Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 4

message: I just created Colden Mansion Ruins, which was only added to the Register two months ago. Can anyone else claim a faster creation of a new listing, or do I hold the record? Daniel Case 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno.  What about Crossett Municipal Auditorium?  That article seems very timely and interesting and in-depth, and the site was just listed on September 20.  If you held the record, it just broke in yer hands.  Sincerely, doncram 02:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the record but... 23 days: Southern Pacific Passenger Depot. :) But I already had pictures and it was on my to-do list as an Amtrak station. And it's still really a stub, though the train project thought it wasn't. Katr67 03:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems like that was the record, now held by the auditorium. Daniel Case 03:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not so fast, NE2.  As "Route 1 Extension", the Pulaksi Skyway was added to the National Register on 12 August 2005.  But you only edited that into the article on 25 September 2007.  Up to that point, the wikipedia article was mentioning only that it conceivably could be eligible for listing on the National Register, even when it already had been listed for 2 years! doncram 19:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quickest article creation after NR addition? 

message: African Burial Ground, a NRHP and NHL in NYC was dedicated as a National Monument today, I saw in on TV news.  It is one of 111 NHLs in NYC that have been updated by various members of wp:NRHP recently.  I drafted a news article about the dedication and "published" it at WikiNews main page.  It needs development.  I don't know what it takes for it to reach main page "In the News" billing.  doncram 02:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A wikinews editor improved the article and published it as African burial ground in New York City dedicated as National Monument.  It includes first public mention that there are 110 National Historic Landmarks in NYC alone (in contrast, the African Burial Ground is just the 123rd National Monument in the United States).  I counted up all the rows in the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City in order to say that. doncram 19:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[African Burial Ground]] in news today as National Monument dedicated 

message: I was going to try altering the code to allow sizing of the pics, instead of having only a default. Mostly for the vertical ones. But it's just beyond my grasp of Wikicode, and I don't want to risk wrecking the whole thing. If others with more knowledge could help, it'd be muchly appreciated. :) --Ebyabe 23:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a template guru! IvoShandor 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone give us any help on this? IvoShandor 17:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy do I feel dumb, all I had to do was change the image size and the box size, no new parameter was needed. If anyone thinks it's too small feel free to kick it up a notch. IvoShandor 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size in Infobox NRHP 

message: Michigan State Capitol 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. Epbr123 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that a minimal requirement for a NHL site article to be a Featured article, not met by this one yet, is that it should include reference links to the National Historic Landmark Nomination text and accompanying photos set, if such is available.  These are highly relevant to explaining why the site became a NHL and provide rich info for the text of the article, besides providing a good follow-on source for the interested reader of the article.  Search at NPS search site for NHL nominations / NRHP inventory-registration documents to see the Michigan State Capitol text and photo sets. doncram 03:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Michigan State Capitol]] FAR 

message: For weeks we have been trying to shrink the default image size or add an image size parameter. It looked like it worked for a few days at 260px and then someone came along and said that didn't work, which it rendered fine in my browser. Now there has been something done to the template that causes it render in correctly, this obviously affects literally thousands of articles so a quick fix is in order. IvoShandor 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Infobox nrhp]] 

message: A reminder that geographical coordinates for many sites are in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/coords.  In addition to including them in articles, using them in Wikipedia:Requested pictures makes entries visible in the page's map.  (SEWilco 21:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all well and good, but there are really a lot of them that aren't listed. Nothing in Nassau & Suffolk Counties in New York. It helps if we all knew what each coordinates were. I listed them with a lot of blank maps, hoping somebody would fill those maps in with red dots in the right places, but nobody would, and unfortunatley some of them have been deleted. ----DanTD 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are several map technologies being worked on, which is one reason for that reminder.  Two collections of requested pictures might soon get on a map, and coordinates on a single page can already be displayed separately.  Nobody has yet picked up the task of generating locator maps within an article, but getting the coordinates defined is the first step toward that.  (SEWilco 02:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates and Picture Requests 

message: Currently, somebody made the claim that Lancaster (Amtrak station) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and I need to know if this can be confirmed. Although the architectural style, and it's original name as the "Pennsylvania Railroad Station" seems to indicate that this might be possible, I've looked on both NRHP websites, as well as TrainWeb and the official website of the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and neither of them support this claim. ----DanTD 02:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it's not listed individually, but is part of the Lancaster City Historic District http://www.livingplaces.com/PA/Lancaster_County/Lancaster_City.html I think you would have to look at the NRHP nomination to see if it's a contributing property. If it is (and it should be--lovely building), then it would be considered on the NRHP. I hope that helps! Katr67 05:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did consider the possiblility that it might be listed in one historic district or another. I didn't see it mentioned on the two NRHP sites, but I did find it mentioned briefly in the link you showed me. Thanks a lot. ----DanTD 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRHP status for [[Lancaster (Amtrak station)]] 

message: Oregon State Capital has been listed at FAC if anyone from this project would like to participate in the process. Aboutmovies 19:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRHP FA candidate 

message: This dab page was reduced to bluelinks but I reverted it. Someone who is more familiar with the dab project might want to leave a note on the talk page about what we're trying to do there. Katr67 23:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the blue and red links are NRHP/NHL sites.  I don't recognize why the normal text entries are there.  Clarify in the Talk page.  (SEWilco 14:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to suspect--they are. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Disambiguation. What I was saying above is, "Someone messed up what WP:NRHP, of which I am a member, is trying to do. I fixed it, but can someone who is more involved with the disambiguation subproject of NRHP please explain what the page is for so it doesn't happen again?" Most of the edits to the page were by WP:NRHP members. (Page history)Katr67 15:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[U.S. Post Office]] 

message: I don't see a recommendation regarding article usage of links to maps.  The Geolinks templates may be superseded by recent changes in the coord template which provide a list of mapping services when the geographical coordinate is clicked on.  Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Geolinks-coord_Issues.  I notice that recent versions of the Geobox template emit coord-style coordinates and locator maps.  (SEWilco 16:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article references to maps 

message: Want to put dates in format YYYY-MM-DD so that they will sort properly.  I checked  Help:Date_formatting_and_linking which, by my reading, indicated that YYYY-MM-DD format would be sortable.  
But trying YYYY-MM-DD format in NHL designation date column of List of National Historic Landmarks in New York, it doesn't work.  It still sorts the 1 October 2005 before 2 September 1967.  Actually it displays each date as two separate chunks, just as when you write it in MM-DD, YYYY yourself.  I am missing something.  Help!  doncram 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following Help:Sorting I tried adding  to the first entry in the date column.  I think it helped.  Maybe that was needed because there is more than dates in the column.  (SEWilco 03:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Using a DD-MMM, YYYY format works.  For example, 28 Apr,2003. The wikitable sort algorithm will eventually get better, probably, and properly support other date formats and mixes thereof.  Have implemented in List of National Historic Landmarks by state and in some of the state-specific links. doncram 03:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: Date formatting in sortable wikitable so sorts properly? 

message: The newly-created (as of today) Cogan House Covered Bridge uses the bridge version of the  template, which I hadn't known existed. I found that the free fields were an excellent place to add the NRHP date and number.
So, that solves that problem. Perhaps I can talk to Caroig, who's been working very hard on these wonderful templates that are seeing more and more use in articles about geographical features, about adding some more optional fields that could help us out (I think it would be neat to have the NRHP, CP, or NHL banner right below the top picture, complete with the same color backing we use). Daniel Case 19:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges#Geoboxes_for_bridges about this subject as well.  I think a combined infobox would be a good idea, but I'm a little unsure about just using the free-form fields to do this.  It might be nice to have some structure behind this.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggested over there an NRHP brick format, which emits a very brief NRHP label to be placed under infoboxes.  Many infoboxes have a lot of details which might be duplicated in NRHP boxes.  It might also be possible to have a [details] button to expand the brick into a detailed box.  Can the detailed box be the default on the print page?  (SEWilco 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I bring some people from WikiProject Trains in on this discussion? ----DanTD 13:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point out the Bridges discussion to them.  There are several rail NRHP and they have some informative rail infoboxes.  Also they might be interested in Geobox|Bridge for their rail bridges.  So they might be interested in both the existence of Geobox|Bridge and in the NRHP infobox.  (SEWilco 14:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we're at it, why not bring in the Lighthouse and Ships folks, too? Einbierbitte 18:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, take a look at nesting the Infobox at Rose Bowl (stadium) Einbierbitte 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A partial solution to our need for a hybrid infobox 

message: The Register maintains a large photo collection and I have always wondered what the copyright status of the images was. I queried the NRHP through email, this is the response I got.
By allowing a photograph to be submitted to the National Park Service with a National Register form, photographers grant permission to the National Park Service to use the photograph for publication and other purposes, including duplication, display, distribution, study, publicity, and audio-visual presentations.   The rights to almost all of the photographs in the nomination files (and on our website), however, are not owned by the National Park Service.  They are not considered to be in the public domain. Permission to use these photographs would have to come from the source of the photograph, usually either the photographer, the archives collection of a specific organization, or the State Historic Preservation Office from where the property exists. (You can find contact information for the SHPOs at: http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/shpolist.htm).
The only photographs considered to be in the public domain would be those specifically marked as "by National Park Service," or those taken and submitted to the National Register by another Federal agency.
While fair use doctrines may apply for certain types of educational purposes, before using a National Register photograph not in the public domain you would need the permission from the photographer and possibly from the property owner, but you wouldn't need permission from the National Park Service.
The last part is nonsense, you don't need property owner permission to shoot a building from public property, only to cross onto there property (must be what they're referring to), even if you did so illegally it would have no bearing on the copyright status of the photo. However, it looks like a no-go as far as using most NRHP slides and images on the NRHP. This would include anything in the nomination forms, unless it meets the criteria outlined by the NRHP above, in the email response. I thought I would post this here so everyone knew, I have seen a few comments here and there about using them, and it appears the answer is, "not free enough for Wikipedia." Note that WP's NFCC won't allow fair use of an existing building or structure. IvoShandor 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take this to include any photo submitted for lessons on the NPS Teaching with Historic Places program are likewise not in the public domain, unless they originated from a Federal agency. Einbierbitte 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that to be true. Do those photos have attribution on them? IvoShandor 21:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pleased to find this disclaimer on a NOAA site:"The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public so long as you do not 1) claim it is your own (e.g. by claiming copyright for NWS information -- see below), 2) use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS, or 3) modify it in content and then present it as official government material. You also cannot present information of your own in a way that makes it appear to be official government information.."  Does the term "government server" apply only to NOAA?  I doubt it. I bet the photos on the NPS servers are covered by the same rules—the e-mail above notwithstanding.--Appraiser 00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This discussion seems to be duplicating what was probably already discussed about Wikipedia:Copyrights.  For the National Register, see the links in .  (SEWilco 03:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: For example, Bathhouse Row was just created with NPS text and pictures (two color pictures from Commons have been added).  It's almost all U.S. Government public domain material.  If you look at the source's title page (or the source file of the images) you can see it was produced by an NPS employee (the same one happened to produce both the text and images).  Not everything on .gov web sites is public domain, notably stuff done by federal contractors, but there is usable material for some topics.  (SEWilco 03:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion was meant to clarify the issue of nominator submitted photos and slides that reside in the massive archive maintained by the NRHP and oft made available online by SHPOs. The copyright status of U.S. government works was never questioned, merely added to the NRHP representatives response as somewhat of an aside. I would note that I submitted some follow-ups, mainly to ascertain the status of maps and other parts of nomination forms, floor plans and the like, it appears they may be "free enough" (email response follows):
I don't recall anyone actually ever asking the copyright question regarding the nomination maps, though I suppose that a highly detailed and crafted map could be considered the intellectual property of the preparer. Most of the maps, however, are already taken from other sources (city planning maps, etc.) and augmented with nomination information, making them difficult to call "original" art.  The text has never been considered copyrighted material.  Like any reference work, however, use of the materials should be properly cited and credited.
The National Register nomination forms are considered public documents and reside in the public domain.  There is no formal "copyright' in place on the written application forms.  Anyone may copy and re-distribute the applications.  (The only exception to this would be in the case of applications for sensitive sites, like archeological properties, wherethe National Register reserves the right under the law to withhold locational information and other aspects of the nomination form whose release may likely cause the damage or destruction of the resources.  See Section 304, NHPA).
This was the response from the Register. This discussion was not meant to duplicate any discussion, the status of NPS and DOI works has always been known around this project far as I know. IvoShandor 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Is the statement from the Register too conservative, or can in fact photos taken by contractors, owned by local historical societies, or otherwise not falling within the "produced by Federal NPS employees" categories be considered public domain?  This comes up in discussion on my talk page and Appraiser's talk page that I wish would occur here, in regards to a photograph of St. Andrew's Church (Prairieville, Alabama), which was included in the "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: St. Andrew's Church" that is a reference in that article.  From discussion above, I personally would believe that the text of that Inventory-Nomination is public domain, but not the photo taken by Frank L. Thiemonge III whose negative is owned by the Alabama Historical Association.  However Appraiser, who expressed disbelief of the Register's view in a comment further above, believes the photo is public domain.  I would tend to hope that the photo is in fact public domain already, but don't want to be too bold.  Should someone slap a copyright violation tag on the photo, now included in the article?  Or how can this be resolved.  Some help on this would be appreciated. doncram 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look up US Gov PD and you find dozens of years ago federal contractors were given copyright.  Only work by fed employees is fed PD.  Some of the NRHP "new search" docs have attribution for text and images.  (SEWilco 01:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My viewpoint comes from this statement on a NOAA website: "The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public so long as you do not 1) claim it is your own (e.g. by claiming copyright for NWS information -- see below), 2) use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS, or 3) modify it in content and then present it as official government material. You also cannot present information of your own in a way that makes it appear to be official government information." The picture of St. Andrew's Church resides on a U.S. National Park Service website, along with a photo-submittal form that credits the photo to Frank L. Thiemonge III.  I don't see anything on the photo or on the form that specifically claims copyright.  I believe that by submitting the form without a "specific annotation", the creator has released the data to the public domain.--Appraiser 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The forms for those photos only identify the photographer and photo; if the photo copyright was being assigned there should be phrasing which specifically mentions copyright.  Just as by talking about the photo here we are not affecting its actual copyright ownership, a description of the photo does not affect the ownership.  You might have confused the NPS description form with the status of something in other historical archives where PD is mandatory in order to be within the archive.  (SEWilco 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  The NOAA statement follows the law that work by a U.S. Government employee is PD but work by a government contractor is not (the contractor gives permission to the government to use the work for government purposes but the contractor holds the copyright).  NASA is particularly problematical due to so many contractors (such as JPL being a contractor).  This is reflected in WP:COPYRIGHT#U.S. government photographs.  For NPS, the NPS disclaimer page has a similar Ownership PD statement.  Also, the "new search" pages  sometimes shows that NRHP descriptions/images have been created by NPS employees. (SEWilco 15:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  For example, the pictures of the steamboat President (pdf photos) show some photos are courtesy of another organization while some are NPS photos.  The last photo has no credit so we can't use it without confirmation (although it is probably NPS photo).  A more formal example is Bathhouse Row, where page 12 of the nomination form shows it was created by an NPS employee and the separate photos each have a typed description which includes mention of their being an NPS photo and that NPS has the negative (and the photographer happens to also be the nominator).  (SEWilco 15:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Update, since the search link didn't stay working, go here, type in "St. Andrew's Church" in Resource Name and "Alabama" in State.  That should lead you to the page that says, "Restrictions:Public Domain."--Appraiser 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The link you posted is to a temporary search result which we can't see.  Maybe you mean the search result page which mentions "Restrictions:	Public domain".  I think we have reason to doubt that, unless the info was given to the NPS before copyright law changed.  There was a USGov PD law change decades ago.  (SEWilco 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is the issue as to whether documents given to NPS in 1973 are PD; under present United States copyright law I think they are not USGovPD.  The application forms have a 1973 date.  I don't know when the "contractor" provision to USGovPD appeared.  There was a major change to U.S. copyright law in 1976: Copyright Act of 1976 and another in 1983: Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988.  I think the USPD change was in 1976 but haven't found confirmation.  Copyright status of work by the U.S. government refers to this FAR clause which has a 1987 date (but that might not be the first date it took effect).  FAR does not affect this situation, as the state group is not a contractor, but might help in tracing to the USPD rules in effect in 1973.  (SEWilco 17:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not even close to being a lawyer, but I don't see how anything that is "in the public domain" in 1973, could be taken OUT of the public domain at a later date due to a law change.  That's akin to putting champagne back in the bottles in the Red Sox' locker room.  Once it's free, it's always free, IMO.--Appraiser 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pointing out that although I think under present law the photos would not be USGovPD, the law has changed since 1973 and I don't know the status of the 1973 material.  Maybe in 1973 it did become USGovPD.  However, I suspect the original church photos are not owned by the NPS and the copies given to the NPS are probably not PD.  If the photos were taken as part of Alabama government work then the 1973 Alabama copyright-related laws would apply (states have various copyright policies for state-funded work, and the 1976 federal law overrode some state laws).  (SEWilco 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There are two workarounds: Request free photos or contact photo owner to confirm status (or acquire permission).  You can request a Wikipedia take a photo (either  or asking an Alabama Wikipedian).  If you can't find the 1973 organization with the negatives, you could try a web search for the photographer.  (SEWilco 19:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The St. Andrews Church photo in question has been deleted.  Thank you to Appraiser and to SEWilco for participating in this discussion and getting to this resolution for now.  The discussion got out some useful information, I think.  It doesn't solve the problem of getting a photo for the beautiful little church yet, though. doncram 06:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: One approach is to contact the Alabama Historical Society, which operated as an unincorporated association from 1947 until becoming 501c3 nonprofit in 1998.  I could pursue that, but would be inclined to wait until some more work is done on the List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama.  There may be more than one site to request photographs for.  I know there are sample letters for requesting copyright permission at Wikipedia:Example Requests for Permission, but does anyone have experience in contacting local or state historical associations for photographs for NRHPs, though?doncram 06:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Another source is HABS. Elkman pointed out that there are pictures for St. Andrews Church listed at HABS, although you can't see online images of them.  So one could order and pay for photographs to be generated.  Then, could one scan and post those?  I don't know.  doncram 06:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe you can't see online images, but with Firefox I see a camera icon with this link to photos.  (SEWilco 15:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Register photos and slides 

message: : Is the statement from the Register too conservative, or can in fact photos taken by contractors, owned by local historical societies, or otherwise not falling within the "produced by Federal NPS employees" categories be considered public domain?  This comes up in discussion on my talk page and Appraiser's talk page that I wish would occur here, in regards to a photograph of St. Andrew's Church (Prairieville, Alabama), which was included in the "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: St. Andrew's Church" that is a reference in that article.  From discussion above, I personally would believe that the text of that Inventory-Nomination is public domain, but not the photo taken by Frank L. Thiemonge III whose negative is owned by the Alabama Historical Association.  However Appraiser, who expressed disbelief of the Register's view in a comment further above, believes the photo is public domain.  I would tend to hope that the photo is in fact public domain already, but don't want to be too bold.  Should someone slap a copyright violation tag on the photo, now included in the article?  Or how can this be resolved.  Some help on this would be appreciated. doncram 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look up US Gov PD and you find dozens of years ago federal contractors were given copyright.  Only work by fed employees is fed PD.  Some of the NRHP "new search" docs have attribution for text and images.  (SEWilco 01:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My viewpoint comes from this statement on a NOAA website: "The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public so long as you do not 1) claim it is your own (e.g. by claiming copyright for NWS information -- see below), 2) use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS, or 3) modify it in content and then present it as official government material. You also cannot present information of your own in a way that makes it appear to be official government information." The picture of St. Andrew's Church resides on a U.S. National Park Service website, along with a photo-submittal form that credits the photo to Frank L. Thiemonge III.  I don't see anything on the photo or on the form that specifically claims copyright.  I believe that by submitting the form without a "specific annotation", the creator has released the data to the public domain.--Appraiser 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The forms for those photos only identify the photographer and photo; if the photo copyright was being assigned there should be phrasing which specifically mentions copyright.  Just as by talking about the photo here we are not affecting its actual copyright ownership, a description of the photo does not affect the ownership.  You might have confused the NPS description form with the status of something in other historical archives where PD is mandatory in order to be within the archive.  (SEWilco 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The NOAA statement follows the law that work by a U.S. Government employee is PD but work by a government contractor is not (the contractor gives permission to the government to use the work for government purposes but the contractor holds the copyright).  NASA is particularly problematical due to so many contractors (such as JPL being a contractor).  This is reflected in WP:COPYRIGHT#U.S. government photographs.  For NPS, the NPS disclaimer page has a similar Ownership PD statement.  Also, the "new search" pages  sometimes shows that NRHP descriptions/images have been created by NPS employees. (SEWilco 15:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  For example, the pictures of the steamboat President (pdf photos) show some photos are courtesy of another organization while some are NPS photos.  The last photo has no credit so we can't use it without confirmation (although it is probably NPS photo).  A more formal example is Bathhouse Row, where page 12 of the nomination form shows it was created by an NPS employee and the separate photos each have a typed description which includes mention of their being an NPS photo and that NPS has the negative (and the photographer happens to also be the nominator).  (SEWilco 15:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Update, since the search link didn't stay working, go here, type in "St. Andrew's Church" in Resource Name and "Alabama" in State.  That should lead you to the page that says, "Restrictions:Public Domain."--Appraiser 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The link you posted is to a temporary search result which we can't see.  Maybe you mean the search result page which mentions "Restrictions:	Public domain".  I think we have reason to doubt that, unless the info was given to the NPS before copyright law changed.  There was a USGov PD law change decades ago.  (SEWilco 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is the issue as to whether documents given to NPS in 1973 are PD; under present United States copyright law I think they are not USGovPD.  The application forms have a 1973 date.  I don't know when the "contractor" provision to USGovPD appeared.  There was a major change to U.S. copyright law in 1976: Copyright Act of 1976 and another in 1983: Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988.  I think the USPD change was in 1976 but haven't found confirmation.  Copyright status of work by the U.S. government refers to this FAR clause which has a 1987 date (but that might not be the first date it took effect).  FAR does not affect this situation, as the state group is not a contractor, but might help in tracing to the USPD rules in effect in 1973.  (SEWilco 17:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not even close to being a lawyer, but I don't see how anything that is "in the public domain" in 1973, could be taken OUT of the public domain at a later date due to a law change.  That's akin to putting champagne back in the bottles in the Red Sox' locker room.  Once it's free, it's always free, IMO.--Appraiser 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pointing out that although I think under present law the photos would not be USGovPD, the law has changed since 1973 and I don't know the status of the 1973 material.  Maybe in 1973 it did become USGovPD.  However, I suspect the original church photos are not owned by the NPS and the copies given to the NPS are probably not PD.  If the photos were taken as part of Alabama government work then the 1973 Alabama copyright-related laws would apply (states have various copyright policies for state-funded work, and the 1976 federal law overrode some state laws).  (SEWilco 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There are two workarounds: Request free photos or contact photo owner to confirm status (or acquire permission).  You can request a Wikipedia take a photo (either  or asking an Alabama Wikipedian).  If you can't find the 1973 organization with the negatives, you could try a web search for the photographer.  (SEWilco 19:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The St. Andrews Church photo in question has been deleted.  Thank you to Appraiser and to SEWilco for participating in this discussion and getting to this resolution for now.  The discussion got out some useful information, I think.  It doesn't solve the problem of getting a photo for the beautiful little church yet, though. doncram 06:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: One approach is to contact the Alabama Historical Society, which operated as an unincorporated association from 1947 until becoming 501c3 nonprofit in 1998.  I could pursue that, but would be inclined to wait until some more work is done on the List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama.  There may be more than one site to request photographs for.  I know there are sample letters for requesting copyright permission at Wikipedia:Example Requests for Permission, but does anyone have experience in contacting local or state historical associations for photographs for NRHPs, though?doncram 06:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Another source is HABS. Elkman pointed out that there are pictures for St. Andrews Church listed at HABS, although you can't see online images of them.  So one could order and pay for photographs to be generated.  Then, could one scan and post those?  I don't know.  doncram 06:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe you can't see online images, but with Firefox I see a camera icon with this link to photos.  (SEWilco 15:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Andrew's Church 

message: Anybody better than me at this can add and fill in an Infobox for this upcoming Did You Know? hook? Circeus 00:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Joseph Priestley House]] 

message: I've worked on List of National Historic Landmarks in New Hampshire.  I think it merits Start quality rating, although some of its descriptions are very terse.  Discuss at Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in New Hampshire.  Could someone else please review the article? doncram 00:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Ebyabe and Appraiser for evaluating the article and giving it Start rating.  I daresay it wasn't too difficult to verify that it met the checklist of proposed criteria, which I had laid out in the Talk page already. Thanks for your comments in the Talk page, too.  Yes, I agree it needs work before meriting a further ratings advance. doncram 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality rating for List of NHLs in New Hampshire 

message: I came across a neat checklist-based system for assessing articles within the Wikiproject Florida. It provides Yes/No indicators for whether an article meets each of 5 stated criteria for achieving B-status.  The five criteria are: 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited, 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies, 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content, 4. It is free from major grammatical errors, and 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
See Quality scale in Florida assessment and see Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida/Project banner. To apply within assessment of NHL articles here at WP:NRHP, one could define additional yes/no parameters for each checklist item, for each level of rating.  E.g., whether the NHL date is given and supported by appropriate reference, or not.  These are optional parameters.  doncram 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment checklists 

message: I've been working on the photos for Bellingham, Washington's HRPs, and am nearing the end. However, two listings are troubling me, the Sanitary Meat Market is listed for three addresses next to each other, one of which doesn't exist. So, I took a pic of the the three buildings it seems it could be, but don't want to post it without knowing the deal. As well, the Larrabee Mansion is listed at 405 Fieldstone Road, but Google Maps doesn't show anything for this. I'm not really sure if folks have access to sources other than the web that would be helpful in figuring these out. Anyone?
: Maybe this will help find the mansion.  Somehow people find it for weddings.  SEWilco (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22sanitary+meat+market%22+bellingham&btnG=Search This search has only a few items to examine about the Sanitary site.  If you're not certain exactly which buildings are correct, a single photo which includes all the candidates is a good start.  The image description could identify what is known and that can be adjusted if someone learns more.  SEWilco (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this made me think that the building must be the one in the middle, and that they've changed the address system at some point since the business actually existed, so I cropped the photo to show the one building. I'm still a little confused about the Larrabee house though. Murderbike (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, just figured out that the City of Bellingham and NHRP sites were mislisting the address as Fieldstone Road instead of Fieldston.Murderbike (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help? 

message: The Fox Theatre (Spokane) has been renamed the Bing Crosby Theater. Should the article now redirect to Bing Crosby Theater, or vice versa? Murderbike (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more 

message: It seems odd that this article is a redirect to a list for a specific county in Vermont, at least a couple others that are specified for counties, actually show all the other counties as well. Anybody know what's going on here? Murderbike (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's odd, so I boldly changed it back to a statewide page. My best guess is that the redirection was done by mistake. (I guess that because I've been known to make mistakes, too.) --Orlady (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Registered Historic Places in Vermont]] 

message: Great work, those of you who are part of the drive to create all the missing NHL articles and get better photos. I'd just like to point out, as I did at Sunken Village Archeological Site, (which is subject to heavy looting) that some of those sites are sensitive archaeological sites and "address restricted" per the NRHP, so it should be made clear that the photo requests are for photo uploads of existing photos and not an invitation to trespass on these sites. I know some address-restricted places are merely about the exact location, and that the general location is accessible (Fort Yamhill comes to mind), so after the rush to get these articles written is over, I think it would be well to do a little more research and make sure the photo requests aren't inappropriate. Thanks for considering it! Katr67 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looting of historic and archaeological sites is a very real danger that editors should be keenly attuned to. For a site like Sunken Village, which indeed does have a history of looting, we should absolutely not be disseminating location information that further endangers the sites. Photos of the actual location of such a site could give away substantial clues regarding how to find it. In those cases, we should think creatively about how we can illustrate the article with other images. For Sunken Village, a depiction of contemporaneous Chinookan life would be good, or a photo of some of the artifacts that have been (legitimately) excavated there.  Ipoellet (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a note, some of the address restricted sites are complete nonsense. Two in Illinois that come to mind are Native American mound sites in Rockford, Illinois (Beattie Park Mound Group), and another in Sterling, Illinois, which I never did finish an article for. Both are in public parks. If the information has been published elsewhere it should most certainly be included, per WP:NPOV, to omit it would be a violation of that. However, if the site information has never been published, as in the heavily looted site above, or one near me in Illinois that I located and photographed (but have not published the photos here because of my own concerns about disseminating location information. It is not our job at Wikipedia to protect these sites but I personally feel it is my job, as a citizen of Earth. While we shouldn't encourage illegal behavior, if someone commits an illegal act and obtains photos, we can use them (one law violation (trespassing) doesn't make an otherwise legal act (photography) committed during said violation a violation itself). My basic point is, if the location information is readily available from sources other than the NRHP, there is absolutely no reason why we can't publish it here.IvoShandor (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NHL photo concerns 

message: This is just a reminder that National Register churches in the same state, county and even city can have the same name. A case in point is Christ Church in Washington, D.C.. The List of Registered Historic Places in the District of Columbia listed only one with a link to the disambiguation page which listed Christ Church, O Street, N.W.. Archiplanet has a listing only for this one on O Street. Yet the National Register listed another Christ Church on G Street, S.E. I have just created articles for both of them. O Street is Christ Church, Georgetown (Washington, D.C.) and G Street is Christ Church, Washington Parish (Washington, D.C.). I've corrected or am correcting the disambig & List pages to reflect both churches. clariosophic (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution on Church Names