Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Hawaii

message: Does anyone know why Necker Island Archeological District and Nihoa Island Archeological District are listed under the sub-subheading of "Kauai" beneath the subheading of "Honolulu County?"  Mitchell k dwyer 03:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all changed now, but I think i now understand what the question was about.  Necker and Nihoa islands are northwest of Kauai, so Kauai might be given as the nearest town or city or something like that, and the islands northwest of Kauai are actually part of Honolulu County, as is now documented in the list-article (by Nyttend finding a nice map of the counties of Hawaii to link to). doncram (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kauai? 

message: Excerpt from Viriditas comment elsewhere, to be discussed here: 
Any idea why the restricted archaeological sites are redlinked?  I can't see any way to create articles without information, so they should probably be de-linked.  I haven't revisited this issue for about a year, but last time I did, I noticed a lot of discrepancies regarding the naming conventions used by the NRHP and the actual names.  I see that some of the articles refer to this as alternate or older names, but this is somewhat ambiguous.  In other words, in some instances, the NRHP designation may not be the best name for the actual article (or take precedent over the common name), while it is certainly appropriate for the infobox by itself.  This can get pretty confusing, but I can recall at least several instances where this is a problem.  Anyway, if you would like me to help out, I would be glad to help complete all the entries for Maui, or at least fact-check them asap.  I see that you've broken the tables up by county, but you should also add a column for island, as some counties include more than one island, or if you can think of a better way to inform the reader as to what island each site belongs to, that would suffice.  There are several more issues I would like to discuss with you.-- Viriditas
:Where the NRHP name is not the common name, the article should certainly be moved to the common name, and revised to show the NRHP name as an alternative name.  Also the NRHP name should be retained as title of the NRHP infobox, yes.  It would be great if you would complete out descriptions or otherwise develop the Maui ones.  About dividing by islands, Nyttend was already suggesting something along those lines, too.  I wonder about splitting the Maui County table into several tables then, one for each island having NRHPs, as an alternative to adding an island column.  Perhaps the Archeaological sites could be moved to a separate table, to appear last in the Maui section as there is currently no information available on any of them. doncram (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to start by focusing on the Maui tasks, so please keep me updated on what needs completion.  I can help complete the descriptions and upload some photos. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  I just set up empty tables to split out the Maui County section into four island sections, towards seeing if that works as a way to organize this.  Please go ahead and move rows to the appropriate tables, which i am sure are more easy for you to identify than for me. doncram (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to leave all the layout decisions to you unless I see something egregious, at which point I'll speak up; I've just got too much on my plate right now.  On another note, I was able to find some information about archaeology on Maui (Patrick Vinton Kirch) which could effectively serve as a lead paragraph for this section. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The autonumbering concept has come up before at WP:NRHP and as far as was known at the time, there is no such feature. With longer lists, I copy and paste them out to a spreadsheet, manipulate them there and then paste them back into the article here. It takes a couple of minutes to do what I do and is much less time-consuming than renumbering an entire list of 50 or more properties. For shorter lists or for properties that alphabetize near the end of longer lists, it's more efficient to do it the old fashioned way within Wikipedia. --sanfranman59 (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's neat that Sanfranman59 has a more efficient way of doing the renumbering.  I do it manually.  Maybe we could get some program sometime that would do it efficiently, off-line, like a Perl script program might be able to do it?  But here in this Hawaii list, just don't worry about it.  Leave the numbers wrong.  We'll take a pass through and renumber some time later, when a new organization is stable. doncram (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  I'm updating the rows right now... Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Sanfranman59, all I could find is MediaWiki_talk:Common.js/Archive_Jun_2007#PROPOSAL:_Adding_New_Java_Script_Code_to_Wikipedia and User:Mike_Dillon/Scripts/autonumber.js. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Definitely agree: it's not like that there's anything wrong with it, but I think it's rather confusing to have multiple tables with the same numbering.  I'd like to see Oahu's numbering changed to leave out the NW islands; after all, Kaho'olawe Island Archeological District and Kalaupapa National Historical Park are both numbered 1, although both are in Maui County.  See further comment in subsection below.  Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the redlinks that you note, and "I can't see any way to create articles without information" — see Maka Yusota (near Minneapolis) or Irishtown Bend Archeological District (in Cleveland), both of which are restricted-address.  Who knows but that we might even have more information than is needed for a stub?  And if not, we could always create a single article for the group: see the Historic Firehouses of Louisville for an example.  I'm sure that there would be plenty of information, at least in general, for restricted archaeological sites on Maui.  Last comment: although the NRHP doesn't release the address, it's possible that others do: I've found the locations of many restricted-address sites by looking elsewhere online.  Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, but the situation might be a bit different in Hawaii.  We simply don't want the sites disturbed, and there's a lot of research (at least on the island of Maui) that hasn't even been done yet. In other words, these sites are restricted for good reason.  Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are archeaological sites all over the place that have restricted addresses but are sometimes listed elsewhere online, including by reputable sources that are likely maintained by people that would have access to the sites.  I can't remember where it was, but I remember seeing some site in Alaska that was exactly this way.  At any rate, I'm pretty sure that there was a discussion on this topic at WP:NRHP some time ago; this was before I was working with the project, so I'll ask Doncram and SFman to remember it.  I'm pretty sure that the pro-inclusion-if-we-have-sources side mentioned WP:NOTCENSORED as a major part of its argument, with which I agree.  Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an entirely different matter.  The people that have access to these sites do not advertise them.  There are a few restricted sites on this page that have known locations and have been known for some time, usually because they have been extensively studied and are easily accessible to the public.  Those two factors are usually an exception to the rule.  The sites I am referring to for all intents and purposes are not meant to be known to the public for many reasons, including preventing trespassing on private land where they are located, to protect and preserve sites that have not yet been excavated, and to protect Hawaiian burial grounds.  Revealing information about the sites that could lead people to disturb them would not only violate state and federal laws, but would go against the very idea of protecting and preserving historic places.  So, it isn't a matter of inclusion; the sites are registered.  It's a matter of common sense and ethical duty to preserve historical places, the very purpose of the NRHP.  Restricted access in Hawaii is pretty clear and has nothing to do with censorship.  There is some information about some of these sites in scholarly books and journals, but it is not our job to enable people to break the law.  Keep in mind, the vast majority of these sites have already been destroyed (and there are hundreds if not thousands of them in Hawaii) so it is more important to protect and preserve them than to widely disseminate information about how to "find" them.  Simply put, they aren't meant to be found until they become public sites. Viriditas (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if nobody publishes their addresses, we surely can't do it verifiably; it's not like I'm suggesting that we do it without references :-)  There are plenty of articles for NRHP restricted-address sites elsewhere in the country that don't list or require addresses; as you note, there is some information in publications, so it's reasonable to expect that articles could be written about them.  Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that the restricted address designation is only one part of the picture.  There must be another classification that I am missing.  For example, even though Kaunolu Village Site has a restricted address designation, directions to the site are all over the internet, and the public is allowed to visit it.  The sites I am referring to do not allow the public to access them, but how can you tell from the NRHP data?  Obviously, the "restricted address" classification is meaningless in terms of the Kaunolu Village Site; Everyone knows where it is and they are encouraged to visit it.  Am I missing something here?  I suspect that I am.  Viriditas (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I think Kalaupapa Leprosy Settlement and National Historical Park is in Kalawao County. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree :-) See further comment in subsection below.  Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  It's another error in the National Register system, to have it recorded in Maui County instead.  I am adding a note to wp:NRIS info issues (where many of us have been recording NRIS data errors for eventual reporting to the National Park Service so that they will correct their system). doncram (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The state's Elections Office and (of course more importantly) state law recognize it as a county.  I think we can assume that these documents are current.  Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for the confusion.  What I meant is, we need confirmation that Kalaupapa is not part of Maui County.  My understanding is that there was an attempt to bring it under the control of Maui County or in coordination with it, so one has to ask whether it is still truly a separate county from Maui County.  This is the part that needs more research.  Yes, it is part of Kalawao County, but is Kalawao County now being run by Maui County?  Take a look at the abstracts on Google news and other places and you will quickly see what I mean. Viriditas (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Understand what you mean now; thanks.  If the state law says it's a separate county, how wouldn't it be separate, even if it were somewhat administered by Maui?  At any rate, it won't make much of any difference with the table, since all that we have on the table is a note that it's in Kalawao County, which indisputably exists as a geographic area regardless of its governmental status.  Nyttend (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I see what you mean, and tend mostly to agree.  However, organizing by county puts the islands which are close together, together, for the most part (besides the two northwest ones).  How about organizing by island, but presenting the islands in geographic order from Hawaii in the southeast up to the northwest island ones?  Not sure how you would order among the Maui county islands there, but I am sure that could be sorted out.  I kinda don't like the idea of having the islands in alphabetical order, which would be hard for non-Hawaiians like me to follow.  Yes, I think that a clear discussion of how many NRHP listings are in which county, and how the counties relate to islands, can be provided upfront.  Probably the small tally table by county can be retained, along with a new tally table by islands.  Viriditas, as the most local participant here now, what do you think? doncram (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many different ways to do it, and I'm not that familiar with NRHP project guidelines and policies, so I will defer best practices to you and Nyttend.  However, I am concerned with readability and usability.  I would prefer to see some kind of introductory graphic (like National Register of Historic Places listings in California) that presents the reader with a map of Hawaii, and follows section 0 with headings based on the logical geographical location, working from the oldest islands in the northwest to the youngest in the southeast, however in practice, it seems that most articles on Wikipedia (and probably print publications) work in the opposite direction (for example see the table in Hawaiian_Islands#Main_islands).  I'm not sure why this is true, but it probably has something to do with human perception; perhaps working from biggest to smallest is a preferred method.  But, any direction would work here.  I doubt what I've said here helps, but anything that can improve readability and usability is best, IMHO. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're okay with it, I'll rearrange the islands by geographical order.  I'm slightly confused with what you mean about "oldest" to "newest": were the "oldest" ones the first settled?  I'm going to go with SE to NW, simply because, as you note, that's what's already done by Wikipedia and many other places; as I don't understand what you mean, I can't at this moment see the benefit of going the other way.  Perhaps you can enlighten me :-)  At any rate, the California thing is reasonable: we (primarily Doncram) have been reorganizing many states' main pages with headers like this (see Kansas for an example), and I can't imagine why it couldn't be done here.  Doncram either (1) knows how to make clickable maps, (2) knows where to find them, or (3) both, so I'll not try doing that, but I can do a lot of the header.  Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Hawaii hotspot for an explanation of why the islands, from left (NW) to right (SE) range respectively in geological age, from oldest to youngest (newest, Loihi Seamount). Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do understand about the oldest to newest in terms of geological age, and i like that ordering from Nw to SE best now that it is suggested.  I don't understand why Nyttend thinks i create maps;  i talk about them because i like them, and i add them when i can find them, but it is others who have been making them. :) doncram (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to put in the new tables, SE to NW, so now I'll rearrange in Notepad (far easier :-)  At least you know where to find these maps, which I don't.  I just wonder about the utility of this arrangement: are people more likely to be interested in the sites on Hawaii or the site on Necker?  It just seems more convenient to begin with the way that we normally list these islands rather than by geological history (which I understand, thanks for the good link), important though it be.  Nyttend (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't communicate it very well, but my original point was that the map/image in the lead section would show the islands.  The question at hand is, how does one look at a map of islands?  I don't really know the answer, but if I assume that my eye starts from the left and moves to the right, the oldest islands would appear first in the top left, down to the youngest in the bottom right.  Now, this could obviously be a cultural bias (due to language) or not.  In any case, it does seem like many sources (including the ones on Wikipedia) go the opposite direction, from right to left, and this has always confused me.  But perhaps, this is a cartographic convention?  Is an island archipelago described from right to left?  Or more accurately, from S to N or E to W? If so, that would explain it. Viriditas (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Forget it, the new version just appeared in the history; perhaps it just took a long time to register.  Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The site has been experiencing unusual server problems (due to load?) for the last hour. Viriditas (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: development

message: There are 319 such places in Hawaii, appearing in four of Hawaii's five counties (Kalawao County has none)
:I think Kalaupapa Leprosy Settlement and National Historical Park is in Kalawao County. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree :-) See further comment in subsection below.  Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  It's another error in the National Register system, to have it recorded in Maui County instead.  I am adding a note to wp:NRIS info issues (where many of us have been recording NRIS data errors for eventual reporting to the National Park Service so that they will correct their system). doncram (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The state's Elections Office and (of course more importantly) state law recognize it as a county.  I think we can assume that these documents are current.  Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for the confusion.  What I meant is, we need confirmation that Kalaupapa is not part of Maui County.  My understanding is that there was an attempt to bring it under the control of Maui County or in coordination with it, so one has to ask whether it is still truly a separate county from Maui County.  This is the part that needs more research.  Yes, it is part of Kalawao County, but is Kalawao County now being run by Maui County?  Take a look at the abstracts on Google news and other places and you will quickly see what I mean. Viriditas (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Understand what you mean now; thanks.  If the state law says it's a separate county, how wouldn't it be separate, even if it were somewhat administered by Maui?  At any rate, it won't make much of any difference with the table, since all that we have on the table is a note that it's in Kalawao County, which indisputably exists as a geographic area regardless of its governmental status.  Nyttend (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Kalawao County

message: Since several of you have been discussing/working on it, I guess I'll not spend tons of time reworking everything :-) or indeed anything without discussion; but I was going to ignore counties altogether when I reworked this list.  Do we need county headers at all?  It's one thing with the other 49 states to divide by counties/parishes/boroughsandcensusareas, but since we've got rather clear boundaries (even though they are fluid :-) between the islands, I think it would be much simpler to leave them out altogether.  Let's have nine different sections for the eight major islands plus Kahoolawe (although does Niihau have any?  If not, just eight) with a little note above each table: "_____ is included in _____ County", plus a map of the island.  To make sure that counties aren't confused at the top, we could include a little bit about which island is in which county, so the reader wouldn't have to look at the individual island list to see the county.  This will make moot the question of multiple tables with the same numbering, and it should make the article more easily navigable (we wouldn't have to put Lanai after Oahu) without sacrificing the ability to move between counties.  Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, and tend mostly to agree.  However, organizing by county puts the islands which are close together, together, for the most part (besides the two northwest ones).  How about organizing by island, but presenting the islands in geographic order from Hawaii in the southeast up to the northwest island ones?  Not sure how you would order among the Maui county islands there, but I am sure that could be sorted out.  I kinda don't like the idea of having the islands in alphabetical order, which would be hard for non-Hawaiians like me to follow.  Yes, I think that a clear discussion of how many NRHP listings are in which county, and how the counties relate to islands, can be provided upfront.  Probably the small tally table by county can be retained, along with a new tally table by islands.  Viriditas, as the most local participant here now, what do you think? doncram (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many different ways to do it, and I'm not that familiar with NRHP project guidelines and policies, so I will defer best practices to you and Nyttend.  However, I am concerned with readability and usability.  I would prefer to see some kind of introductory graphic (like National Register of Historic Places listings in California) that presents the reader with a map of Hawaii, and follows section 0 with headings based on the logical geographical location, working from the oldest islands in the northwest to the youngest in the southeast, however in practice, it seems that most articles on Wikipedia (and probably print publications) work in the opposite direction (for example see the table in Hawaiian_Islands#Main_islands).  I'm not sure why this is true, but it probably has something to do with human perception; perhaps working from biggest to smallest is a preferred method.  But, any direction would work here.  I doubt what I've said here helps, but anything that can improve readability and usability is best, IMHO. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're okay with it, I'll rearrange the islands by geographical order.  I'm slightly confused with what you mean about "oldest" to "newest": were the "oldest" ones the first settled?  I'm going to go with SE to NW, simply because, as you note, that's what's already done by Wikipedia and many other places; as I don't understand what you mean, I can't at this moment see the benefit of going the other way.  Perhaps you can enlighten me :-)  At any rate, the California thing is reasonable: we (primarily Doncram) have been reorganizing many states' main pages with headers like this (see Kansas for an example), and I can't imagine why it couldn't be done here.  Doncram either (1) knows how to make clickable maps, (2) knows where to find them, or (3) both, so I'll not try doing that, but I can do a lot of the header.  Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Hawaii hotspot for an explanation of why the islands, from left (NW) to right (SE) range respectively in geological age, from oldest to youngest (newest, Loihi Seamount). Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do understand about the oldest to newest in terms of geological age, and i like that ordering from Nw to SE best now that it is suggested.  I don't understand why Nyttend thinks i create maps;  i talk about them because i like them, and i add them when i can find them, but it is others who have been making them. :) doncram (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to put in the new tables, SE to NW, so now I'll rearrange in Notepad (far easier :-)  At least you know where to find these maps, which I don't.  I just wonder about the utility of this arrangement: are people more likely to be interested in the sites on Hawaii or the site on Necker?  It just seems more convenient to begin with the way that we normally list these islands rather than by geological history (which I understand, thanks for the good link), important though it be.  Nyttend (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't communicate it very well, but my original point was that the map/image in the lead section would show the islands.  The question at hand is, how does one look at a map of islands?  I don't really know the answer, but if I assume that my eye starts from the left and moves to the right, the oldest islands would appear first in the top left, down to the youngest in the bottom right.  Now, this could obviously be a cultural bias (due to language) or not.  In any case, it does seem like many sources (including the ones on Wikipedia) go the opposite direction, from right to left, and this has always confused me.  But perhaps, this is a cartographic convention?  Is an island archipelago described from right to left?  Or more accurately, from S to N or E to W? If so, that would explain it. Viriditas (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Forget it, the new version just appeared in the history; perhaps it just took a long time to register.  Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The site has been experiencing unusual server problems (due to load?) for the last hour. Viriditas (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rearrange a little more

message: * in Kamuela, Anna Ranch, not in Elkman table, is this new? Yes.  Added.
*In Honolulu, Kaumakapili Church not listed in Elkman table.  Not listed in current NRIS either. New.  Added. 
*Jessie-Judson Eyman Wilma House or Jessie-Judson, Wilma Eyman House.  Grammar/name issue. What is correct common name of house?
* Grove Farm (Boundary Increase)  boundary increase both to revise description here and to note in article (to be created)
:Anna Ranch was listed 4/28/2008 and Kaumakapili Church was listed 5/5/2008. Here are the details:
:HAWAII, HAWAII COUNTY
:Anna Ranch
:65-1480 Kawaihae Rd.
:Kamuela,  06001120
:LISTED, 4/28/08
:HAWAII, HONOLULU COUNTY
:Kaumakapili Church
:766 N. King St.
:Honolulu vicinity, 08000372
:LISTED, 5/05/08
:The Hawaii State Historic Preservation office has the Eyman house listed as "Eyman-Judson Residence". However, I suggest we list it here as "Jessie Eyman-Wilma Judson House" to agree with the NRIS database (and alphabetize as Eyman?).
:--sanfranman59 (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't Kaumakapili Church and Central Intermediate School be in the Honolulu list? --sanfranman59 (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, and i just moved them.  It was my error to put Kaumakapili into the wrong place.  I suppose Central Intermediate School was in the wrong place due to NRIS error in its county, so i will add that to wp:NRIS info issues now.  Thanks! doncram (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  research issues and/or editing needed 

message: :::::::Also, about lighthouses, i asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses#Hawaii lighthouses attention requested regarding Kilauea Light, Diamond Head Lighthouse, U.S. Coast Guard Makapuu Point Light, and U.S. Coast Guard Molokai Light.  Hopefully those might now get developed by light experts. doncram (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lighthouses

message: I am working on the Big Island articles. One issue I noticed: the Kamoa Complex is the same as Holualoa 4 Archeological District (State Site No. 50-10-37-23.661) as far as I can tell. See http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/hi/Hawaii/districts.html for example. This area is in Keolonahihi State Historical Park, which is not developed. I can write a stub with a little more research. Would anyone mind if I combined the table entries? Also see http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/info/lako/EA-Sum2.htm W Nowicki (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're two distinct listings, they shouldn't be combined.  Of course, if you have evidence that they're essentially the same place, you could write one article about both of them, and then redirect both links to that article, but as this is a list of sites listed by the NRHP, it shouldn't combine NRHP listings.  For an example, see the Beaver County, Pennsylvania list: Old Economy and the Economy Historic District are essentially the same site, but they're listed separately because they're two different listings.  Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Island 

message: What is the consensus on keeping this one article, or splitting it up? I tried to edit, and it takes several minutes to load (probably all those pictures, etc.). There was already a suggestion generated on edit to split the article up, since it was over 100KB. At least I would be more inclined  to edit it if it did not take so long for each view. Many of the Big Island locations are not very good, for example. Now that all the work was done to split the tables, we could put each table in a separate article, for example, with this one having the county and island tables with links to the others. During transition we could move, say, Oahu and Big Island to their own pages first, then the others as time permits. It looks like California does it by County, so what do others think?
Another thought: the color code should be explained somewhere. Mahalo.
W Nowicki (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the idea of at least splitting out the islands with the most listings and I would have no objection to splitting out all of them. As for the color codes, the tables that some of create include footnotes describing the color scheme. I'm working on North Carolina right now. Take a look at a relatively recent county table that I've created to see what I mean (here's an example). --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the article has filesize = 105,245 bytes, which is smaller than many other state list-articles, but this one loads really a lot slower, I see.  Yes, i guess that is because of all the pictures that have to load, too, here.  So yes, at least the bigger islands should be split out now.  About the color code, the way that Sanfranman59 describes does provide a way to see a color code, but the reader has to be pretty interested to click on the footnote (footnote #3 in the Lincoln County example) in the top left cell of the table, and then click on "here" within the footnote, to eventually get to a color key.  An alternative is to put a color key directly in the article, as this NRHP list for Syracuse, New York does. doncram (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and split out Oahu, the biggest, to National Register of Historic Places listings in Oahu.  I also tried including a Key section with a draft color code key in it.  There may be some colors not covered, say if there are any National Historic Sites on Oahu, so it may need improvement.  Also how i linked to it, leaving a section on Oahu in this state-wide list-article and using a "main" link to the separate article as being the main source on Oahu in particular, might be improved.  Perhaps the section left behind should have more description, including saying in text that there are 150 NRHP listings in (or on?) Oahu.  Also how i set up the Oahu article with intro and categories and so on might be improved.  But it is an example.  And, since it removed 150 NRHP listings out of 320 or so, the performance here should now be better.  About the article name, I am indifferent to "on" vs. "in" and would defer to whatever more local editors prefer.  Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Wow, thanks that was fast. Yes, the page loads much quicker now. I may have time to do the Big Island tomorrow. It is both an island and county so either "in" or "on" should work (guess I would prefer "on Hawaii Island". Any chance we could spell the island names with okinas? I understand keeping the titles exactly the same as the official registry names, but the islands are really Hawaiian names. Other ideas: a link back to the state page from each island, and a link to the registry web site on each one. Put at least one picture of one of that island's sites in that island's section on this page. Agree with the color code key. W Nowicki (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like "Hawaii Island" — I don't remember ever hearing that usage.  What about "NRHP listings on the island of _____", using the same format with each list that gets split out?  Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, sure, the article and category is "Hawaii (island)" which includes that usage, but yes, "on the island of ___" makes it clear, so that sounds good. I am still favoring using okinas in the text only, not in article titles. W Nowicki (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Big Island has been split off. Please review and see if there are any more issues. One is how the pages sort on the :Category:National Register of Historic Places in Hawaii - I put the big island under "H" for Hawaii, but maybe it should be at the top, as Oahu is? I removed the aviation link from here since the sites are all on Oahu. Perhaps need to add more refs to the sub pages, etc.W Nowicki (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split into multiple articles? 

message: I'd like to see each island get its own list article, but it would probably be a bad idea to give Kahoolawe and the NW Islands separate list articles.  Good to begin the splitting of ones that definitely need to be split out :-)  I think we could do better on the naming, however: since we're going by islands rather than by counties, wouldn't it be better to have "National Register of Historic Places listings on _____" rather than "National Register of Historic Places listings in _____"?  It seems more normal to talk about "on Oahu" than "in Oahu".  Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and split out Oahu, the biggest, to National Register of Historic Places listings in Oahu.  I also tried including a Key section with a draft color code key in it.  There may be some colors not covered, say if there are any National Historic Sites on Oahu, so it may need improvement.  Also how i linked to it, leaving a section on Oahu in this state-wide list-article and using a "main" link to the separate article as being the main source on Oahu in particular, might be improved.  Perhaps the section left behind should have more description, including saying in text that there are 150 NRHP listings in (or on?) Oahu.  Also how i set up the Oahu article with intro and categories and so on might be improved.  But it is an example.  And, since it removed 150 NRHP listings out of 320 or so, the performance here should now be better.  About the article name, I am indifferent to "on" vs. "in" and would defer to whatever more local editors prefer.  Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Wow, thanks that was fast. Yes, the page loads much quicker now. I may have time to do the Big Island tomorrow. It is both an island and county so either "in" or "on" should work (guess I would prefer "on Hawaii Island". Any chance we could spell the island names with okinas? I understand keeping the titles exactly the same as the official registry names, but the islands are really Hawaiian names. Other ideas: a link back to the state page from each island, and a link to the registry web site on each one. Put at least one picture of one of that island's sites in that island's section on this page. Agree with the color code key. W Nowicki (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like "Hawaii Island" — I don't remember ever hearing that usage.  What about "NRHP listings on the island of _____", using the same format with each list that gets split out?  Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, sure, the article and category is "Hawaii (island)" which includes that usage, but yes, "on the island of ___" makes it clear, so that sounds good. I am still favoring using okinas in the text only, not in article titles. W Nowicki (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Big Island has been split off. Please review and see if there are any more issues. One is how the pages sort on the :Category:National Register of Historic Places in Hawaii - I put the big island under "H" for Hawaii, but maybe it should be at the top, as Oahu is? I removed the aviation link from here since the sites are all on Oahu. Perhaps need to add more refs to the sub pages, etc.W Nowicki (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Which ones to split?

message: All- Just a quick question, concerning the use of Hansens Disease vs Leprosy. WHY do we use the term Hansens Disease, when in reality, many many more people will know the term Leprosy??Coal town guy (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leprosy or Hansens Disease 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Register of Historic Places listings in Hawaii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213230925/http://maalaeastore.com/about/ to http://maalaeastore.com/about/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Register of Historic Places listings in Hawaii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222162920/http://www.historichawaii.org/n_03/advocacy_120105.html to http://www.historichawaii.org/n_03/advocacy_120105.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)