Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Utility of outlines to wikiprojects

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 22:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding a slight problem trying to "Delist" the sites seen in List of delisted National Register of Historic Places properties. While i've managed to "delist" Edwin H. Armstrong House (NRHP and NHL delistings plus give the article the infobox it sorely needed) and William Lowndes Yancey Law Office (NHL delisting), I can't get Gambell Sites delisted (NHL delisting; formatting delists the NRHP instead), and Thomas J. Walker House has the delisting in the infobox template, but it doesn't show up in the article (NRHP delisting).

Also, why isn't sites like Meridian Baptist Seminary and Jobbers Canyon Historic District listed as well due to being delisted? And i'm not quite sure where the NRHP/NHL mention is in Soldier Field (which has a NHL delisting), can anyone double-check this and add relevant infoboxes as well?

And one more thing: In Jobbers Canyon Historic District, the infobox mentions Nash Block as being in the district, yet in the article, it states all 24 buildings in the district got demolished. So how could Nash Block still survive if the article mentions all the buildings fell to the wrecking ball?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of this comment seems to be about an issue with the NRHP infobox template. Templates are tricky, so there likely is a minor error in the syntax you are using. --Orlady (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, can you help out at least? I tried, and it's not working for me.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm no fan of intricate templates like the NRHP infoboxes. Hopefully an infobox maven will address your question. My comment was mostly to document that your comment topic was the template. --Orlady (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I just fixed both of those articles. I'm not sure how you got the first two articles you mentioned to work and not the second two... they were exactly the same. I think looking at this section of the NRHP documentation might be of use. This explains which parameters to use when and how to handle all the different situations. Also, the documentation includes an example of a delisted NRHP and a site that has been delisted from an NPS designation (such as NHL) but not from the NRHP. Hope this helps!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that solves a couple, but i'm still without answers to Soldier's Field, the two delisted-but-not-listed listings, and the contradicting info in two articles.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, the two you mentioned aren't "listed" (I'm guessing you mean "appearing on List of delisted National Register of Historic Places properties") because no one has added them yet. That list is by no means complete; there are estimated to be over 1500 delisted properties I think.. they are just added to that list as they are discovered. This page shows that there are currently only 28 properties that have lost NHL designation. Why not be WP:BOLD and add them yourself?

That list contains Soldier Field on it, which was originally NHL-designated on February 27, 1987 and lost its NHL status on February 17, 2006, according to this page. It appears as if it kept the NRHP listing, though. An infobox can be generated for the article using Elkman's infobox tool. The fastest way to find the site is to search for its refnum, which is 84001052. After the infobox has been generated, paste it into the article and add the following parameters: 

| nrhp_type = formernhl
| designated_nrhp_type = February 27, 1987
| delisted_nrhp_type = February 17, 2006

As for Jobbers Canyon, the references that are used to support the claim that all the buildings were demolished is not an online source, so I can't help you there. It appears (though this is just an assumption) that all of the buildings except Nash Block were demolished. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

USS Massachusetts (BB-59)

We will be working to improve this article for about a week, so please do come and help. You can get instant access to the channel with this. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Difference between Infobox nrhp and nrhp_map?

Looking at Col. James Barrett Farm, I was surprised to find the Infobox_nrhp_map instead of the more usual Infobox_nrhp. Any background on this? The page says to look at the nrhp help page which doesnt mention this offshoot. Was this an experiment? dm (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This was an experiment back before an image and a map could be displayed together in infobox nrhp. It's pretty much been replaced now, but some articles still use it. I would support converting that article (and all the others) to use Infobox nrhp now that it has this functionality.--Dudemanfellabra (talk)
(ec) It was a parallel version to infobox nrhp, apparently split off by User:Wikid77 in 2007. I used to come across it in a number of Texas area articles. It had the nice feature of including both image and map, and was an explicit model for changes implemented into infobox nrhp in mid-2008 by Dudemanfellabra. In this article, it looks like the infobox_nrhp_map was added by Magicpiano in this edit in 2008. One different/sometimes nice feature about it still is that it puts the map at the bottom. I think there must be many other advantages to using infobox_nrhp instead now, including ability to handle other designations like NHS, NHL, local designations, etc. Hmm, infobox_nrhp_map is used in just 3 mainspace articles now. doncram (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Done - one of them Idylease Inn wasnt even an NRHP, just "eligible" I left talk page references and user sandbox's alone dm (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Chicago Theatre

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Chicago Theatre/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with Keweenaw National Historical Park

I'm trying to figure out the relationship between the Keweenaw National Historical Park (ref num 01000108) and some other NRHP Historic Districts and properties. For reference here, see the National Register of Historic Places listings in Houghton County, Michigan.

Now, according the the Historical Park's homepage, "Keweenaw National Historical Park is made up of partner sites and two federally designated units – Quincy and Calumet – located at the sites of former large-scale copper mines."

So let's look at those partner sites. Here's a list of them. They include the Calumet Theatre, the Chassell Heritage Center, Fort Wilkins, the Hanka Homestead, Eagle Harbor Lighthouse, Central Mine & Village, the Laurium Manor, Quincy Mine & Hoist, the Upper Peninsula Fire Fighters Memorial Museum, and some other sites. The sites I named are also, independently, listed on the NRHP. Question: Are the partner sites part of the Keweenaw National Historical Park? The Park is "made up" of these sites, after all.

Now, how about the "two federally designated units – Quincy and Calumet"? It appears (to me at least) that the "Calumet unit" is the same as the Calumet Historic District (ref no 89001097) and the "Quincy unit" is the same as the Quincy Mining Company Historic District (ref no 89001095). Question: Are the Historic Districts and park units the same thing?

To complicate matters, Calumet also has a Calumet and Hecla Industrial District (ref no 74000985) and a Calumet Downtown Historic District (ref no 74000986) which, I'm pretty sure (but not completely sure), are both wholly contained in the Calumet Historic District, and thus by default part of the Keweenaw National Historical Park.

(As a fun nesting example, one of the "partner sites," the Calumet Theatre, is located in the Calumet Downtown Historic District, which is located within the Calumet Historic District, which I assume is a subset of the Keweenaw National Historical Park.)

Anyway. Some suggestions on sorting these out? Has anyone worked with Historical Parks before, to be familiar with the terminology? Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you are on the right track. Yes, I agree that the "partner sites" are indeed part of the Keweenaw National Historical Park. No, i think the NRHP historic districts are not the same as NHP park units. My guess is that the NHP park units are "visitable" areas, and could easily include some modern visitor facilities that would be non-contributing properties at best within a NRHP district, or are simply not included. Also the NRHP districts would include areas not included in the NHP. The official NRHP documents for the sites and official documents for the National Historical Park will provide confirmation or contradiction about the NHP vs. NRHP districts and about your assertions of nesting and other relationships. You must obtain those documents to make sense of all of this, for sure.
For another example, the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, which includes "official structures" Woodson Law Office and others developed by Doug Coldwell and linked in a navbox (Template:Appomattox Court House National Historical Park), is probably the best-developed NHP covered in wikipedia. Doug found a NPS / NHP contact or two who were very helpful in direct correspondence. I don't think Doug watches here regularly so you may want to contact him separately.
A second other example is Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site, which does not correspond exactly to several NRHP historic districts that partially overlap.
Further, there are 10 "official structures" for the Keweenaw NHP which appear in the National Park Service's List of Classified Structures, which is a database of NPS-owned or controlled structures. Here is what i can extract, for Michigan / Keweenaw National Historical Park:
   	 Records: 10
 
	Park
	Structure Number
	Preferred Structure Name
	Structure State
	Significance Level
1.
	KEWE
	72705
	Calumet & Hecla General Office Building
	Michigan
	National
2.
	KEWE
	72727
	Calumet & Hecla Library
	Michigan
	National
3.
	KEWE
	72775
	Calumet & Hecla Warehouse Number One
	Michigan
	National
4.
	KEWE
	72802
	Union Building
	Michigan
	Contributing
5.
	KEWE
	72816
	Quincy Mine Office
	Michigan
	National
6.
	KEWE
	QDHR-1
	Quincy Mining Company Dry House
	Michigan
	Contributing
7.
	KEWE
	QDHR-2
	Quincy Mine Office Building Ruin
	Michigan
	Contributing
8.
	KEWE
	QDHR-3
	Quincy worker house foundations
	Michigan
	Contributing
9.
	KEWE
	QFSR-1
	Franklin School
	Michigan
	Contributing
10.
	KEWE
	QPOR-1
	Quincy Mine Office Site Ruin
	Michigan
	Contributing
Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I will echo the comparison to Martin Luther King, Jr. NHS - I was a grad school intern there in the '80s, doing building documentation. The historic districts were closely associated with the Park Service properties, but were not part of the designated park area. Some individual properties in the HDs were owned by the park service, but that did not make them part of the NHS. I suspect this case is similar. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Wait a minute--now I'm more confused. The definition of the park boundaries was the one thing I thought I did know. Take a look at [1]this map of the Calumet Unit] from the Keweenaw National Historical Park site. I understand that the NPS actually owns only a few hunks of property (designated in dark green on the map), but the "authorized park boundary" encircles quite a large area. Isn't the "authorized park boundary" the definition of what is within the park?
And, now that I look closer, the same page says, "Keweenaw National Historical Park is home to two National Historic Landmark Districts related to copper mining history." Those would be the Calumet Historic District (ref no 89001097) and the Quincy Mining Company Historic District (ref no 89001095). So that appears to be saying that the Park wholly encompasses those two districts. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, what the map means by saying "authorized park boundary" is not clear to me. Also, I wouldn't interpret that "is home to" phrasing, in a website written for tourists, as a reliable source about whether the two NHLDs are wholly included in the NHP. Certainly you need some more official document about the NHP.
About the two NHLDs, I have just developed a separate Calumet Historic District article and added the two NRHP nomination/inventory documents available to that and to the Quincy Mining Company Historic District article. I also fixed the Calumet, Michigan article to clarify that the Calument Downtown Historic District is not a NHLD and is not the same as Calumet Historic District. These NRHP documents are long and may answer many of your questions. doncram (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the docs. I'd noticed that the Calumet article was conflating the Calumet Historic District and the Calument Downtown Historic District, which was part of the reason I was trying to sort out what the relationships are between the historic districts and the park and each other. As far as the park goes, there must be some official definition of what is and what is not part of the park itself--seems like it ought to be an easy thing to determine, and hopefully the NHLD docs will help. Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Massachusetts (BB-59) now open

The A-Class review for USS Massachusetts (BB-59) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Federal Judicial Center database of federal courthouses with public domain images

The Federal Judicial Center maintains a database of historic courthouses, complete with images that are in the public domain because they were produced by the U.S. government (the agency responsible for generating each image is listed in the entry). Here is a typical example of such a page - note that each entry is accompanied by a separate moderately sized JPG file (like this one) which is larger than the image on the page with the description, and also a very large TIFF file (in the order of 15-20 MB). A fair number of these will be in the NRHP. Anyone interested in helping to upload those images (just the JPGs!) to Commons, let me know and I'll be sure to categorize them appropriately once they are there. Cheers! bd2412 T 08:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow.. I've been on Facebook wayyyy too long haha. I just tried to click "Like" on this comment. :P --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
:-) The category for these to go in at Commons is "Category:Images from the US Federal Judicial Center database". Cheers again! bd2412 T 16:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL, Dudemanfellabra. It looks like the JPEGs are decent quality, but given the file size differential (about 50-100 kB for the JPEGs I've looked at, versus about 20 MB for the TIFFs), I imagine the TIFFs could be converted to much higher-res JPEGs -- if only a person had the patience to download the TIFFs. Has anyone downloaded any of the TIFFs (to find out how good they are)? --Orlady (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Never tried, but I'd be skeptical. The images are, after all, only going to be scans of the original photos, not of the negatives (you can see the marks and sometimes even writing on the photos). bd2412 T 19:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the small file sizes of the JPEGs suggest that they were saved at an appropriate quality for web viewing -- not for print reproduction. The original scans probably included a lot more data. --Orlady (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Location Issue? (dropping "township" from location)

A number of properties in the the UP, rather than having city/town locations, are listed with locations in a township. That's all fine and dandy, but the appellation "township" seems to be dropped from the listing, leaving just a name that implies a city/town. A particularly egregious example is the Houghton County Traction Company Ahmeek Streetcar Station (see the National Register of Historic Places listings in Keweenaw County, Michigan), which is listed as being in "Allouez" (and the coordinates given match that). It is indeed in Allouez Township, Michigan, but it's not in the unincorporated community of Allouez. It's actually (as the name implies) in the village of Ahmeek, Michigan. See here for a picture and map of the actual location.

There are a handful of other properties where "township" is dropped from the location. The reason I've got a question mark in the title of the section is because I guess it's technically not a location issue, because the properties are indeed where they're supposed to be--it's that if I see "Allouez" or "Osceola," I expect that refers to a village/town/city, not a township. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a good chance that there are other properties that should be listed with "Township" in their name, but they may not be coded properly. I suspect that either the State Historic Preservation Offices involved didn't include the right township name when they submitted the form to the National Register, or someone at the NPS just geocoded it off the ZIP code, or something like that. By the way, there's a flag in the National Register database that says that a property is "in the vicinity of" a city, instead of actually in that city. I haven't checked to see if that applies to the Michigan properties, or not.
I'm taking a look at some Minnesota data right now. Some of the townships are listed properly (like Otter Tail Township, Minnesota and Scambler Township, Minnesota), but then there's an entry in Pine County, Minnesota that's listed in Ogema, Minnesota. The city of Ogema is actually in Becker County, Minnesota, while the entity in Pine County should really be listed as Ogema Township, Minnesota.
Looking at the NRIS database, there are places labeled as townships in Maine (two of them), 100 in Michigan, 13 in Minnesota, four in North Carolina, one in Nebraska, 67 in New Jersey, 14 in Ohio, 110 in Pennsylvania, one in South Carolina, five in South Dakota, and four in Wisconsin. The definition of a township varies from state to state. In Minnesota, a civil township is often coterminous with a Public Land Survey System township except for portions of any incorporated cities, and the civil township has some government functions. It sounds like civil townships in Michigan are similar. On the other hand, townships in Pennsylvania and townships in New Jersey are different. At this point, I'm starting to get confused as far as what type of local government entity should be listed as a location in any particular location. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
In Michigan, the definition of the township is exactly what you describe it as being in Minnesota. I don't think using townships as the location is a bad thing--looking at National Register of Historic Places listings in Keweenaw County, Michigan, for example, there are five listings with a "township" location (plus a sixth, the aforementioned Houghton County Traction Company Ahmeek Streetcar Station, that's missing the "township" designation). Of the six:
The only one of these that is wrong is the streetcar station, where the "township" designation has been dropped, implying it's located in the community of Allouez instead of Ahmeek. However, for a couple others, I think using the more exact "in the vicinity of" flag, where appropriate, would be more useful.
In any case, the following listings are missing "township":
And probably some others I haven't tracked down. Andrew Jameson (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

NYSOPRHP database down

Just letting everyone know that the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Document Imaging page is only returning "Service Unavailable" at the moment. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Coords in infobox vs separate coords template

I saw this diff by User:Easchiff and thought it should be discussed... dm (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You can use coord_display = inline,title inside the infobox to show the coords in the title as well as in the infobox. I'd suggest reverting this guy's edit. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I started out putting in |latitude=, etc., in the infobox, and got error messages that I wasn't able to quickly track down. So I put the coords in the body instead, where they replaced a non-functioning call to the template. I'd tend to agree that they belong in the infobox for consistency - as a general rule. cheers, Easchiff (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Some questions from the German NRHP project

At the moment we have started to redo our NRHP-related categories at DE:WP. I hope you can help with some detail questions which occured. The first questions may belong to another project or not so I am asking here because they're related (and certainly some of the members of related projects are reading here as well, otherwise you might the correct projects on these questions):

  1. Some NHLs do have an additional category de:Kategorie:National Civil Engineering Landmark which is not linked to EN:WP. I assume that's the same like Category:Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks. Am I right?
    1. However, List of historic civil engineering landmarks shows that there are such landmarks which are inside the U.S. therefor named National Historic Civil Enginieering Landmarks and such outside the U.S. which obviously are not national but only historic. Do I see that correct?
    2. Again that list: it lists 244 entries, but the category includes 14 only. I assume that this is a mistake and all the missing structures on the list should actually be included in the category but are not for unkown reasons. Right?
    3. Back to the U.S./outside U.S issue: is Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks a name proper for those structures outside the U.S.?
  2. I don't know exactly about the U.S. but in Germany we distinguish in most of our federal countries at least two types of heritage objects (Denkmal): cultural monuments and natural monuments. The latter might be trees, rocks, and other types alike. (Due to federalism, cultural monuments are sometimes further divided in architectural monuments and historic monuments, sometimes used both and sometimes synonymous.) In the contrary it seems to me that neither the NRHP nor the other types (NHS, NHL, NMON etc.) do distinguish between cultural and natural monuments. However most of them are non-natural properties. Affirmative?
  3. National Park Service: Does the NPS administer all NHL, NHS etcetera propertys? (I ask this, because in the German WP so far those categories are sorted into de:Kategorie:National Park Service (Vereinigte Staaten). If this isn't the reality we'll have to find out a workaround.) (I'm not talking about common NRHP properties.)

I think that was all. Greetings and TIA. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

These civil engineering landmarks are designated by the American Society of Civil Engineers. They are not directly related to the National Register of Historic Places, although many of the landmarks are also listed on the National Register.
The official name for these civil engineering landmarks seems to be "Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks" (see http://content.asce.org/history/ce_landmarks.html ). "National" is not part of the name, whether or not they are in the United States.
The American Society of Civil Engineers has designated some landmarks that are outside the United States.
The National Register of Historic Places in the United States does not include natural "monuments," and many of the properties on the National Register would not be considered to be monuments or Denkmal. There is a separate National Natural Landmarks program that is not as well developed or publicized as the NRHP.
The National Park Service administers the National Register program, but most of the individual properties listed on the National Register are owned and managed by other entities. The National Park Service does, however, administer National Historic Parks, National Monuments, National Historic Sites, National Battlefields, and National Heritage Areas. --Orlady (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to me that de:Kategorie:National Park Service (Vereinigte Staaten) should include only the NHPs, NMONs, NHSs, NBs, and others that are administered by the National Park Service. Most NRHP-listed places, and most NHLs, are not NPS-administered.
A bit more: The NRHP and most of the other types (NHS, NHL, National Battlefields, others) are focused only on historic/cultural sites, not natural monuments. The National Monuments, which are declared by the U.S. President, however, are of both historic and natural kinds. Only the historic-oriented National Monuments are listed on the National Register, while all other U.S. National Monuments, such as two big relatively recently declared ones in the north Hawaiian islands and the Marianas islands in the Pacific, are natural and are not NRHP-listed. Of course there are some archeological sites or individual buildings within large National Park or National Monument areas that might be separately NRHP-listed.
In terms of natural monuments, Americans know of their National Parks and National Monuments. But the National Natural Landmarks program is really not known of at all, unless the coverage that has slowly been developing by some interested wikpedia editors might change that. It is really hard to find out anything about these ones, besides the ones that are state or local parks, and I personally think it would almost be a disservice to German wikipedia readers to emphasize them at all. Some others might disagree with me on this point though. doncram (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This is mostly for doncram: Like the NRHP, the National Natural Landmarks program focuses on privately owned sites. However it is much newer -- it was established just under 10 years ago -- and an NNL listing has even less significance than a National Register listing (an NNL listing offers no potential monetary benefit to the landowner, and there are no penalties for actions adverse affecting an NNL). --Orlady (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the info about lack of positive or negative incentives is important to understand about in assessing a program. For NRHPs, the NRHP tax incentives and local zoning or other protection implications are important drivers for many listings. And being listed on the NRHP is widely understood as an imprimatur of historic importance (while being a NNL is not known of, at all). BTW, the NNL article says the NNL program has been running since 1962. Whether you mispoke or whether the article is in error, it speaks to the point that most of us don't know much about that program.
The article is correct. I was mistaken. New regulations were adopted in 1999. I think the 1999 regulations may have significantly altered the program, but the program had existed since 1962. --Orlady (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, i meant to say again how much I appreciate that Matthiasb and others are translating and developing articles on NRHPs etc in the DE wikipedia. I mean to get back to working on non-US historic sites, in the EN wikipedia. doncram (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine to hear that. Our project is very small, I guess it are 3 and a half editors involved in the theme and some other care about the National and State Parks in a seperate project. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
@Orlady: A small correction to your understanding of Denkmal. It has two meanings in our language. First it is a simple monument, e.g. a statue or a grave-stone, some bigger kind of historical marker maybe, we call the sometimes intendiertes Denkmal, translated intended monumuent (example: Bismarck-Denkmal (Hamburg)) but more broadly speaking Denkmal comprises any protected historic or cultural or natural object. The articles de:Denkmal and Memorial link together but are not exactly the same. See also that de:Kategorie:Denkmal links to Category:Monuments and memorials; de:Naturdenkmal are Natural monuments whereas de:Kulturdenkmal (cultural monuments) are f.ex. gardens, technical monuments, graves, archaelogical sites, parks, industial monuments, and protected buildings. In this sense every property listed in the NRHP is a monument in the broader German understanding of the word Denkmal. (There is some confusion in the description of the de:Kategorie:Denkmal, will have to see how to fix it later.)
@Donkram: Did I copy correctly that all NHLs, NHSs, NMEMs, NBs, NMPs and so on are all automatically placed into the NRHP but concerning the NMONs there are exceptions? So I'll have to remove de:Kategorie:Kategorie:National Monument (Vereinigte Staaten) from de:Kategorie:National Register of Historic Places and put those who are placed into the NRHP in that category individually. Is there a list available which of them are in the NRHP and which not? Or must I look up every on its own?
Sorry, if I ask all those questions which maybe are clear for you for a long time. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, technically you should get around to doing that, removing de:Kategorie:Kategorie:National Monument (Vereinigte Staaten) from de:Kategorie:National Register of Historic Places and adding individually only the NRHP-listed ones. The corresponding categories changes have mostly been done, recently, in the English wikipedia, as here too it was believed incorrectly that all National Monuments were NRHP-listed. I started on revisiting the National Monuments individual articles and making such corrections, but I am pretty sure it is not all done correctly yet. My two definitive sources on which NMs are NRHP-listed are the NRHP database (via Elkman's generator) and I also consult the long appendix in the PDF list of National Historic Landmarks (cited in each of the state NHL articles) which lists in each state which National Monuments and other higher designations are of historic nature (I think invariably meaning they are NRHP-listed). Perhaps the cleanup on that here should be completed, before you update the German categories. It would be easier, and I'd be a bit embarrassed if you got very far ahead of us here! :) doncram (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Project for locally Designated Sites?

I'm curious if there has been any discussion on expanding this project or starting a new project to produce lists, articles, and photographs for historic sites designated at the state or municipal level. Although inventories of historic places at the SHPO and municipal level often significantly overlap with the National Register, I know there are dozens of significant sites in the District of Columbia that, for one reason or another, have not been or can not be listed on the National Register. In addition, I believe that many of these locally sites rise to a level of significance and notability that a Wikipedia article would be appropriate. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for how to move forward with this proposal. Eli.pousson (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The project you want is WP:HSITES, which welcomes coverage of local registers anywhere. :) doncram (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of transit/railroad station naming

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations) has revived. As the old proposed convention conflicts with NRHP conventions I would suggest taking a look. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check please: Boundaries of Calumet Historic District

I've been struggling with determining the exact boundaries of the Calumet Historic District (a Landmark HD) and the similarly-located Calumet Downtown Historic District, the Calumet and Hecla Industrial District, and the Keweenaw National Historical Park. In any case, the Calumet Historic District has a nice online nomination form, which, on the last page, has a clearly labelled map of the Calumet Histroic District. Cool! Great! Except... Except the boundaries shown on the map are completely different than the text ones painstakingly described under "Boundary Description" five pages earlier. So the same document contradicts itself.

I'm of the mind that the text description is the correct one, in that a) the thumbnail location information ("Area W of MI 26 S of Calumet Lake to Osceola") essentially matches the text but not the map, b) neither the nomination form nor any other sources I can find (e.g., this) make mention of the large part of Laurium, Michigan seen in the map version, and c) accidentally slipping in an outdated version of the map seems like an easy oversight to make. So I think the map in the nomination form should be disregarded in favor of the text. Please, someone agree or disagree? Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, i agree or disagree. :) Seriously, your reasoning sounds good to me. Perhaps the discrepancy also has to do with the fact that the Calumet Historic District was not actually listed on the NRHP (and designated NHL) until March 28, 1989, while the map is dated 1980. The map was typed on and hand-annotated to label and show a proposed district outline and also to identify where and at what angle certain photos were taken, so including it in the document still made sense (to show where the photos were taken). However, many historic district nominations go through a lot of changes as owners opt in and out of a proposed district. I imagine that happened here. I support your disregarding the map. doncram (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Also i would support your splitting out Calumet Downtown Historic District from the Calumet, Michigan article to which it currently redirects (It was I who set up the redirect recently, but only because the Calumet, Michigan article was already pipelinked to, from the Houghton county list article, and was already including the Calumet Downtown HD's infobox). Or, I could do the splitting out, but i don't want to be in your way or to interfere if u want to do a DYK for it. doncram (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was planning on splitting out the Calumet Downtown Historic District; it's on my List of Things To Do. I wasn't going to do it for a little while yet, just because I wanted to sort out the Calumet Historic District and Keweenaw National Historical Park relationships first (and I was working on Keweenaw County properties). However, I'm not all that motivated by DYKs, so if you'd like to split it out and/or develop it further before I get to it, go ahead. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I might be crazy, but if a district "completely includes" another, doesn't it sort of "supercedes" it? E.g. Central Troy Historic District, which replaced five preexisting districts. Circeus (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

NRHP photos - copyrights

Does the "Public Domain" under "Restrictions" on the NRHP nomination form listing cover the photographs? For example, on the Norris District listing, does that mean the photographs included with the nomination form are in the public domain? Bms4880 (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The link doesn't work. Go here and enter norris district as resource name. Bms4880 (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I must lack your magic touch. All I get when I try to access the Norris District files is "The PDF file for this National Register record has not yet been digitized." --Orlady (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Instead of clicking on the images, scroll down, and it should list general information. The form and photos have not been digitized. I had to order the hard copy. Bms4880 (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I just happened across an entry on the Commons copyright tags discussion page that indicates NRHP nomination form photos are not in the public domain. Bms4880 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that was my entry. The great majority of NRHP images from the NPS Focus site are not public domain, regardless of the tags. I have confirmed this with the NPS directly, but I see no inclination on their part to resolve the confusion to the general public. Almost every photograph was taken by private individuals or state governments, who retain the copyright to their works, regardless of the NPS dosclaimer. Acroterion (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, i did see inclination in some correspondence, and I had mistakenly thought, recently, that the NPS had dropped the incorrect label. But i see it there still, as "Access: Public access / Restrictions: Public domain" in the NPS Focus database. It's a system error which the NPS is well aware of. As Acroterion points out, their error in characterizing the copyright status of photos does not change the actual copyright status of the photos. In the Norris District case, who took the photos? If it was a Federal employee who took the photos, and the Federal government owns them, then they may in fact be public domain. doncram (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If the images were produced by the TVA, it is quite possible that they are public domain, as the TVA is a quasi-Federal agency, and I believe a lot of their material is eligible. Acroterion (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Commons has a template Commons:Template:PD-USGov-TVA. You should always check to see if the image was really shot by a TVA employee. Acroterion (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The photographer isn't indicated on the back of the photos. It just says "Property of National Register" and gives title, location, and brief description. I doubt they were taken by TVA, since they were taken in the 1960s after TVA had sold the town. Bms4880 (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a gray area (does it means the prints themselves are owned by the Natioanl Register? That doesn't ensure copyright owned by National Register). I think i would not use them myself without obtaining specific clarification from the National Register or from the state. Who is the author of the NRHP application document, and what is their affiliation? In older listings, sometimes the photos were taken by a visiting person from the National Register program who wrote the application. For this specific listing, also since there was a lot of controversy about it already (at Talk:Norris District), it would be nice if you could scan and make available a copy of the NRHP text and photos. doncram (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to use them, since there is no indication they're in the public domain. The form was prepared by Herbert Harper of the Tennessee Historical Commission. If the photographs were taken by the THC, they're not in the public domain. In any case, I can use some early 1940s photos from TVA's Norris Dam report instead. Bms4880 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

2 steamer photos

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steamer Ste Claire c 1915.jpg and linked other deletion request, on two NHL steamships in Michigan whose photo upload was based on the erroneous "public domain" label. Informed comments and/or help remedying (perhaps by finding other PD justification) would be appreciated. doncram (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If they were taken in 1915 and 1905, their copyrights may have expired. Bms4880 (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

General Services Administration building descriptions.

I came across the U.S. General Services Administration Historic Building Posters & Brochures series, which provides detailed descriptions (with images) of about a hundred buildings, almost all of which are in the NRHP. I wrote the administrator of that program to ask if the text and images on those pages was in the public domain, or otherwise available to be used by Wikipedia, and she replied, by email:

The text on the building overview pages is the property of the federal government, and we have no problem with it being used for Wikipedia articles, provided credit is given to the U.S. General Services Administration. We are delighted to be able to contribute.

She also indicated that all of the pictures in that particular series are in the public domain, and free to use. I have asked at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights whether the permission given for the text suffices under our policies to use that content in article space. In the interim, I have copied all of the text of those pages to my userspace, indexed at User:BD2412/courthouses (most of the structures are courthouses, but some serve or have served other purposes). The text needs much work in terms of wikification, layout, tone, templates, etc. bd2412 T 14:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding! Thanks very much for doing this and for confirming the copyright issue.--Pubdog (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome - but (pending the resolution of the copyright inquiry), I'm really here to ask for help in plucking those pictures and formatting those entries! bd2412 T 21:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Updated U.S. Custom House (Baltimore, Maryland) ... hope it looks OK.--Pubdog (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy to take the courthouse in Erie. I believe it would be possible to get two articles out of the GSA data. --​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_30&oldid=1137371783"