This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Andover has, if I remember right, the largest number of listings of any municipality in the county. It was split out simply to reduce the size of this overlarge article. There's no reason that other municipalities can't be split out, so doing Methuen was correct, and you're right in saying that its table should be removed here. Please replace its table here with a notice like Andover has. I can get it later if you can't.
Nyttend (
talk)
21:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Another thing i don't GET is the numerical sequence. If I were to remove all of the Methuen listings i would have to reorder this entire list by hand. Which is not an attractive prospect. I need clarification of the third footnote:"Numbers represent an ordering by significant words." From what I can see the numbering is merely sequential.
EraserGirl (
talk)
21:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry, it has to be by hand. We've tried to find some way to automate it, but there isn't one. No complaints; I'll do it. As for significant words: it's sequential based on a modified alphabetical order — alphabetical for these significant words. Typically, it's the first word, although some minor ones are not included ("the", sometimes "old", minor words like that), and properties named for individuals are alphabetised by the person's last name. Am I making sense?
Nyttend (
talk)
02:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I have a method for renumbering tables pretty quickly by copying the table out to Excel and manipulating the information there. I'll be happy to do so for you anytime. Just ask. --
sanfranman59 (
talk)
02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Well NOW I feel bad, as this was my chore to do and you all did it for me. Seriously babe, i would have done it. I save this kind of repetitive task to do when i want some busy work while i' on the phone or something. Some people do crosswords, i do this. Thanks for your efforts. I am off to go shoot some more images while the sun is out. In New England that's an oddity.
EraserGirl (
talk)
16:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I reiterate, I don't understand the ordering on this page. the numbers are meaningless and in fact hinder editing. I extracted Lawrence in order to begin working on that series of articles and reordering the list with arbitrary numbers was tedious for no real apparent reason. I would propose that the numbers be removed from this table as they hold no real value. alphabetical ordering should suffice.
EraserGirl (
talk)
20:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Hi E-Girl and thanks for all of your efforts. Like you, I'm a bit of a photo bug and have photographed a bunch of sites here in the SF Bay Area as well as many in Stark County, Ohio. I enjoy the challenge of hunting down the sites. It's kind of like a treasure hunt.
If for no other reason, the numbering is useful for quickly knowing how many listings there are in the table. These counts are used in a variety of other articles. While I agree that they're tedious to update and are a pain when you're extracting listings from an overly large table, they do serve a purpose. The current content and structure of these tables was arrived at through a painstaking consensus-building process at
WP:NRHP. If you feel strongly that the numbering should be abandoned, I encourage you to make your arguments there. In the meantime, I'm happy to number/re-number tables for you. It literally takes me about one or two minutes (tops) to renumber even the largest table by copying the tables out to Excel and manipulating them there. Just leave a note on my talk page if I may be of assistance. --
sanfranman59 (
talk)
03:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Andover has, if I remember right, the largest number of listings of any municipality in the county. It was split out simply to reduce the size of this overlarge article. There's no reason that other municipalities can't be split out, so doing Methuen was correct, and you're right in saying that its table should be removed here. Please replace its table here with a notice like Andover has. I can get it later if you can't.
Nyttend (
talk)
21:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Another thing i don't GET is the numerical sequence. If I were to remove all of the Methuen listings i would have to reorder this entire list by hand. Which is not an attractive prospect. I need clarification of the third footnote:"Numbers represent an ordering by significant words." From what I can see the numbering is merely sequential.
EraserGirl (
talk)
21:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry, it has to be by hand. We've tried to find some way to automate it, but there isn't one. No complaints; I'll do it. As for significant words: it's sequential based on a modified alphabetical order — alphabetical for these significant words. Typically, it's the first word, although some minor ones are not included ("the", sometimes "old", minor words like that), and properties named for individuals are alphabetised by the person's last name. Am I making sense?
Nyttend (
talk)
02:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I have a method for renumbering tables pretty quickly by copying the table out to Excel and manipulating the information there. I'll be happy to do so for you anytime. Just ask. --
sanfranman59 (
talk)
02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Well NOW I feel bad, as this was my chore to do and you all did it for me. Seriously babe, i would have done it. I save this kind of repetitive task to do when i want some busy work while i' on the phone or something. Some people do crosswords, i do this. Thanks for your efforts. I am off to go shoot some more images while the sun is out. In New England that's an oddity.
EraserGirl (
talk)
16:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I reiterate, I don't understand the ordering on this page. the numbers are meaningless and in fact hinder editing. I extracted Lawrence in order to begin working on that series of articles and reordering the list with arbitrary numbers was tedious for no real apparent reason. I would propose that the numbers be removed from this table as they hold no real value. alphabetical ordering should suffice.
EraserGirl (
talk)
20:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Hi E-Girl and thanks for all of your efforts. Like you, I'm a bit of a photo bug and have photographed a bunch of sites here in the SF Bay Area as well as many in Stark County, Ohio. I enjoy the challenge of hunting down the sites. It's kind of like a treasure hunt.
If for no other reason, the numbering is useful for quickly knowing how many listings there are in the table. These counts are used in a variety of other articles. While I agree that they're tedious to update and are a pain when you're extracting listings from an overly large table, they do serve a purpose. The current content and structure of these tables was arrived at through a painstaking consensus-building process at
WP:NRHP. If you feel strongly that the numbering should be abandoned, I encourage you to make your arguments there. In the meantime, I'm happy to number/re-number tables for you. It literally takes me about one or two minutes (tops) to renumber even the largest table by copying the tables out to Excel and manipulating them there. Just leave a note on my talk page if I may be of assistance. --
sanfranman59 (
talk)
03:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)reply