This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion happened mostly on the WP:NRHP Talk page, was moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Photos of NRHP sites, and now I just moved it here. It mostly relates to San Francisco RHPs. Perhaps it will pick up where it left off. If it is no longer relevant, i suggest it can be moved into an archive attached here. doncram ( talk)
All ... One of my WP hobbies over the past week has been to map all of the NRHP locations in San Francisco at Google Maps (if you care, here's a link to my map ... fair warning ... it will chew up some computer memory). My intention had been to make the rounds and photograph each location and then to post them on WikiCommons. But I now have such a headache from trying to understand what is and what is not permissible that I'm just about to give it up. Can someone here with some experience in this area tell me if I'm allowed to upload photos that I've taken. I've read over the recent discussion of plaques, so I know those are no-no's (although it's beyond me why since they're paid for by our tax dollars). What about the photos of the buildings I took today? Does it matter whether or not they're private property? What if there happen to be statues or other art objects in the photos?
Is the process really as onerous as it seems here? If I need a lawyer to upload my own photos to WP, I think I'll pass. Step 2 asks "can you point to a Wikipedia article that would benefit from this file's inclusion?" Does this mean I shouldn't upload a photo until I (or someone else) creates an article about the location?
Thanks in advance for any and all counsel. -- Sanfranman59 ( talk) 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
And WP:Be Bold. The worst thing you'll encounter is that your uploaded picture will be deleted. By the way, if you get a warning about an nrhp, put a note here, and we'll help oppose any unjust deletions. Thanks again, and I hope this helps.-- Appraiser ( talk) 14:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your new article looks fine. In my opinion, it's OK to assess your own articles at either Start or Stub, but if someone later has a different opinion I wouldn't argue about it. I don't know anything about exterior vs. interior pictures. Bruce Porter lived until 1953, but there's overlap between architecture and art and I wouldn't hesitate to post photos of his stained glass; I'm sure photographs of them were published before 1923 anyway, which would put them in the public domain.-- Appraiser ( talk) 18:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, SanFranman, to have brought the list into table format and to have added so many pictures. The geo-coding that allows one to bring up Google map showing many if not all sites is especially great. doncram ( talk) 07:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The only naming convention that makes sense to me is to use the NRHP program name for a site, and to state that up front. In this list, some sites are named differently. E.g. the ship Eureka is given a helpful parenthetical explanation. To me that explanation should be in the description column not the site name. (Note, there are National Historic Landmark ships, and perhaps non-NHL ships, which do have parenthetical expressions as part of their NHL program names. So, in a list of NHL sites, it is appropriate to use those, consistently applying NHL program names for all sites in a list.) If the NRHP name is no longer the common name for a site, e.g. Farallone Islands rather than current common usage Farallon Islands, I think it is best to show the NRHP name here but link to the article under the common name. As done in most of the NHL list-article pages. doncram ( talk) 07:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sanfranman -- Thanks for shooting and posting the new pics of the James C. Flood Mansion and of the Old United States Mint building. For the first we had no pic before; for the second I think for the latter your new pic replaced a pic of the new (wrong) building in the list-article here and in List of National Historic Landmarks in California. No wonder the pic in place could be ugly and yet an NHL, it was the wrong building. I updated the Old United States Mint (San Francisco) article to use the new pic of the old building, and also added NRHP text and photo set PDF documents. doncram ( talk) 10:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Just 4 left - 3 might be archive search, 1 should be easy!
[1] | Name on the Register [2] | Image | Date listed [3] | Location | Neighborhood | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
52 | Frederick Griffings's (ship) | February 1, 1982 ( #82002248) |
Address Restricted 37°48′11″N 122°24′08″W / 37.803°N 122.4021°W | Fisherman's Wharf |
| |
84 | KING PHILIP (ship) and REPORTER (schooner) Shipwreck Site | May 8, 1986 ( #86001014) |
Address Restricted | San Francisco |
King Philip and
Reporter shipwreck sites.
| |
93 | The Lydia | July 16, 1981 ( #81000173) |
Address Restricted | San Francisco | Whaling bark
| |
169 | U.S. Appraisers Stores and Immigration Station | August 13, 2013 ( #13000590) |
630 Sansome St. 37°47′47″N 122°24′06″W / 37.796278°N 122.401764°W | Financial District |
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 06:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Register of Historic Places listings in San Francisco. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion happened mostly on the WP:NRHP Talk page, was moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Photos of NRHP sites, and now I just moved it here. It mostly relates to San Francisco RHPs. Perhaps it will pick up where it left off. If it is no longer relevant, i suggest it can be moved into an archive attached here. doncram ( talk)
All ... One of my WP hobbies over the past week has been to map all of the NRHP locations in San Francisco at Google Maps (if you care, here's a link to my map ... fair warning ... it will chew up some computer memory). My intention had been to make the rounds and photograph each location and then to post them on WikiCommons. But I now have such a headache from trying to understand what is and what is not permissible that I'm just about to give it up. Can someone here with some experience in this area tell me if I'm allowed to upload photos that I've taken. I've read over the recent discussion of plaques, so I know those are no-no's (although it's beyond me why since they're paid for by our tax dollars). What about the photos of the buildings I took today? Does it matter whether or not they're private property? What if there happen to be statues or other art objects in the photos?
Is the process really as onerous as it seems here? If I need a lawyer to upload my own photos to WP, I think I'll pass. Step 2 asks "can you point to a Wikipedia article that would benefit from this file's inclusion?" Does this mean I shouldn't upload a photo until I (or someone else) creates an article about the location?
Thanks in advance for any and all counsel. -- Sanfranman59 ( talk) 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
And WP:Be Bold. The worst thing you'll encounter is that your uploaded picture will be deleted. By the way, if you get a warning about an nrhp, put a note here, and we'll help oppose any unjust deletions. Thanks again, and I hope this helps.-- Appraiser ( talk) 14:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your new article looks fine. In my opinion, it's OK to assess your own articles at either Start or Stub, but if someone later has a different opinion I wouldn't argue about it. I don't know anything about exterior vs. interior pictures. Bruce Porter lived until 1953, but there's overlap between architecture and art and I wouldn't hesitate to post photos of his stained glass; I'm sure photographs of them were published before 1923 anyway, which would put them in the public domain.-- Appraiser ( talk) 18:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, SanFranman, to have brought the list into table format and to have added so many pictures. The geo-coding that allows one to bring up Google map showing many if not all sites is especially great. doncram ( talk) 07:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The only naming convention that makes sense to me is to use the NRHP program name for a site, and to state that up front. In this list, some sites are named differently. E.g. the ship Eureka is given a helpful parenthetical explanation. To me that explanation should be in the description column not the site name. (Note, there are National Historic Landmark ships, and perhaps non-NHL ships, which do have parenthetical expressions as part of their NHL program names. So, in a list of NHL sites, it is appropriate to use those, consistently applying NHL program names for all sites in a list.) If the NRHP name is no longer the common name for a site, e.g. Farallone Islands rather than current common usage Farallon Islands, I think it is best to show the NRHP name here but link to the article under the common name. As done in most of the NHL list-article pages. doncram ( talk) 07:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sanfranman -- Thanks for shooting and posting the new pics of the James C. Flood Mansion and of the Old United States Mint building. For the first we had no pic before; for the second I think for the latter your new pic replaced a pic of the new (wrong) building in the list-article here and in List of National Historic Landmarks in California. No wonder the pic in place could be ugly and yet an NHL, it was the wrong building. I updated the Old United States Mint (San Francisco) article to use the new pic of the old building, and also added NRHP text and photo set PDF documents. doncram ( talk) 10:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Just 4 left - 3 might be archive search, 1 should be easy!
[1] | Name on the Register [2] | Image | Date listed [3] | Location | Neighborhood | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
52 | Frederick Griffings's (ship) | February 1, 1982 ( #82002248) |
Address Restricted 37°48′11″N 122°24′08″W / 37.803°N 122.4021°W | Fisherman's Wharf |
| |
84 | KING PHILIP (ship) and REPORTER (schooner) Shipwreck Site | May 8, 1986 ( #86001014) |
Address Restricted | San Francisco |
King Philip and
Reporter shipwreck sites.
| |
93 | The Lydia | July 16, 1981 ( #81000173) |
Address Restricted | San Francisco | Whaling bark
| |
169 | U.S. Appraisers Stores and Immigration Station | August 13, 2013 ( #13000590) |
630 Sansome St. 37°47′47″N 122°24′06″W / 37.796278°N 122.401764°W | Financial District |
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 06:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Register of Historic Places listings in San Francisco. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)