National Register of Historic Places Project‑class | |||||||
|
I removed the following from the article, at least for the moment: "Sometimes entities such as plantations are actually historic districts, due to their encompassing multiple structures. Errors caused by confusion between sites and districts are rampant on Wikipedia. Don't blindly trust a classification without verification." I don't know if it is fair to characterize the lack of distinction between historic districts vs. other NRHP places as errors. You could also characterize the failure to distinguish between sites vs. structures vs. buildings as errors as well. Also, I believe there is currently no good way to verify whether a place is a district or another kind of place. Only for NHLs is the type distinction apparent, as far as i know. And i am not sure whether plantations are sometimes districts because they have multiple structures or whether it is because they sometimes encompass multiple distinct legal properties. Certainly there are many NRHPs that have multiple buildings and/or multiple structures which are not historic districts. So i don't think the quote i removed got it exactly right. Maybe the type distinction doesn't belong in the style guide yet, or maybe there is some other statement that can go back in about this topic. doncram ( talk) 17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The draft article states that all RHP articles should have an NRHP infobox (or does it say they should have an infobox of some kind, not necessarily NRHP?). That statement is probably too strong. In the past I suggested making that one requirement for NHL articles, and there was thoughtful and strong opposition expressed. See [[ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 4#Quality Rating of NHL articles. I do like the infoboxes, and i think they benefit most RHP articles. doncram ( talk) 00:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be a style guide, in name and content. Any objections? I'm trying to make it easier to find these pages by sticking them in the usual cat. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 03:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I edited the Coordinates section to try to capture info from recent discussions (some now archived) at WT:NRHP. Could usefully be improved from where i left it. Mainly, i don't understand the statement there that "Coordinates should be rounded to the nearest second, which is equal to 22 meters at 45o latitude. Leaving more precision is misleading and mathematically incorrect for most RHPs." I thought it might be reasonable to round inaccurate NRIS coordinates. But if one has precise info, why round? If we were writing out the coordinates in text of the article, I would agree that rounding is appropriate. But encyclopedia users most likely won't see the coordinate numbers and observe their roundedness or observe excessive precision in the numbers. They will most likely see a point on a Google map, and may zoom in to the satellite photo view of a given building. If you round, the point is randomly moved away. In google map satellite view, there is no way to indicate precision, say a fuzzy zone of likely location, and the best point estimate to provide for such applications is the precise one.
We absolutely need this:
Anyone for consensus? Since an article about a church (or other religious building, for that matter), even a defunct one, on the Register should properly be not just about the building but about the church itself (as most that I've written have been), this just makes sense Daniel Case ( talk) 06:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is a little long and more than a little intimidating. It seems to me that there are two different things covered here:
I wonder if we would do well to make this just style and move sources of information elsewhere. That seems particularly good because we also have:
both of which have sources as well.
In fact, the latter is four sections:
Perhaps the status info should move elsewhere and the subpage Editor help should be a brief introduction to two things:
. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page currently says If there is an article already named the official title of the NRHP in question, disambiguation may be required. For instance, there are many buildings on the National Register with the official name "First Baptist Church". In cases like this, it is common practice to append "(City, State)" to the official title to distinguish it from all the other First Baptist Churches.
Should this be amended so "(State)" disambiguation is preferred when it is unambiguous?
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 01:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Courtesy ping @ Doncram and Nyttend:. This is primarily about the current dispute on naming of articles on county courthouses, but will likely apply to other articles as well. No US State has multiple counties of the same name, so a (State) disambiguation for Washington County Courthouse would be unambiguous. However, for consistency with other NRHP-listed places, a (City, State) disambiguation has been preferred by some editors. The ongoing discussion at WP:ANI is not the correct forum to make a policy decision of this sort. WP:USPLACE does not currently discuss place names at all, and thus doesn't seem the best location for an RFC. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Can we end this discussion already? I believe the consensus is clear and overwhelming. Fortguy ( talk) 03:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I have a draft page in cue for the Dr. Cyril O. Spann Medical Office, and I need help building a NRHP inbox for it, so that it will follow the formatting standards of other NRHP pages. I can't use the template because the site was listed in 2019. Editors who know how to do this are free to come to my page and do it, or give me a step by step guide to doing it without messing up my current draft. Thanks in advance! ProfessorKaiFlai ( talk) 15:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
This project seems quiet, but I'd like to introduce the idea of standardizing which maps might be included in every NRHP info box. There is wide variation now.
Examples of the current variation in included maps:
Anoka Post Office (has a location map, a local map, as well as state and country) Fort Snelling (state map only) Fort Payne Depot Museum (state and country maps) Blood Run Site (no maps, just pictures)
Some archaeological sites are "address restricted" such as: Big Gyp Cave Pictograph site (but the county where it is located is mentioned and could be mapped?)
Any thoughts on this? I am not an experienced editor. Thanks! BilCen ( talk) 00:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
National Register of Historic Places Project‑class | |||||||
|
I removed the following from the article, at least for the moment: "Sometimes entities such as plantations are actually historic districts, due to their encompassing multiple structures. Errors caused by confusion between sites and districts are rampant on Wikipedia. Don't blindly trust a classification without verification." I don't know if it is fair to characterize the lack of distinction between historic districts vs. other NRHP places as errors. You could also characterize the failure to distinguish between sites vs. structures vs. buildings as errors as well. Also, I believe there is currently no good way to verify whether a place is a district or another kind of place. Only for NHLs is the type distinction apparent, as far as i know. And i am not sure whether plantations are sometimes districts because they have multiple structures or whether it is because they sometimes encompass multiple distinct legal properties. Certainly there are many NRHPs that have multiple buildings and/or multiple structures which are not historic districts. So i don't think the quote i removed got it exactly right. Maybe the type distinction doesn't belong in the style guide yet, or maybe there is some other statement that can go back in about this topic. doncram ( talk) 17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The draft article states that all RHP articles should have an NRHP infobox (or does it say they should have an infobox of some kind, not necessarily NRHP?). That statement is probably too strong. In the past I suggested making that one requirement for NHL articles, and there was thoughtful and strong opposition expressed. See [[ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 4#Quality Rating of NHL articles. I do like the infoboxes, and i think they benefit most RHP articles. doncram ( talk) 00:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be a style guide, in name and content. Any objections? I'm trying to make it easier to find these pages by sticking them in the usual cat. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 03:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I edited the Coordinates section to try to capture info from recent discussions (some now archived) at WT:NRHP. Could usefully be improved from where i left it. Mainly, i don't understand the statement there that "Coordinates should be rounded to the nearest second, which is equal to 22 meters at 45o latitude. Leaving more precision is misleading and mathematically incorrect for most RHPs." I thought it might be reasonable to round inaccurate NRIS coordinates. But if one has precise info, why round? If we were writing out the coordinates in text of the article, I would agree that rounding is appropriate. But encyclopedia users most likely won't see the coordinate numbers and observe their roundedness or observe excessive precision in the numbers. They will most likely see a point on a Google map, and may zoom in to the satellite photo view of a given building. If you round, the point is randomly moved away. In google map satellite view, there is no way to indicate precision, say a fuzzy zone of likely location, and the best point estimate to provide for such applications is the precise one.
We absolutely need this:
Anyone for consensus? Since an article about a church (or other religious building, for that matter), even a defunct one, on the Register should properly be not just about the building but about the church itself (as most that I've written have been), this just makes sense Daniel Case ( talk) 06:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is a little long and more than a little intimidating. It seems to me that there are two different things covered here:
I wonder if we would do well to make this just style and move sources of information elsewhere. That seems particularly good because we also have:
both of which have sources as well.
In fact, the latter is four sections:
Perhaps the status info should move elsewhere and the subpage Editor help should be a brief introduction to two things:
. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page currently says If there is an article already named the official title of the NRHP in question, disambiguation may be required. For instance, there are many buildings on the National Register with the official name "First Baptist Church". In cases like this, it is common practice to append "(City, State)" to the official title to distinguish it from all the other First Baptist Churches.
Should this be amended so "(State)" disambiguation is preferred when it is unambiguous?
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 01:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Courtesy ping @ Doncram and Nyttend:. This is primarily about the current dispute on naming of articles on county courthouses, but will likely apply to other articles as well. No US State has multiple counties of the same name, so a (State) disambiguation for Washington County Courthouse would be unambiguous. However, for consistency with other NRHP-listed places, a (City, State) disambiguation has been preferred by some editors. The ongoing discussion at WP:ANI is not the correct forum to make a policy decision of this sort. WP:USPLACE does not currently discuss place names at all, and thus doesn't seem the best location for an RFC. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Can we end this discussion already? I believe the consensus is clear and overwhelming. Fortguy ( talk) 03:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I have a draft page in cue for the Dr. Cyril O. Spann Medical Office, and I need help building a NRHP inbox for it, so that it will follow the formatting standards of other NRHP pages. I can't use the template because the site was listed in 2019. Editors who know how to do this are free to come to my page and do it, or give me a step by step guide to doing it without messing up my current draft. Thanks in advance! ProfessorKaiFlai ( talk) 15:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
This project seems quiet, but I'd like to introduce the idea of standardizing which maps might be included in every NRHP info box. There is wide variation now.
Examples of the current variation in included maps:
Anoka Post Office (has a location map, a local map, as well as state and country) Fort Snelling (state map only) Fort Payne Depot Museum (state and country maps) Blood Run Site (no maps, just pictures)
Some archaeological sites are "address restricted" such as: Big Gyp Cave Pictograph site (but the county where it is located is mentioned and could be mapped?)
Any thoughts on this? I am not an experienced editor. Thanks! BilCen ( talk) 00:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)