This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
As part of WP:OMT I am gonna work on USS Massachusetts (BB-2), trying to bring it up to GA-class and if possible FA. There is relatively little to tell about this early battleship though—her most notable achievement is not being at the battle of Santiago de Cuba—and the article is gonna be similar in length to USS Indiana (BB-1). This means the ship and historic place infoboxes are gonna stay right below each other like they are now, which looks very clumsy with them having different colors and widths. I want to ask if anybody involved with this project has an idea how to handle this? I would suggest merging both infoboxes like was done in this article SS Jeremiah O'Brien, but that doesn't look perfect either as the colors still don't match. Yoenit ( talk) 08:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
For a while, I've been thinking of creating a category, but I've decided to ask others' opinions first. What do you think of creating a Category:Destroyed National Register of Historic Places for currently-listed properties that are no longer in existence? If we go with my ideal, we'll include the now-sunken Mississippi III (listed in Ohio, but sank after being moored near Pittsburgh), the bulldozed D.S. Rose Mound, and the very recently wrecked Francis M. Drexel School; however, we'd not include the Bridge in Plunketts Creek Township because it's been delisted, various Navajo ruins in New Mexico because they were listed as ruins, or the HESPER Shipwreck Site because it was listed as a shipwreck. Does this sound good, or are there problems? Nyttend ( talk) 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I got a sense of deja vu when I saw this discussion, probably because Category:Former National Register of Historic Places already exists. I think the word "former" is a good choice for this topic, as it doesn't require any determination of whether the proper was actually "destroyed." However, because the National Register of Historic Places is a list (not a plural noun, as is implied by the category name), over a year ago I proposed renaming it to a name with a real plural noun in it, but the discussion closed as "no consensus". -- Orlady ( talk) 04:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've got the impression that what some other people (as well as myself) want to do is - if they go to a site and the building is not there - and after lots of checking put in the article or list that the building is destroyed. This is simply common sense. How can we not tell are readers that the building is not there, when we know that it is not there? The flip side is that in many cases doing so would be WP:OR. I don't think that we can finesse our way around this. Perhaps the statement in WP:OR about things "challenged or likely to be challenged" might help, but I suggest taking the bull by the horns.
Should the destroyed-state of a building not documented by the NRHP or others be ignored in Wikipedia? Of course not! Can the statement that a building has been destroyed be OR? Of course it can be. The spirit of the OR, RS, and V policies is that others, with a bit of effort, can go and check what you write. I think that in most cases of destroyed building, this spirit can be easily satisfied. Anybody can go to the address and coordinates given and see if a building is there. In short a simple statement of destruction is in most cases easily verified. This position is consistent with the longstanding policy WP:Ignore All Rules, in particular Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means#Use_common_sense.
Common sense should also dictate that we are very careful about this. We know that the addresses and coordinates given by the NRHP are sometimes out of date or otherwise flawed. Sometimes street addresses are out of order, or buildings are way back from the street behind other buildings on private property marked "no trespassing." Addresses are changed, buildings are moved, Interstate highways are build in front of some buildings, cutting them off. But for the most part if you are standing in front of a given address and there is no building there, that fact is verifiable and is not likely to be challenged. I say we accept most OR-IAR declarations that the building is not where it is supposed to be. Ultimately, it's just common sense. Smallbones ( talk) 14:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Orlady and BMS clearly state the plain reading of WP:OR. But I think the plain meaning of IAR trumps this, in most cases. At some point, the verifiability of an address becomes so obvious that we are doing our readers an obvious disservice by implicitly saying that the building is at the location when we damn well know that it is not there. When the rules get in the way of making a better encyclopedia, ignore all rules - that is a core policy. Some sort of common sense should overcome what can be seen as a pedantic reading of the rules. I suggest we use judgement, if anybody has any reason for challenging a statement that a building has been destroyed - they should be encouraged to do so. Discussion of this should be encouraged, all sides heard, and btw I'm not questioning anybody's good faith here or calling anybody pedantic, just that we need to openly discuss common sense's application in this case, and get a basic consensus. I hope that consensus includes allowing plain statements that a building is not there, in cases when it's obviously not there. Smallbones ( talk) 17:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to direct your attention to a move proposal at Talk:Grand Opera House (Meridian, Mississippi). I suggested it be moved a few days ago, but apparently either no one watches that page or no one cares haha. The building is no longer known most widely as the Grand Opera House since it has been renovated in 2006. Most people in daily conversation refer to it as the "Riley Center," but I think most sources online refer to it as the "MSU Riley Center" or it's long name, the "Mississippi State University Riley Center for Education and Performing Arts." I don't really know where to move the page, but I know it should be moved. I think all of the titles should be redirects, but I don't want to create the redirects until I move the page so I don't have to fix them afterwards. Any input would be appreciated! -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 18:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This arises from the previous topic on a "detroyed" cat, but I split it off because it's a seperable point, and neither topic necessarily depends on the other. Now then:
When is pictoral evidence "acceptable" or "not acceptable" Original Research? Case in point: The Phillip and Maria Hasselbach Dingledey House. A picture of the house, as well as its address, can be found at the State of Michigan Historic Sites Online. Going to Google's Streetview confirms that, yes indeed, that house is located at that location. Except it isn't. Here's the site now (compare with this Streetview--note the location of the blue "Heathmoore Apartments" sign).
So, with a combination of reliable sources and my own photo, I am absolutely, positively sure that the Phillip and Maria Hasselbach Dingledey House is not there anymore. However, I can't find any reference to its demolition (or its being moved...) anywhere. So should the reference to its demolition be stricken from the article? Reworded? More to the point: Does it make any sense to include an image of the site (which consensus has determined is allowable, and indeed encouraged, OR) and NOT address textually why the image doesn't actually include a house? Andrew Jameson ( talk) 17:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
[unindent] With Merrill Lock No. 6, I've said "The lock master's residence, located downstream of the powerhouse, was removed at some point after the property was listed on the Register." My NR nomination form says that there were houses on both sides of the powerhouse when the property was listed, but this photo (which I'm using as the source) shows that it's plainly not there. "Removed" doesn't specify what happened to the house; it simply says that it's not there anymore. Even if it burned down, the resulting pile of rubble has been removed. Nyttend ( talk) 02:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course one should always search very hard to find a published source first, if nothing else to get the date or other history behind the demolishion. But by the normal English definition of "original", if many people have seen that the site destroyed, then one more editor seeing it is not "original". So my thinking is that if the site is a fairly well known easily accessable area such as a city with a known address, it should not qualify as being original research to note it is no longer there. Certainly verifiable in the normal English sense of that word too - the rules do not say "verifiable on the Internet". The question is for those location undisclosed sites or ones out in the boonies, when it becomes much more "original". W Nowicki ( talk) 20:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I recently expanded the Beth Israel Cemetery (Meridian, Mississippi) article, and I believe I've done as much as possible to that article based on the inadequate amount of source material out there. I've suggested the page be moved at the talk page to a page detailing the entire congregation (which has more sourcing) instead of just the cemetery. User:Doncram has already weighed in on the matter, but I'd like some other opinions. Thanks! -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 06:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is the right place to ask this, but I don't know what the right place is, so bear with me. I just noticed that the city of Detroit has changed their website from http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us to http://www.detroitmi.gov. I've used information from the city's Historic District Commission (they have a one-page sheet online for most of the city's historic properties and districts) in multiple articles, and so have other people--about 250 places, in fact. However, the http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us links are now dead. The HDC pages now appear under the same format at http://www.detroitmi.gov, so ~ 250 articles on historic properties need alteration, switching http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us to http://www.detroitmi.gov (as in this diff or this diff). Is there any way to do this quicker than laboriously searching for each instance of http://www.detroitmi.gov/historic? Andrew Jameson ( talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Trapps Mountain Hamlet Historic District, which I just finished expanding. You'd almost think it had something to do with The Sound of Music. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a new listing in Conway, Arkansas for the Century Flyer. It is a 24-inch guage miniature train ( See here ) on the grounds of a hospital. Googling around I found similar trains with the same name. I was going to write the article and title it "Century Flyer (Conway, Arkansas)" to head off any future DAB problems. Any thoughts? Also, for any members of WP:Trains - does this train fall under your project? Einbierbitte ( talk) 14:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Mount Rushmore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — KuyaBriBri Talk 22:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what to make of the NPS's most recent featured listing claim, that the Egyptian Theatre (Coos Bay, Oregon), is one of only four known Egyptian style theatres. Given that wikipedia has at least five others:
Tho maybe the Peery one has been renovated too much to qualify as an original one from the fad following 1922 discovery of King Tut's tomb, but still there are more than four surviving from the 1920s i think. -- doncram ( talk) 18:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I have done some arm twisting and I found a bunch of free images taken on Geneva Lake in the Lake Geneva, Wisconsin area. I wonder if anyone can look up to see if these images are historic places from the National Register of Historic Places listings in Walworth County, Wisconsin. I found a reference that says a bunch of these residences can only be seen from the lake (I won't trespass, tee hee). The set of photos can be found here. I uploaded the boat image while working on an upcoming mail jumping article and found these images from the same source. Royal broil 22:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I found Template:Lengthlink while browsing around earlier today, and I think it would be a great addition to our "Recent articles" section.. You input the name of the article and the length, and it returns an image of a bar color coded based on the size of the articles. The longer the article, the more green the bar is. This would be awesome to see which new articles are doing well and which ones need more expansion IMO. The only drawback is that the page size has to be manually input, so the bar won't automatically update. Does anyone know of a way to query the size of an article (such as in another template), so that this could be a self-sustaining system? I know of this script, but I would really like to be able to do this without javascript if that's possible.. maybe like a WP:MAGICWORD or something? Any ideas? If not, it may be possible to extract the code from that script that gathers the page size and adjust it to fit our needs. Anyone interested? -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 06:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
-- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 06:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I actually added in code to give small stubs that have an infobox (with very little other content) at least a "1" rating, so we could easily spot NRHP articles without infoboxes (they'd be "0"), but I can remove this boost if that's desired. Basically the rating system goes in increments of 2000 bytes up to 20k, which was an arbitrary choice based on what I thought a 10 rated article should be on average... if the boost is removed, Kenton Historic District would be a 0, and the other two you linked to would be 1's. -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 02:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
As the National Register of Historic Places is a federal agency, that makes all their content in the Public Domain. Although attribution is not required for public domain, I am thinking about creating a template for this, similar to Template:DANFS. (You can see what it looks like here.) Thoughts, ideas? Avic enna sis @ 18:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Example: Template:NRHP-PD. Avic enna sis @ 19:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Also as was brought up several times, the pictures too as well as forms are usually taken by state or local employees so are not necessarily in public domain. As opposed to, say, Library of Congress ones that usually are PD. W Nowicki ( talk) 22:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
As part of WP:OMT I am gonna work on USS Massachusetts (BB-2), trying to bring it up to GA-class and if possible FA. There is relatively little to tell about this early battleship though—her most notable achievement is not being at the battle of Santiago de Cuba—and the article is gonna be similar in length to USS Indiana (BB-1). This means the ship and historic place infoboxes are gonna stay right below each other like they are now, which looks very clumsy with them having different colors and widths. I want to ask if anybody involved with this project has an idea how to handle this? I would suggest merging both infoboxes like was done in this article SS Jeremiah O'Brien, but that doesn't look perfect either as the colors still don't match. Yoenit ( talk) 08:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
For a while, I've been thinking of creating a category, but I've decided to ask others' opinions first. What do you think of creating a Category:Destroyed National Register of Historic Places for currently-listed properties that are no longer in existence? If we go with my ideal, we'll include the now-sunken Mississippi III (listed in Ohio, but sank after being moored near Pittsburgh), the bulldozed D.S. Rose Mound, and the very recently wrecked Francis M. Drexel School; however, we'd not include the Bridge in Plunketts Creek Township because it's been delisted, various Navajo ruins in New Mexico because they were listed as ruins, or the HESPER Shipwreck Site because it was listed as a shipwreck. Does this sound good, or are there problems? Nyttend ( talk) 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I got a sense of deja vu when I saw this discussion, probably because Category:Former National Register of Historic Places already exists. I think the word "former" is a good choice for this topic, as it doesn't require any determination of whether the proper was actually "destroyed." However, because the National Register of Historic Places is a list (not a plural noun, as is implied by the category name), over a year ago I proposed renaming it to a name with a real plural noun in it, but the discussion closed as "no consensus". -- Orlady ( talk) 04:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've got the impression that what some other people (as well as myself) want to do is - if they go to a site and the building is not there - and after lots of checking put in the article or list that the building is destroyed. This is simply common sense. How can we not tell are readers that the building is not there, when we know that it is not there? The flip side is that in many cases doing so would be WP:OR. I don't think that we can finesse our way around this. Perhaps the statement in WP:OR about things "challenged or likely to be challenged" might help, but I suggest taking the bull by the horns.
Should the destroyed-state of a building not documented by the NRHP or others be ignored in Wikipedia? Of course not! Can the statement that a building has been destroyed be OR? Of course it can be. The spirit of the OR, RS, and V policies is that others, with a bit of effort, can go and check what you write. I think that in most cases of destroyed building, this spirit can be easily satisfied. Anybody can go to the address and coordinates given and see if a building is there. In short a simple statement of destruction is in most cases easily verified. This position is consistent with the longstanding policy WP:Ignore All Rules, in particular Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means#Use_common_sense.
Common sense should also dictate that we are very careful about this. We know that the addresses and coordinates given by the NRHP are sometimes out of date or otherwise flawed. Sometimes street addresses are out of order, or buildings are way back from the street behind other buildings on private property marked "no trespassing." Addresses are changed, buildings are moved, Interstate highways are build in front of some buildings, cutting them off. But for the most part if you are standing in front of a given address and there is no building there, that fact is verifiable and is not likely to be challenged. I say we accept most OR-IAR declarations that the building is not where it is supposed to be. Ultimately, it's just common sense. Smallbones ( talk) 14:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Orlady and BMS clearly state the plain reading of WP:OR. But I think the plain meaning of IAR trumps this, in most cases. At some point, the verifiability of an address becomes so obvious that we are doing our readers an obvious disservice by implicitly saying that the building is at the location when we damn well know that it is not there. When the rules get in the way of making a better encyclopedia, ignore all rules - that is a core policy. Some sort of common sense should overcome what can be seen as a pedantic reading of the rules. I suggest we use judgement, if anybody has any reason for challenging a statement that a building has been destroyed - they should be encouraged to do so. Discussion of this should be encouraged, all sides heard, and btw I'm not questioning anybody's good faith here or calling anybody pedantic, just that we need to openly discuss common sense's application in this case, and get a basic consensus. I hope that consensus includes allowing plain statements that a building is not there, in cases when it's obviously not there. Smallbones ( talk) 17:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to direct your attention to a move proposal at Talk:Grand Opera House (Meridian, Mississippi). I suggested it be moved a few days ago, but apparently either no one watches that page or no one cares haha. The building is no longer known most widely as the Grand Opera House since it has been renovated in 2006. Most people in daily conversation refer to it as the "Riley Center," but I think most sources online refer to it as the "MSU Riley Center" or it's long name, the "Mississippi State University Riley Center for Education and Performing Arts." I don't really know where to move the page, but I know it should be moved. I think all of the titles should be redirects, but I don't want to create the redirects until I move the page so I don't have to fix them afterwards. Any input would be appreciated! -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 18:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This arises from the previous topic on a "detroyed" cat, but I split it off because it's a seperable point, and neither topic necessarily depends on the other. Now then:
When is pictoral evidence "acceptable" or "not acceptable" Original Research? Case in point: The Phillip and Maria Hasselbach Dingledey House. A picture of the house, as well as its address, can be found at the State of Michigan Historic Sites Online. Going to Google's Streetview confirms that, yes indeed, that house is located at that location. Except it isn't. Here's the site now (compare with this Streetview--note the location of the blue "Heathmoore Apartments" sign).
So, with a combination of reliable sources and my own photo, I am absolutely, positively sure that the Phillip and Maria Hasselbach Dingledey House is not there anymore. However, I can't find any reference to its demolition (or its being moved...) anywhere. So should the reference to its demolition be stricken from the article? Reworded? More to the point: Does it make any sense to include an image of the site (which consensus has determined is allowable, and indeed encouraged, OR) and NOT address textually why the image doesn't actually include a house? Andrew Jameson ( talk) 17:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
[unindent] With Merrill Lock No. 6, I've said "The lock master's residence, located downstream of the powerhouse, was removed at some point after the property was listed on the Register." My NR nomination form says that there were houses on both sides of the powerhouse when the property was listed, but this photo (which I'm using as the source) shows that it's plainly not there. "Removed" doesn't specify what happened to the house; it simply says that it's not there anymore. Even if it burned down, the resulting pile of rubble has been removed. Nyttend ( talk) 02:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course one should always search very hard to find a published source first, if nothing else to get the date or other history behind the demolishion. But by the normal English definition of "original", if many people have seen that the site destroyed, then one more editor seeing it is not "original". So my thinking is that if the site is a fairly well known easily accessable area such as a city with a known address, it should not qualify as being original research to note it is no longer there. Certainly verifiable in the normal English sense of that word too - the rules do not say "verifiable on the Internet". The question is for those location undisclosed sites or ones out in the boonies, when it becomes much more "original". W Nowicki ( talk) 20:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I recently expanded the Beth Israel Cemetery (Meridian, Mississippi) article, and I believe I've done as much as possible to that article based on the inadequate amount of source material out there. I've suggested the page be moved at the talk page to a page detailing the entire congregation (which has more sourcing) instead of just the cemetery. User:Doncram has already weighed in on the matter, but I'd like some other opinions. Thanks! -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 06:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is the right place to ask this, but I don't know what the right place is, so bear with me. I just noticed that the city of Detroit has changed their website from http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us to http://www.detroitmi.gov. I've used information from the city's Historic District Commission (they have a one-page sheet online for most of the city's historic properties and districts) in multiple articles, and so have other people--about 250 places, in fact. However, the http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us links are now dead. The HDC pages now appear under the same format at http://www.detroitmi.gov, so ~ 250 articles on historic properties need alteration, switching http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us to http://www.detroitmi.gov (as in this diff or this diff). Is there any way to do this quicker than laboriously searching for each instance of http://www.detroitmi.gov/historic? Andrew Jameson ( talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Trapps Mountain Hamlet Historic District, which I just finished expanding. You'd almost think it had something to do with The Sound of Music. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a new listing in Conway, Arkansas for the Century Flyer. It is a 24-inch guage miniature train ( See here ) on the grounds of a hospital. Googling around I found similar trains with the same name. I was going to write the article and title it "Century Flyer (Conway, Arkansas)" to head off any future DAB problems. Any thoughts? Also, for any members of WP:Trains - does this train fall under your project? Einbierbitte ( talk) 14:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Mount Rushmore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — KuyaBriBri Talk 22:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what to make of the NPS's most recent featured listing claim, that the Egyptian Theatre (Coos Bay, Oregon), is one of only four known Egyptian style theatres. Given that wikipedia has at least five others:
Tho maybe the Peery one has been renovated too much to qualify as an original one from the fad following 1922 discovery of King Tut's tomb, but still there are more than four surviving from the 1920s i think. -- doncram ( talk) 18:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I have done some arm twisting and I found a bunch of free images taken on Geneva Lake in the Lake Geneva, Wisconsin area. I wonder if anyone can look up to see if these images are historic places from the National Register of Historic Places listings in Walworth County, Wisconsin. I found a reference that says a bunch of these residences can only be seen from the lake (I won't trespass, tee hee). The set of photos can be found here. I uploaded the boat image while working on an upcoming mail jumping article and found these images from the same source. Royal broil 22:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I found Template:Lengthlink while browsing around earlier today, and I think it would be a great addition to our "Recent articles" section.. You input the name of the article and the length, and it returns an image of a bar color coded based on the size of the articles. The longer the article, the more green the bar is. This would be awesome to see which new articles are doing well and which ones need more expansion IMO. The only drawback is that the page size has to be manually input, so the bar won't automatically update. Does anyone know of a way to query the size of an article (such as in another template), so that this could be a self-sustaining system? I know of this script, but I would really like to be able to do this without javascript if that's possible.. maybe like a WP:MAGICWORD or something? Any ideas? If not, it may be possible to extract the code from that script that gathers the page size and adjust it to fit our needs. Anyone interested? -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 06:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
-- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 06:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I actually added in code to give small stubs that have an infobox (with very little other content) at least a "1" rating, so we could easily spot NRHP articles without infoboxes (they'd be "0"), but I can remove this boost if that's desired. Basically the rating system goes in increments of 2000 bytes up to 20k, which was an arbitrary choice based on what I thought a 10 rated article should be on average... if the boost is removed, Kenton Historic District would be a 0, and the other two you linked to would be 1's. -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 02:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
As the National Register of Historic Places is a federal agency, that makes all their content in the Public Domain. Although attribution is not required for public domain, I am thinking about creating a template for this, similar to Template:DANFS. (You can see what it looks like here.) Thoughts, ideas? Avic enna sis @ 18:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Example: Template:NRHP-PD. Avic enna sis @ 19:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Also as was brought up several times, the pictures too as well as forms are usually taken by state or local employees so are not necessarily in public domain. As opposed to, say, Library of Congress ones that usually are PD. W Nowicki ( talk) 22:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)