Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

message: The question is, should the website of the current tenant/business of NRHP buildings be included as EL or in infobox as the website? Graywalls (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, it's a matter of notability. I don't think whatever fly-by-night business that happens to be occupying a property warrants inclusion in an article at all; however, if the business is a notable one, or if it's been an occupant long enough to have accumulated local/regional press, then it likely would be mentioned in the article's prose. At that point, depending on the degree of notability, it would then warrant an external link and possibly the link in the infobox. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with DrOrinScrivello on when to include the link and, looking at articles I created, I've put them both places. But maybe the infobox makes more sense if it is the original organization (like the church website) and the EL section makes sense if it's not the original purpose but a long-term occupant (like here).  This is just a thought; I don't think either location is "wrong". RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website of the current occupant that just so happens to be occupying a NRHP property 

message: The Blackstone Hotel has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 01:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article reassessment for [[The Blackstone Hotel]] 

message: Generally, when a building is non-contributing to a historic district, we wouldn't care about it for this wikiproject. But I just created the article for the Danish Brotherhood in America Headquarters, which was individually listed in 2016 when it turned 50 years old. The nomination form mentioned that it was within the Gold Coast Historic District (Omaha, Nebraska) but was listed as a non-contributing property because, at the time, it was only 31 years old. I expected to see that text followed with something like "and we're requesting it be added at this time" but it didn't. 
The historic district nomination form does list 3717 Harney as non-contributing but doesn't say why. I looked for updates on the Gold Coast Historic District that reclassified the property, but didn't see any. (This wouldn't be an increase per se, since the building sits squarely within the original boundary.) 
Clearly, this is an obscure question, but is this really an individually listed non-contributing property to a historic district? - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A property may be historic for one reason, and the district in which it sits may be historic for a different reason.  Imagine a 19th-century town center that has a 1930s Art Deco building in it (perhaps the only such building in the entire community).  Both notable, but the building does not contribute to the district's character. In your case, if the district is ever updated, the building's status might be changed to contributing. Magic♪piano 22:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the thoughtful reply! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individually listed non-contributing properties to historic districts? 

message: George Rogers Clark National Historical Park has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm  Talk 14:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article reassessment for [[George Rogers Clark National Historical Park]] 

message: I'm probably missing something obvious, but I was having trouble with updating infoboxes of individually listed contributing properties. For instance, the Delmarva Power & Light Building is an individually listed contributing property to the Downtown Wilmington Commercial Historic District so the DP&L article should be in :Category:Individually listed contributing properties to historic districts on the National Register in Delaware.   
But, when I update Template:Infobox NRHP with the historic district, the infobox automatically places the article in the less specific :Category:Historic district contributing properties in Delaware. I then manually added the more specific category.
How do I get the article to only be in the more specific category? - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a way to automatically place the article in a more specific category, but you can prevent the automatic placement in Category:Historic district contributing properties in STATE by adding a 'nocat=yes' parameter to the NRHP infobox template. You still have to manually add the more specific category, but at least that saves you from having to remove the other. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally the template would have a value in addition to "CP", like "IL", that would do this automatically. But this approach is easy enough to cut and paste.Thank you! RevelationDirect (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Looking closer, there is an nrhp_type "indcp" but it automatically places the article in the national :Category:Individually listed contributing properties to historic districts on the National Register instead of the state one. So the same workaround is required. Adding this info to the Template talk:Infobox NRHP. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed for infobox template with automatic category