeed the last pages of the nom itself seem to do. The 104.12 mileage will stay in the infobox as it's the official version from NYSDOT, which maintains the road. But should we say the listing includes the extra mileage, which would thus make it slightly longer than the Skyline Drive? Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)