Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Cambridge, Massachusetts

message: All lists of National Registered Historic Places are generated from the National Park Service. Their Template is the source. No new place can be added unless it is put on the National List. This and other articles were created as transfers verbatim from the List of Registered Historic Places in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, which Wikipedia said was way too long.  The original list has links to each new list under the city or town's heading it was transferred from. Size of original article was reduced by about 75%. clariosophic 23:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: This is a general reminder for everyone.  The City of Cambridge has photos of almost *all* properties in the city of Cambridge online for *free*.  It is on the city's "Assessing Department" website seen here. 
Example 770 Mass Ave. (the Central Square post office across from City Hall.) CaribDigita 23:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but note the copyright notice at the bottom of each page.  It is only Federal government images and text that are automatically free of copyright. State and local governments have their own rules.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, if you click on "Disclaimer" it says info can be used for individual or non-commercial usage??  "COMMERCIAL USE PROHIBITED: This web site and the contents are intended only for the individual, non-commercial use of web site users. No user of this web site may resell, republish, print, download or copy any portion of this web site or the contents for commercial use without the prior written consent of the City of Cambridge, except that reasonable copying or printing of its contents for individual, non-commercial use is permitted." CaribDigita (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find, but it proves my point.  Wiki policy is to use only images that are free for all use, commercial and non-commercial, "Any content which does not satisfy any of the criteria, such as "non-commercial use" only images, images with permission for use on Wikipedia only, or images that are fully copyrighted are classified as non-free." (see Wikipedia:Non-free content).. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  15:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it could be a great resource: for example, if I were to be in Cambridge and carry out a personal Wikipedia Takes Cambridge project, I'd use it to make sure that my pictures were of the right buildings.  Nyttend (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I can see you point on images that are un-hindered by various stipulations. CaribDigita (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder. City of Cambridge has photos of almost all properties in Cambridge online. 

message: I see two listings for "Mount Auburn Cemetery" in addition to the listing for "Mount Auburn Cemetery Reception House". One of them has the National Register Historic District color, the other, later, one has the National Historic Landmark District color. They are essentially the same, differing only in object and structure counts.  If a National Register Historic Place (or District) gets upgraded to National Historic Landmark (or Landmark District) (as I assume this was), do we usually list it both ways?  Or is there something special about Mount Auburn?  Does it deserve a comment in the "Summary" column? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  00:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about "something special".  I've only ever seen this in one other section: Oldfields in Indianapolis is listed twice, having first been listed as a normal district and secondly as an NHLD.  I couldn't find any differences, so I took the liberty of removing the non-NHL from the list.  It's possible, however, that only a portion of the original HD was upgraded to NHLD.  In this situation, NRIS says that HD and NHLD have 170 and 175 acres, 1 and 6 structures, and 0 and 15 objects respectively, so I expect that they're included separately because they don't have the same boundaries.  Therefore, I think that it would be best to treat this as a boundary increase, merging the two entries as one and noting simply that the NHLD designation included a boundary increase.  Could someone else take care of it at the moment?  I'm in the process of preparing to upload thirteen pictures to the Indianapolis list.  Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I'll bet that the 170 versus 175 acres and other differences are just different eyes doing the write-ups.  The difference in areas could be something as simple as measuring to the fence versus measuring to the actual legal boundary. It's in a built up area with roads or houses all around -- I'd be very surprised if the boundaries actually changed between the two listings.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  11:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mount Auburn Cemetery 

message: I notice there is an un-used column in which is listed "city/town".  Would it be okay to rename this as "neighborhood" and include which neighborhood of Cambridge the historic place is located?
Namely:
* :Category:Neighborhoods_in_Cambridge,_Massachusetts
I'm thinking about listing each historic place (of this list) and include it within its associated neighborhood article. Esp. since the neighborhood articles now are just stubs and could use more info like local: "parks", "schools", "demographics", "transportation info", major roads (routes), et. al. CaribDigita (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thinking about adding neighbourhood of Carmbridge? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on National Register of Historic Places listings in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 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/20100604002137/http://www.cambridgema.gov/~Historic/markers.html to http://www.cambridgema.gov/~historic/markers.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100604013539/http://www.cambridgema.gov/~Historic/designatedproperties.html to http://www.cambridgema.gov/~historic/designatedproperties.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) 04:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)