This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Oregon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was a Collaboration of the Week/Month for WikiProject Oregon December 15–December 31, 2009. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
doncram ( talk) 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Some sources:
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Hey, how are people finding NRHP documents for Oregon NRHP-listed places? For example, the list-article now includes a reference to an available PDF for the Young, John Quincy Adams and Elizabeth, House (aside: there was some back-and-forth edits about how to format it best, about which I have no strong opinion at all. Current formatting fine by me). But how would you find that? I tried searching on "Quincy" at http://heritagedata.prd.state.or.us/historic/index.cfm?do=v.dsp_main, which allows me to get to some info about the place (at this page), but that is a database output page that is very inferior to a PDF file of the actual NRHP nomination document. I just wonder if there are a lot more good PDF documents that could be found. doncram ( talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The lead section of this article states that there are 41 NRHP buildings in Washington County, but I see 42 listed. Am I missing something, or should the lead be updated? Thanks, Little Mountain 5 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have several concerns regarding Nyttend's edits today, which I detail below and regarding which I have invited Nyttend to a discussion. — Ipoellet ( talk) 18:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
(1) Column header change from "Site name" to "Landmark name". The "landmark" locution should be avoided with reference to the National Register due to the potential for confusion with the National Historic Landmark program, a similar and closely-related — but different — heritage register in the US. I think "landmark" came into widespread use in other National Register lists because the NHL program was assembled into Wikipedia table lists first, then the NRHP lists were modeled on those. It's not necessary that "site" be used in the NRHP lists, but "landmark" definitely should be avoided.
(2) Deletion of inline citations in individual cells throughout When this table was compiled, each column (with the exception of the photos and the narrative summaries) drew on one or the other of two comprehensive sources: the National Park Service's NRIS database, or a PDF catalog produced by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. To avoid having to reference these sources in every single darn table cell, a single reference was placed in each column header. However, if the information in any one cell was derived from a source that wasn't the one in the column header, then a citation was required in that cell. Deleting those in-cell citations effectively leaves us with a false citation: the table states that the information came from one source (cited in the column header) when it in fact came from a different source (the in-cell citation).
<ref name="GEarth">Coordinates based on a [[Google Earth]] search for the given address.</ref>I note that in general the NRHP editors have allowed/encouraged local editors just to fix coordinates to what they should be, largely because of the very uneven initial quality of coordinates info from NRIS. For other NRIS fields we go through some trouble to record and track and try to give feedback to the National Register to get their NRIS database corrected, in the system of wp:NRIS info issues pages, but we haven't bothered with coordinate fixes. And, I haven't seen anyone else much bothered about any urgency to provide sourcing like this GEarth footnote for every coordinate. I personally wouldn't want to differentiate which ones came from where; we're way past knowing, for most NRHP list-articles, everywhere. How about this: the header row cell for the column could indicate that coordinates are from either NRIS or from Google Earth or from other sources, and specific identification should be dropped? -- doncram ( talk) 17:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
(3) Deletion of "approx." with regard to coordinates for historic districts I dislike this because point coordinates do not adequately describe a whole district, but it's not an issue I'm overly concerned about with regard to the 3 HDs in Washington County. Some districts elsewhere, however, are so nonconforming to reduction to a coordinate point that removal of the "approx." would be simply misleading (linear districts like the Historic Columbia River Highway, for example).
(4) Deletion of "vicinity" where it appears in the "City or Town" column As I note above, the information throughout this column is directly based on the information provided in a specific source: the publiched OPRD catalog list. That source uses "vicinity" to distinguish certain places that are not actually in the stated town. Removing the "vicinity" is fine, if there's a reliable source cited that places the listing actually in the stated town. Without an alternate reference, the reference we have needs to control the information we present.
Just some quick personal preferences here - plus I'd like to say the Nytend and Doncram are both doing good work in 1) getting some sort of standard applied throughout all NRHP lists and 2) allowing some flexibility in and discussion about that standard. My personal preferences on the issues expressed here: 1) Don't like "Landmark" here when it is used in another related context - but you know I never really noticed this before so it's not a big deal - maybe use "Historic site" instead. 2) Individual cell refs should be allowed, but I'd be completely against any standard that required that all individual cells be referenced! 3) I don't like "approx" at all, since no HD can be - even in theory - precisely described by one point. But I hate the usual descriptions (which I've more politely expressed in other places). There's got to be a better way. Isn't there - or counldn't there be - a "circle" pointer on coords, e.g. 40 37' 25" +/- 45"; or maybe just use 3 coords to describe a triangle. 4) I'd keep "vicinity." Hope this helps Smallbones ( talk) 02:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Oregon. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Oregon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was a Collaboration of the Week/Month for WikiProject Oregon December 15–December 31, 2009. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
doncram ( talk) 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Some sources:
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Hey, how are people finding NRHP documents for Oregon NRHP-listed places? For example, the list-article now includes a reference to an available PDF for the Young, John Quincy Adams and Elizabeth, House (aside: there was some back-and-forth edits about how to format it best, about which I have no strong opinion at all. Current formatting fine by me). But how would you find that? I tried searching on "Quincy" at http://heritagedata.prd.state.or.us/historic/index.cfm?do=v.dsp_main, which allows me to get to some info about the place (at this page), but that is a database output page that is very inferior to a PDF file of the actual NRHP nomination document. I just wonder if there are a lot more good PDF documents that could be found. doncram ( talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The lead section of this article states that there are 41 NRHP buildings in Washington County, but I see 42 listed. Am I missing something, or should the lead be updated? Thanks, Little Mountain 5 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have several concerns regarding Nyttend's edits today, which I detail below and regarding which I have invited Nyttend to a discussion. — Ipoellet ( talk) 18:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
(1) Column header change from "Site name" to "Landmark name". The "landmark" locution should be avoided with reference to the National Register due to the potential for confusion with the National Historic Landmark program, a similar and closely-related — but different — heritage register in the US. I think "landmark" came into widespread use in other National Register lists because the NHL program was assembled into Wikipedia table lists first, then the NRHP lists were modeled on those. It's not necessary that "site" be used in the NRHP lists, but "landmark" definitely should be avoided.
(2) Deletion of inline citations in individual cells throughout When this table was compiled, each column (with the exception of the photos and the narrative summaries) drew on one or the other of two comprehensive sources: the National Park Service's NRIS database, or a PDF catalog produced by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. To avoid having to reference these sources in every single darn table cell, a single reference was placed in each column header. However, if the information in any one cell was derived from a source that wasn't the one in the column header, then a citation was required in that cell. Deleting those in-cell citations effectively leaves us with a false citation: the table states that the information came from one source (cited in the column header) when it in fact came from a different source (the in-cell citation).
<ref name="GEarth">Coordinates based on a [[Google Earth]] search for the given address.</ref>I note that in general the NRHP editors have allowed/encouraged local editors just to fix coordinates to what they should be, largely because of the very uneven initial quality of coordinates info from NRIS. For other NRIS fields we go through some trouble to record and track and try to give feedback to the National Register to get their NRIS database corrected, in the system of wp:NRIS info issues pages, but we haven't bothered with coordinate fixes. And, I haven't seen anyone else much bothered about any urgency to provide sourcing like this GEarth footnote for every coordinate. I personally wouldn't want to differentiate which ones came from where; we're way past knowing, for most NRHP list-articles, everywhere. How about this: the header row cell for the column could indicate that coordinates are from either NRIS or from Google Earth or from other sources, and specific identification should be dropped? -- doncram ( talk) 17:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
(3) Deletion of "approx." with regard to coordinates for historic districts I dislike this because point coordinates do not adequately describe a whole district, but it's not an issue I'm overly concerned about with regard to the 3 HDs in Washington County. Some districts elsewhere, however, are so nonconforming to reduction to a coordinate point that removal of the "approx." would be simply misleading (linear districts like the Historic Columbia River Highway, for example).
(4) Deletion of "vicinity" where it appears in the "City or Town" column As I note above, the information throughout this column is directly based on the information provided in a specific source: the publiched OPRD catalog list. That source uses "vicinity" to distinguish certain places that are not actually in the stated town. Removing the "vicinity" is fine, if there's a reliable source cited that places the listing actually in the stated town. Without an alternate reference, the reference we have needs to control the information we present.
Just some quick personal preferences here - plus I'd like to say the Nytend and Doncram are both doing good work in 1) getting some sort of standard applied throughout all NRHP lists and 2) allowing some flexibility in and discussion about that standard. My personal preferences on the issues expressed here: 1) Don't like "Landmark" here when it is used in another related context - but you know I never really noticed this before so it's not a big deal - maybe use "Historic site" instead. 2) Individual cell refs should be allowed, but I'd be completely against any standard that required that all individual cells be referenced! 3) I don't like "approx" at all, since no HD can be - even in theory - precisely described by one point. But I hate the usual descriptions (which I've more politely expressed in other places). There's got to be a better way. Isn't there - or counldn't there be - a "circle" pointer on coords, e.g. 40 37' 25" +/- 45"; or maybe just use 3 coords to describe a triangle. 4) I'd keep "vicinity." Hope this helps Smallbones ( talk) 02:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Oregon. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)