Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 1

message: A big thanks also to all who've chosen to participate in this project. I'm looking forward to much productiveness, but also fun. I think it's neat to learn about all this historical stuff, and am glad to find others so inclined.
And so y'all don't get sick of me thanking you all the time, consider a 'thank you' as understood just about anytime that I respond. Ok?   :)   -Ebyabe 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome 

message: Proposed: Some text added to the talk pages to answer questions about what to do with all the redlinks and DABs on the lists. Text could be added to , or on the Wikiproject page, etc. Refer to: Kentucky and South Carolina. P.S. There are "related Wikiprojects" for several States — 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed help text 

message: I have some spreadsheets I use to help me when making NRHP info, disambig pages and such. I was wondering if there's somewhere on Wikipedia I can upload them to, for general availability. --Ebyabe 16:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure...see Help:Table--MONGO 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I add Microsoft Excel files somewhere? 

message: Hi guys!  I made some changes.  First, I created a userbox.  Secondly, I changed the outline of the page, making the title and scope it's own sections.  I moved some stuff around to fit better in the outline.  Lastly, I also created a naming standard for the articles.  However, this should be polled on this talk page.  As a temporary measure, I placed as the standard, Name (city[, state if necessary]).
Any suggestions on the article names?  
--myselfalso 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: I do appreciate the creation of the new ones. However, it may have to be changed. I proposed these at the stub proposals area, and they're in the process of doing so. So let's hold off a bit before adding more of the new stub. If it were just me, it'd be fine, but I want to make sure that TPTB are appropriately appeased.  :)  --Ebyabe 01:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like we shouldn't need the  once we start assessing the pages.  Then we'll know which NRHP articles are stubs by looking at which ones are assessed as stubs.  I think that the stuff you are talking about in FL is a better way to organize stubs.  Most of the ones that I've marked so far are already marked as  or US-level (which I resort down to TX when I find).  People working on stubs at a state/local level are more likely to have information to add to the articles than the folks in this group will (and we'll have a different entry point to the articles through the assessment banners). ~ BigrTex 16:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't realize it could work that way. Nice to know!  :) Since some folks have been busy tagging articles, I've gone ahead and created an assessment section. Have at!  --Ebyabe 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub and category creation, please pause 

message: * Multiple entries under the same name is so an issue for this project. Just look at U. S. Post Office, or First Baptist Church, for example. To differentiate, there are several options:
# [Name (city)] - [city, state] if necessary
# [Name (state)] -  [city, state] if necessary
# [Name (county/parish/etc., state)]
# [Name (city, state)]
There are so many city names that exist in multiple states. Miami, Florida and Miami, Ohio is only one example. That's why I'm not enamoured of option 1. Option 2, well, there could be multiple places with the same name in a state. Again, post offices and churches spring to mind. As far as option 3, it's a possibility, but there can be more than one same name place in a county.
I think the last option is the best. My philosophy has been not to only fix problems, but to circumvent future potential problems. [Name (city, state)], to me, would serve that purpose best. I'm not fond of "sometimes it's city, sometimes it's state, sometimes it's both." It's a little bit too fizzbiny, to my mind. Option 4 would be more generally consistent, overall. Less Sisyphus potential.
But that's just me. What do I know? ;)  --Ebyabe 01:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to take that in consideration for some of the NRHP articles I have written; First Baptist Church of Salem is a perfect example of what you were discussing.  I wrote an article originally under Tunnel Mill, and then made that link a redirect to a better named article.  However, there is at least one other Tunnel Mill that is NRHP so that will have to be a disambigation page eventually.--Bedford 02:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I've been using option 4, but so far I think it only applies to redlinks on the Oregon list so it's kinda moot.   Katr67 02:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In New York City, you'll find the "name" moves between addresses, so the "Tiffany Building" is in different parts of town in different years.  In these cases, I've been using the Address of the Building, disambiguating when required, and redirecting where possible.  dm 15:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just as a followup, the McGraw-Hill Building (disambiguation) is another good example.  There are two buildings known as the McGraw hill building in NYC plus one in Chicago.  Using the address avoids the ambiguity.  Of course at least in NY, there are buildings listed in the wrong county, so how accurate do you expect them to be? dm 05:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article naming conventions for the project 

message: I propose that we add this  to the infobox template next to the date added to NRHP.
<ref>NRIS Database, National Register of Historic Places,  retrieved Oct. 2006.
It is the NRIS Database, the National Park Service lists every RHP here, all you have to do is search for it, it is reliable confirmation on the date added to registry stat for every entry. Reliable and accuarate. A mcmurray 01:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A modest proposal 

message: The Florida list is done, hurrah. Stubbed at least, I mean. No red-links anyway, and that's a good thing. On to the rest!  :)  --Ebyabe 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One down, forty-nine and some odd to go... 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. Also, I note that yours is a comparatively new project. You may be interested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which has a lot of information regarding project organization from several of the most successful WikiProjects. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.      Badbilltucker 19:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: The list at List of Registered Historic Places in Michigan could use some standardization.  Each county is listed on a separate page, which I guess is OK, but it doesn't have the standard navigation at the top listing the counties with italics for each separate page.  If anyone wants to take on that list, feel free.  --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That does look better. Done.  --Ebyabe 13:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michigan list format 

message: I just wanted to point out that three articles I started directly because of this project have been featured on the front page's Did You Know? Just so you know.
A mcmurray 18:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great! Very pretty articles too. Have you been nominating them yourself or are people outside our project also into neat old buildings? Katr67 18:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a short note 

message: Only marginally about improving NRHP articles, but I'm going to start training to volunteer at the NRHP Mission Mill Museum (which is actually five NRHP structures in one), so I should be able to add a bunch of interesting info to that article. As it stands now, the article does not do justice at all to how cool this place is. There is even a bookbinder who works there who I discovered is a Wikipedia enthusiast! If I get ambitious maybe I'll see about an FA push.  Katr67 18:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really cool about the volunteer thing. A mcmurray 02:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mission Mill Museum]] 

message: This article is up for peer review, please improve it in any way possible. Thanks. A mcmurray 02:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[University of Illinois Observatory]] 

message: My Kintner-Withers House article got a DYK today.  Now if only I could get a picture of the house for the article (it's private property, and the house is suppoed to not be visible from the road).--Bedford 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kintner-Withers House]] 

message: Since we've already had facts from several articles appear on the Main Page, I decided to add a section for that to the  template. Until a 'how-to' can be added to the template, check McLean County Courthouse and Square for an example of how it may be used. --Ebyabe 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Did you know?" section added to talk page template 

message: Two situations that have come to my attention:
*Train stations: Most of these have existing articles thanks to the stations project. If the structure in question is still part of an active train station, I wouldn't bother to create a new article, even if the building isn't really used much for its original purpose. Nor should the NRHP infobox be added, as the goal is to create separate infoboxes for the stations (as has already been done for Amtrak) for each railroad. The template at bottom should be enough (see Tuxedo Railroad Station for an example where I chose to do this).However, if the station building is no longer active, whether vacant or just being reused for something else having nothing to do with rail transport, I'd justify a separate article (Erie Depot, again).
*Forest fire lookout towers. All five remaining in the Catskills are on the Register. I have decided, where one coincides with the article on the mountain it's on that I've already written, that the short section there is enough (Hunter Mountain (New York)). Daniel Case 15:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The House at or Building at ones are another. Usually they're part of an historic district, whether national or local. I did a 'list' page, for example, for List of Registered Historic Buildings in Miami Shores, Florida, since each house wasn't specifically historic, per se. --Ebyabe 18:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the guidance ... I read what you wrote higher up. I think what I'll ultimately do is create a separate article on the Catskill fire towers. There's an excellent book I've used a source on other articles. Daniel Case 05:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some other situations in which it isn't necessary to create new articles 

message: I've added sub-header banners for all the major sub-types. More info on the Infobox nrhp talk page. It also helps with the 'governing body' field, at least where one isn't sure what it is. --Ebyabe 14:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infobox sub-headers, please to read 

message: May I direct you to  this discussion. Just a heads up if anyone is planning to add newly listed places that are still redlinks to their state lists. Apparently some people frown on that. Katr67 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My additions got reverted--a cautionary tale 

message: USS Missouri (BB-63) is currently undergoing a Peer Review as part of the ongoing effort by the Military history WikiProject to update older, FA status articles. Anyone wishing to leave a comment of suggestion is invited to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcement 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 22:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: For those that mightn't already know, a few new fields have been added. Check it at . --Ebyabe 00:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infobox fields 

message: Shouldn't that be "WikiProject US National Register of Historic Places"? Simply south 10:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Anyone with time, check this article, Koster Site, it needs major cleanup and I am not even sure if it redirects correctly. It reads like an ad and I removed contact info that included an address and phone number. So if you have time check it out. Meanwhile I have been stubbing the heck out of Illinois. So woo hoo.A mcmurray 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone 

message: Ridge Route has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridge Route FAR 

message: For anyone who is working on Illinois. The Illinois Historical Preservation Agency has a wealth of information about Illinois National Register of Historic Places sites. Their online database includes historical survey information as well as, in many cases, substantial background information, often including the original NRHP nomination forms. There are photos but they are not public domain that I am aware of, copyrighted by IHPA, 2002. Either way, it will give you an idea what your subject looks like. The information section is invaluabe and the database is fully searchable through numerous different parameters, including a point and click map. I think it has the potential to eventually allow every single article in the Illinois category to be greatly expanded from stubs. A mcmurray 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and since I am here, a shameless self promo would probably be in order. I have finally got WikiProject Ghost towns up and running full fledged. There is quite a bit of cross over from this project so if anyone here is interested check it out, we're really just getting started and you'd have the chance to actually help decide some important open questions within the project. Sorry, for the tangent and the shameless plug. A mcmurray 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illinois database 

message: Though it's not project related I am trying to get an article I wrote up to GA status. Executive Order 9835 is up for a peer review right now, if anyone could help I would greatly appreciate it. After this it will be submitted for a GA review. A mcmurray 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A peer review 

message: To alleviate what was becoming a massive (and sure to become more massive) category in :Category:Registered Historic Places in Illinois I created some sub cats.
1. Multiple Property Submissions--There is :Category:NRHP Multiple Property Submissions in Illinois, I figured on making sub cats for each MPS, see :Category:Metal Highway Bridges of Fulton County MPS or :Category:Illinois State Park Lodges and Cabins MPS, those exist in the parent category :Category:NRHP Multiple Property Submissions in Illinois, of couse in turn in the cat :Category:NRHP Multiple Property Submissions. Hopefull the other states will want to follow suit?? Maybe? I know it sounds confusing but I really think it will trim down the main cat and make things a bit more organized.
2. What I thought would contribute to reducing the overall clutter of the main NRHP Illinois cat was new cats for Cook County and Chicago, so I went ahead. If everyone would use them that would be great. See the cats: :Category:Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois and :Category:Registered Historic Places in Chicago, Illinois.
If everyone would use them I think it would really pare down the Illinois cat. Any thoughts?A mcmurray 07:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also went ahead and pulled the historic districts into their own category, :Category:Registered Historic Districts in Illinois.A mcmurray 09:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Illinois cats 

message: Yes, the home of A Prairie Home Companion. An employee of the theater said on the talk page that this isn't on the National Register. I did some investigating, and am rather more confused. If anyone knows more about the specifics, could you let us know? --Ebyabe 16:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Turns out it is listed after all. The anonymous employee was mistaken. See my comment on the theatre's talk page. Whyaduck 05:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's now updated with the corrected info. Mucho danke. :) --Ebyabe 13:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fitzgerald Theater]] 

message: My stub rate for Illinois has fallen off a bit, instead I have been extending my foray into barns and getting the basic barn coverage up to par. I made :Category:Barns into a real category, with more than the one article it had before. The Round barn entry is especially useful to the project, so note it, you can now link to an overview on round barns. I have developed these three historic district articles into something to brag about, with photography and offshoot articles on the first two, check Sycamore Historic District, Oregon Commercial Historic District and University of Illinois Experimental Dairy Farm Historic District. In addition I have been penning entry on Illinois Multiple Property Submissions, a main article for some the offshoot articles and yet, another way to clean up the :Category:Registered Historic Places in Illinois. Check it, change it, dig it, let me know what's up.A mcmurray 07:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also tweaked the infobox a bit. For those of you who didn't know the nrhp_type= parameter can be altered based upon templates. The default is of course National Register of Historic Places, it appears linked under the name of the site. You could already input "nhl" and get it to output National Historic Landmark. Now you can input "hd" and get Registered Historic District, which I started a stub on, without refs right now but I will expand it to give an overview of the idea behind districts and such. Though I am not sure it is relevant you can input "nhs" and get National Historic Site.A mcmurray 16:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I kick myself b/c I shoulda thought of that. There are other values that can be entered for nrhp_type, but since they overlap with the Protected Areas WikiProject, I removed them so as not to mash toes. But districts are a distinct enough subset that having a subheading for them makes sense. Good show, old bean! :) --Ebyabe 21:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah I knew there were but I knew the Protected Areas project was all over that as well.A mcmurray 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief update 

message: A request has been made for Joseph F. Glidden House to undergo a peer review. Please help out at the article's peer review page. Thanks.A mcmurray 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived the peer review request above after an automated review and no activity. There is still an active peer review over at WikiProject Architecture. If you would like to chime in go right ahead, I'll leave it open for a bit longer. After that it goes to GA candidates, so please help if you can.A mcmurray 18:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request 

message: , I was just cleaning up the Michigan section.  My Foxfire browser with NoScipt blocks the National Archives url: catalog.archives.gov and tells me it's an attack site.  This catalog URL is scattered through this project instruction page.  I think we should delete the catalog url everyplace it appears here.  What do you think? All I know, is I'm not trying a different browser if my Foxfire already tells me it's an attack site. — Maile  (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the current National archives catalog, which is fine by itself. But if you input that NAID 20812803 in the search box, just search for "National Register of Historic Places, and click ... on my browser it goes to an attack site. — Maile  (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thank you for developing the Michigan section and other sections.  This is about the link to National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks Program Records: Michigan (NAID 20812803), in just the Michigan section.  Maybe your own computer has a virus?  I don't encounter any problem, using Chrome, and I don't get how there could be one from including a link to there, but that could be because I don't know anything about viruses and so on.  Go ahead and edit the section any way you want, to avoid the problem, if you like.  If anyone else chimes in with any better insight, the link could be restored perhaps, but it is really not important.  The main thing to be emphasized is that if you have the NRHP refnum, which you almost always do, you can search directly on that, and few editors will need to go search within a state index file.  Maybe the main section on the National Archives catalog needs to be edited to emphasize that, and perhaps put lesser stuff in small letters or highly indented.  --doncram 19:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my computer.  I just now finished a virus scan.  Please see NoScript.  In the upper right hand corner, do you see that thing that looks like a blue snake with fangs?  With it's an attack site, that blue snake appears in the url blank of the browser, and blocks the url from loading.  I could over-ride it, but I won't.  Some of what NoScript describes as attacks are: web-based attacks such as XSS, CSRF, clickjacking, man-in-the-middle attacks, and DNS rebinding.  So, you might not know you got caught on an attack script, but somewhere down the line your browsing is affected. I'll leave the instruction page as is, but I'll also trust what NoScript told me about it, and I'm not going there myself. — Maile  (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to archive this talk thread now, so as not to confuse users.  In looking at the issue with a browser I don't normally use, there is no issue.  It's not my computer, but recent upgrades by Wikimedia indicates Firefox has some quirky issues .  Going by a different browser, nothing wrong with NRHP.  It had to have been Firefox.  Sorry for bringing this up. — Maile  (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Archives Catalog url