text:
PO has used this photo on their website, along with many others that I put on Wikipedia.  Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Savannah Railroad Museum and Terminal and Shops
I've asked about this on two pages, but gotten no replies. It is relevant because at least part of it is on the NHRP.

Can someone familiar with Savannah look at these three articles: It seems to me that they can be merged into one or two articles. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Central of Georgia Railroad: Savannah Shops and Terminal Facilities
 * Georgia State Railroad Museum
 * Historic Railroad Shops
 * Definitely merge the museum and the Historic RR Shops: the articles say that they're the same place. No opinion on the first one with the other two, because I, like most of us here, aren't familiar with Savannah.  Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Need a Commons admin
User:Generic1139 posted on my talk page here alerting me to the fact that we are still using the Wikipedia Summer of Monuments (WSM) campaign upload link in all our county lists. While I think the upload link should stay to encourage photo uploads, I don't think we should still be associated with WSM any longer. When the link is clicked now, several categories/templates are automatically added to the uploaded image that do not need to be there. It has been suggested that we just remove the campaign all together from the row template, but one good benefit the campaign has is that it allows us to tag new uploads with the NRIS reference number included in the template row. If we just flat out remove the campaign, this tagging won't occur, so instead what we need to do is create a new campaign that still tags the uploads with the refnum but does not include WSM categories. The way to do this would be to create a page (commons:Campaign:nrhp?) at Commons that mimics the already existing commons:Campaign:wsm. In order to create this page, though, one has to have special privileges on Commons, which I do not have. Do we have any Commons admins here that might be able to do this?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You sure? Commons:Template:WSM-is-running should prevent any old templates. Can you do a test upload? Multichill (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is still running. Harmony Borax Works was just uploaded using the upload image link.  Oldid provided because I plan to make corrections.  Of course, we don't want to turn just turn wsm off, but have NRHP row point at a new campaign that adds our tags.  Generic1139 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Picture of a replaced building
The Jacob Spori Building was listed in 1989, and although it burned down in 2000, has not been delisted. The building was replaced by a new one, and that's the only picture we have. Someone added the photo to National Register of Historic Places listings in Madison County, Idaho, but I boldly removed it because it wasn't the historic building. Now I'm questioning that choice. I've certainly posted a few photos of empty lots where listed properties have been demolished. Should this picture be on the list? Ntsimp (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Once a building's gone, a photo of the site (with a replacement building or not) is unfortunately the best we can do for a list, unless we get really lucky and find an editor who took a picture before it was demolished, since the fair use policy only lets us use the photo in the article about the building itself. A photo of the site does have some encyclopedic value, though we probably should be careful about photos of replacement buildings, since our readers might think the replacement building is the listed one. I'm not sure it's better to just leave a blank space in the list, though.
 * In the specific case of the Spori Building, we might be able to sidestep the issue; BYU-Idaho has a photo collection of the building, and several of the photos predate 1923. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 17:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with using a photo of a non-associated new building (that is, not a reconstruction or modification that makes the building no longer historic, but just something that is now on the lot), is that a photo of that building gets picked up on all of the sites that mirror the wikipedia NRHP list or article, and the wrong building turns up in web searches. My thought is that an empty lot, ruin, empty foundation and the like are acceptable, but a new building with no ties to the old does more harm than good. Generic1139 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Idaho in fact has quite a few destroyed buildings that have never been delisted. When I find one, I check to see if the photos from the nomination file are in the public domain, and if so I use one of those. Personally, I would not use a photo of a replacement building - it is simply not the building that was listed and therefore not relevant. I also wouldn't use a shot of an empty lot, because I don't see any encyclopedic value in that. In the case of the Spori Building, the nomination photo is in the public domain. I've uploaded it and added it to the Madison County list. — Ipoellet (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Photos of the present state of the property are fine in the article (but should preferably not lead). IMHO only something that meaningfully resembles the historically significant parts of the listing should be used in lists (i.e. not signs or plaques, or non-contributing elements of a district).  Magic ♪piano 01:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right, I overstated the case with regard to empty-site pictures. They do have some minimal encyclopedic value, but not editorially sufficient to illustrate a county list or infobox. — Ipoellet (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The site is still on the National Register, regardless of the fact that its only contributing property has been destroyed. Much better to show a picture of the site, demonstrating the building's destruction, than to give no image and give the reader a chance to think that it might still be standing.  This precise situation has been helpful for me: last week I spent a day in Philadelphia, photographing NR sites for my personal collection, and when preparing my list of sites to visit, it was far more helpful to see File:Race and 12th Philly.JPG and File:NE corner Pine and Quince.JPG than to see nothing at all, or even to see the unreferenced statements of "Destroyed to build the Pennsylvania Convention Center" and "Destroyed see old photo at ".  And even if we have good referencing for destruction, it helps to have an image of the current building if you're trying to visit the site (much easier to find the location) and get a sense of that location's space and place.  Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly get an old photo if you can. To me the main use of photos and empty lots and replacement buildings is that folks won't waste their time trying to photograph these sites again! Sometimes it's not easy to find out where the site even is, e.g. an expressway was buildt through the neighborhood and streets get re-routed or just paved over. A note in the comment column of the table should be helpful as well. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota
The new FIPS code is now in effect for Oglala Lakota County, 46102. This give a new name and number to the former Shannon County 46113. I see the name of the county list has been changed, and that while the actual county code used on the WP:NRHPPROGRESS doesn't matter, it needs to match what's on the map. If the change is simple, I suggest that it be made to both. Generic1139 (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

A site not on NRHP, even if it should be
Some of you are familiar with my fledgling campaign to add the original Hewlett (LIRR station) house to the National Register of Historic Places. If it were actually listed, this is what the article would look like, minus the imaginary date of registry. Of course, if the article is tagged for deletion (and I'm sure it will be), I'd gladly support it... unless the National Parks Service actually does decide to have it registered. -User:DanTD (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if it was listed, would we necessarily have a separate article on the old depot? I'd think that it would still make sense to keep everything in the Hewlett (LIRR station) article, like we do for Dempster–Skokie (CTA station), for instance. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 18:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with TheCatalyst here. Unless adding material on the NRHP building to the main station article makes it cumbersomely long, it seems like we ought to keep all the material on the station in a single article.  The alternative would be to create an NRHP-depot article that substantially duplicates a section of the station article; or to deliberately withhold material on the historic depot from the station article and make the reader follow a main-article link, which seems contrary to the principles at WP:LINKSTYLE, including "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links". — Ammodramus (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Formatting issue
Does anyone else see the red dot in the photograph, rather than the map of Tennessee, in the Shields' Station infobox? Bms4880 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. The coordinates given are for a point in Ohio.  Magic ♪piano 15:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed it - it was 39 degrees north, but should have been 36 degrees north. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

See also vs NRHP Pennsylvania template (or both)
I've done a lot of work illustrating a large part of the 551 NRHP sites in Philadelphia. They are divided into 7 sublists. This is appropriate but causes some problems going back and forth between lists. Ever since I can remember this has been taken care of by having 2 links in the See also section to the main Philly NRHP article National Register of Historic Places listings in Philadelphia as well as to National Historic Landmarks in Philadelphia. There's also a navigation box for the whole state of PA which has about 90 links in it, including those 2. See below.

The 2 "see also" links are now being removed, with the justification of WP:Seealso. I find this much harder to work with.

The relevant part of WP:Seealso is

"As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.... Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense."

I think common sense in this case would be to keep the see also links (the links in the navbox are pretty difficult to find sometimes), and that WP:NRHP should be the folks who exercise this common sense, since we deal with the tables the most. Any feedback appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I say we use common sense and keep both. The "See also" links are useful for navigation, especially in states where half the counties are still in a unified list, and I wouldn't expect people to find them (or realize their significance) in a navbox that's usually collapsed by default and has a bunch of other links. It's not like we're dumping half the navbox in there; those are easily the two most important links in a group of 100 or so, and we want them to be prominent. Besides, we don't even have a navbox for each state right now, so we'd have "see also" sections in like half of our county lists but not the other half, which just looks inconsistent (and will just lead someone to ask why this convenient link is missing from the articles with a navbox). Let's not use policy as an excuse to make our articles less navigable and more confusing (we have a rule about that, after all). TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree. I think that the guideline to not list things in See Also that are linked in the body is misguided.  Quite often I'm looking for something that I think should be in the See Also without having to go through the whole article.  Other readers are probably that way too.  So put them in the See Also.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 * We don't need to debate the general case for See Also. In the  case of NRHP list articles, which are in large part about navigating, having two navigation mechanisms does more good than harm, we should keep the nav box and the see also links. Generic1139 (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The editor who was removing the links hasn't responded, so I assume he has rethought his position. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I have to say, in new articles I'm creating I am not including a link back to the county NRHP list in a See Also link. The link to the county is included in the NRHP navbox for that state.  If I'm editing an article with a See Also link, I do not remove the link.--Pubdog (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole question was the See alsos in the county lists; I normally don't include the see-also to the county list in individual articles, basically because it's not generally helpful, but the situation's completely different when you're navigating from the child list to the parent list. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Wawona listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wawona to be moved to Wawona (ship). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What's going on with Arkansas Preservation's nomination forms?
It looks like Arkansas Preservation changed all the links to their nomination forms, which means we're going to have to update yet another state. I was going to run the Arkansas NRHP articles through AWB like I did with Maryland a while back, except it seems like some forms haven't moved to the new URLs yet (see the nom for AR 289 Bridge Over English Creek, for example, which doesn't seem to exist at either URL). I checked their website, and the links that come up in their search point to where the new forms should be - there just aren't any forms there yet. Anyone have any idea what's happening here? TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They've redesigned their website, and while there are links to PDFs, they're all broken, and different than the old ones. I've not yet made inquiries as to when it might be fixed, but I'm guessing all the old links will not be maintained.  Magic ♪piano 01:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears as though the nomination forms will, once the PDF links actually work, at least use the same resource ids in the filename, so it may be possible for a bot or semi-automatic process to update links.  Magic ♪piano 14:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * PDFs are available for some counties (e.g. Ashley and Lafayette) but not others (e.g. Garland).  Magic ♪piano 16:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In a brief exchange with the Arkansas SHPO, they are working on restoring access to the missing PDFs, but have no timetable for completion.  Magic ♪piano 15:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

More missing forms
It's odd...I just went over to the Virginia DHR looking for one of the forms for Alexandria, and it seems that all of the forms and photographs relating to Alexandria City are currently missing. It's not a DHR-wide problem; a cursory examination reveals that at least one county's forms (can't remember which) are where they should be. So I presume that there are others working. Any idea what gives? I know they migrated some things on their website, but that was a while ago and I should have thought that something like this would have been caught between then and now. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Pennsylvania missing forms
|PA CRGIS seems to be undergoing some change. At least some of the forms have moved from an address like https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/ce_imagery/phmc_scans/H096936_01H.pdf to https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/CRGIS_Attachments/SiteResource/H096936_01H.pdf  The CRGIS ask ReGIS function gives a usable address for some forms, but others have links that don't work. CRGIS and I had been getting along together so well lately. Anyone have any info on this? Generic1139 (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've not heard of this at all. I always try to download forms before going on a photo-taking trip, and I don't remember any issues over the past few weeks when getting sites in Washington and Fayette Counties.  Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I first noticed it just a few days ago - when trying to sort out architect vs builder. Generic1139 (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

category: wars on the NRHP
''This discussion about Category:World War II on the National Register of Historic Places began on my talk page, but once it involved more than two editors I figured WP:NRHP talk would be a better place for it. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)''

I liked the idea of the category World War II on the NRHP. Are planning to do the same with the Revolutionary War, Mexican War, Indian Wars, Civil War, Spanish-American War, Korean War and Cold War? Einbierbitte (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no plans to develop more war categories myself, but I would consider those to be entirely worthy additions to Wikipedia. Also, I don't think of it as a "war" category so much as a "theme" category: other such categories could include African American history, Women's movement, Industrial Revolution, Presidential sites, Arts, so forth... — Ipoellet (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Previously (see talk page for Category:World War II on the National Register of Historic Places), I asked about the name of the category itself. I still question the name, but I do like the concept and see value in having similar categories for other themes/wars, too. Maybe post a note at WP:NRHP for feedback? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've long thought having theme categories would be a great idea, as in the ideas Ipoellet suggests. Although looking at the WWII cat it is getting large. Perhaps a subcategory for WWII monuments and memorials on the Register could be split off? Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Never thought of the idea. I agree that (1) it's an awkward name and (2) getting a better name would be hard.  I'm surprised to see that it doesn't exist; I thought that the Battle of Sacramento (Kentucky) article, for example, would be in such a category.  At the moment, there's no category that would embrace both the Sacramento battlefield and the David Yeiser House, except for the general "NRHP in Kentucky" category of course; it would help if we had "Civil War on the NRHP in KY" or something of the sort.  But we should set some sort of boundaries: for example, would GAR halls count toward the Civil War categories?  The oldest World War II monuments are surely old enough now; would they count?  I'd say that we should leave memorials out of these categories: they should include locations that actually were involved in the conflicts in question, which isn't the case for most memorials; yes, the USS Arizona Memorial should be included, but that's because it's closely tied to the location, in contrast to the Colonel Robert A. Smith Monument, located "ninety poles distant" from the spot it commemorates, or the Union Monument in Perryville, placed at a rather average spot on the Perryville Battlefield.  Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops I forgot Vietnam War. Ah, well. I like the theme idea. I think that memorial/monuments should be spun off if there is not a direct connection as I think Nyttend suggests. It seems a consensus is building for the wars (kinda sorta), but how do we then consider what the other themes should be? Einbierbitte (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it should be a criterion for inclusion in the cat that the property's historical significance be significantly related to the war in question. For example, just because Dwight Eisenhower, George S. Patton and Omar Bradley were cadets there would not qualify the United States Military Academy for inclusion in the WWII cat. However, it would easily make the cut for a "Revolutionary War on the National Register of Historic Places" category, because as West Point it was first fortified and developed as a military post. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of the categories. Name-wise: what about Category:World War II-related sites on the National Register of Historic Places and the like?  It's unwieldy, but we use other unwieldy category titles. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How loosely do we define the word 'site'? Ships aren't considered sites per se (just sayin). Einbierbitte (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Listings", then, perhaps? -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's just petition our congressmen to sponsor legislation: Resolved, by the House of Representatives and Senate in Congress assembled, that all locations entered in the National Register of Historic Places be, and hereby are, known as "Registered Historic Places." It would obviate the reasons that led us (properly) to get rid of the much simpler "RHPs" several years ago.  Probably the "listings" idea is our best bet; if we think of a better one, we'll need to consider beginning to use it in the lists.  Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

architect OR builder =
As I'm sure most of you know, Elkman's fine query tool puts this in its constructed infobox: architect OR builder = whatever. I'm guilty of sometimes, but not always, just pasting that in without picking one or the other,or adding the other if both are known. I've gone back and fixed all I've botched in the past, in most cases the architect and/or builder is laid out more completely in the nomination form text. I'm thinking that I'm not the only one to have done it wrong. Can we add an error report that flags infoboxes that have architect OR builder = where it is set to something? Or, is there an easy way to do a text search through source to find them as a one time scan? Generic1139 (talk)
 * I suspect that a lot of the NRIS-only articles have this problem, since a few of the more prolific article-creators just copied in the infobox without changing anything. The error report would probably be nice to have, but I'm not sure that we could do much with it yet because of how many NRIS-only articles there are. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See this change that I made to the template's sandbox. What if we adopted it?  We can just make   produce a "designer" line, and it would display whatever's in that parameter.  What's more, this change would implement a proposal made here several months ago, of getting rid of the rather useless   parameter.  Note that (1) virtually all of the architect OR builder names are architects to an extent, so it would also be safe to have this one duplicate   instead of making it display "designer"; and (2) this parameter in the generator was originally , but Elkman changed it as a result of one of the complaints that ultimately got Doncram topicbanned from the NRHP.  Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the discussion about governing body, but I'm not in favor of getting rid of it. Can you provide a link back to the earlier discussion? In particular, I'm wondering how the "rather useless" judgment came about - I don't consider it that. — Ipoellet (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See the "Infobox fields" section of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 60. Nyttend (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I remember that discussion now - I just didn't participate because I didn't feel I had anything to add to what was said, especially by MagicPiano. Upon rereading, I would not take that discussion as any sort of consensus to remove the governing body field from the infobox - there were simply some differing opinions offered without any sort of resolution on a single change outcome. Someone could, however, be bold and change the label for the infobox field to something like "Ownership", which is useful information for a reader who is approaching the NRHP as a historic preservationist rather than as a historian. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why I only referred to it as a "proposal", not a "decision" or anything of the sort; since it just got floated out there, I felt like I should raise the issue without making it seem like I was finally doing what we decided long ago. The problem with the field in general is that it doesn't particularly reflect the true state of things in many cases (I've seen downtown HDs get listed with US POSTAL SERVICE as the governing body, just because there's a post office in the HD), and unlike unchanging elements such as the date of construction or the architect, the owner/governing body/whatever can change easily.  Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

With regard to this thread's original issue, architect and builder are distinct points of information that the NR forms and NRIS unfortunately conflate. Given that Elkman's tool can only dump that NRIS field into a single template parameter, I would support displaying architect OR builder with a "Designer" field name — but the template documentation should make clear that architect OR builder is deprecated and editors are encouraged to manually disaggregate its contents into the appropriate architect and builder parameters as much as possible. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with deprecating architect OR builder but displaying something if it is used. Currently, architect OR builder displays nothing.  I'm not sure "Designer" is the right choice though - I've looked at several of these in the past two days, when there are two names, it is sometimes true that both are architects, but a only a little less often it is an architect and a builder.  In some cases a single name is the builder.  I'm not sure we have a single word for architect or builder, but designer isn't it.  Developer might be a choice, but it has another common meaning in the case of a multi-building tract. How about "Designer or builder", it takes up the same amount of space as "Architectural style" and we live with that.  Generic1139 (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The NRIS field sometimes contains names of people who are neither builders nor architects. I've seen NRIS-based articles that (wrongly, of course) credited a building's construction to Rufus Porter, whose only actual role was painting on its walls. He's not the only artist whose name I've seen in that field.  Magic ♪piano 00:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

When settlement = historic district, do we need a separate article, revisited
Some of you may recall that a few years back, we had this thorny problem caused by many historic districts in Connecticut being pretty much coterminous with their eponymous settlements, which we already had articles on. There was a difference of opinion as to whether, in that circumstance, we should have separate articles on the settlement and the historic district (I don't remember at the moment when this was or I would have posted links; I suppose if anyone does and finds those discussions relevant they should feel free to post them here). The best known example I can think of is Litchfield Historic District, an NHLD which we sort of resolved by ... well, read the hatnote.

A few months ago the potential for this issue to revive raised itself when New York's State Historic Preservation Office approved the nomination of Canajoharie Historic District to the Register. Unlike most other HDs of the "X Historic District" variety in the state, where X is the name of the village, city or hamlet of which the district is usually at the core of, the Canajoharie district, as shown in the map on page 138 of the above-linked nomination, includes almost all of the developed village and a portion south of the village boundary (in the town of the same name) along NY 10.

When I added this to the Montgomery County NRHP list a little while ago, I chose to link the listing to the village article. This is because I do not feel the listing, as bounded, really justifies a separate article (pretty much the first time this has ever happened with an NY listing, in my experience). Instead, much of the nomination could be used to improve the village article, and the district boundaries could be discussed in the article's geography section.

However, in light of the heat some of those earlier discussions generated I am holding off on categorizing the village article into the NRHP categories and the other things we do with NRHP articles, like adding the navbox and project banner. I'd like some input here. Anyone? Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't remember the previous discussion, but will note that I used to be very firmly in the "one article" camp. If you've got a town of 5,000 and it is all an HD, what is possibly gained by having two articles?  I still very much believe in that, see e.g. Rose Valley, Pennsylvania. Nevertheless it always seems like something extra usually creeps in: a boundary extension, a current big news item, etc. that makes 2 articles more attractive.  For Cape May Historic District, for me it was just that there is so much material on the historic resort and architecture, and the article on the current resort Cape May, New Jersey has a lot of material that is so far removed from the historic stuff, e.g. presidential voting records and elected officials.  Ultimately, I suggest just dealing with it like any other article.  Start with the presumption that it's all one article until there is just too much material to fit in it.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with the above. Though personally I'm in favor of considering a separate historic district article wherever possible.  (Viz the Capitol Hill Historic District (Washington, D.C.) - personally I think it does the neighborhood no favors to conflate the district article with it, and if I ever a.) have the time and b.) can find the forms I intend to do something about it.)  That said, when an entire town is coequal with a district I don't see that the two need to be disengaged. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming my judgement. I have gone ahead with the rest of the changes that bring the village article into the orbit of this project. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I remember the village/district issue clearly, as I was trying to mediate it. Consensus boiled down to what you described in your original post, that a village that substantially coincides with the historic district doesn't need separate articles about the district and the village. The argument mostly involved the degree of hair-splitting associated with substantially. In general, the project-wide one-subject, one-article guideline is applicable.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Map - number per county or per 100 square miles?
The legend of the map at National Register of Historic Places listings in Georgia says that it is the number of NHRP sites per 100 square miles, but it actually seems to be the number per county. Which is right? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Now I see - # is the # in the county, color code is the density. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 Charleston, South Carolina shooting
Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church where the shooting took place is part of the Charleston Historic District at 110 Calhoun Street. On the map its at the north end of the district just east of Marion Square and across the street from the Buist School. The NPS has a page on it at which includes a 1989 HABS Jack Boucher photo after Hurricane Hugo, but I can't locate the photo at the LOC or on Commons. Any help appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

New photos
I added new photos to Commons for The Oaks (Monrovia, California) They're in the Monrovia, California category Einbierbitte (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I added one of them to the article. As long as you tag the images with the NRHP template, which you did, they will (usually) be noticed and integrated.  If you upload several images to commons, you can build a category, and also tag it with the NRHP template, and the category will be added to the county list as well. Generic1139 (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

photo
National Register of Historic Places listings in Brantley County, Georgia shows a house on the NHRP that burned. There is no photo there, but I found a low-resolution on Google Images, as well as two after it partially burned, which are also on this website. These two images are copyrighted, but the one before it burned that I found doesn't say anything about copyright. Is it OK to use that photo without violating the copyright? Can it be justified as fair use since it no longer exists? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The nomination photos were published in 1982, so this condition should apply, making those photos public domain. So it wouldn't be fair use, since we have a free alternative... but the free alternative's much better anyway, since there's no ugly copyright notice across the middle of the photos. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I can't get the NPS thing to load right now - it gets to a certain point and stops (it gets to 320KB and then locks up IE). The photos after the fire have the copyright on the photo but the one before the fire does not.  But I see your point about using the nominating photo.  I'll do that when I can get the NPS site to work.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Well, I was able to get it in Firefox - slow at first, but I got it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

✅ That's all it took to turn that county red (on the progress map, that is). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * One small problem: Photos submitted in nomination forms are NOT public domain.  Photos submitted are still protected by intellectual property laws.  Here's the copyright page from the NRHP .  There may be a fair use loophole, but I'm unsure how that works.  25or6to4 (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it was in that 1978-89 period. Also, I think it is "fair use" since the place was destroyed by fire 10 years ago, so we can't go out and take a photo.  And if I have to, there is a contact person on that page.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the 1978-1989 period means. But I do agree on the fair use criteria, as it passes all 10 of the WP:NFCCP non-free content criteria.  25or6to4 (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * US copyright law states that if a photo was published between 1978 and 1989 without a copyright notice and its copyright was not registered within 5 years (which it wasn't, I checked the Copyright Office's online records), then it's in the public domain. Only nominations from 1989 onward are automtically copyrighted. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But were the nominations really published? A copy was submitted to NPS, but did it involve "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending", or offering to do the same?  As far as I know, nominations weren't published until NPS started sending copies to people upon request: but when did they start doing that?  Unless they started before 1989, this image (unfortunately) can't be used.  Because this is just a list of topics without illustrative images being absolutely necessary, we can't use the image under fair use; it's not as if we had something like a list of company logos, a page where the nonfree images themselves were the subjects and without which the page would hugely suffer.  To answer the original problem, many of us routinely fill these holes with images of the site; for a random example, see the Port Jefferson School at National Register of Historic Places listings in Shelby County, Ohio.  Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But this house was destroyed by fire 10 years ago. I'm close enough that I would go get a picture if it was still there.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I frequently upload images (such as) from pre-1989 nominations under public domain logic. I take submission of an NRHP nomination as publication (as of the form preparation date). I would suppose no court case has actually tested this, but it seems to me that placing a work into a public process subject to copying, review, and redistribution by various parties not controlled by the author constitutes "distribution" by "lending". If nothing else, FOIA was passed in 1967, meaning that after that date any nomination received by the NPS (received, not listed) was subject to release to any interested party (subject to certain exceptions that address restricted listings fall under). That's gotta amount to publication. No, FOIA status doesn't involve active marketing of the material, but the quoted definition doesn't require that. I agree that after 1989, publication is not especially relevant, since it doesn't trigger any short-term public domain status after that date. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The one you gave is a very similar example - done in the 78-89 time frame and has since been destroyed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider including a 1978-79 image in a NHRP form to be a publication. In a deletion debate, I would vote to delete it since there's significant doubt per the precautionary principle. And I'm a Commons admin.  Royal broil  01:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The terms we're talking about here are at Publication and can be summarized as "distribution of copies to the general public with the consent of the author". I'm sure that distribution was done by the NRHP since at least the 1970s via photocopies as well as displaying the nomination forms and photos at their several libraries (and at state historic libraries). There shouldn't be any doubt that that is publication. My only question is can we be certain that the copyright was not registered within 5 years via the Copyright Office's online records? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't considered the fact that FOIA, by itself, constitutes an offer to make records available in a way that satisfies the definition. Best to wait to hear back from TheCatalyst31 on the records checking; many of these online editions of US Copyright Office records are fragmentary and not hugely helpful for anything except confirming that something's been registered.  Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A few days ago @Catalyst31 said that he checked on the 5-year thing. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I mean: how did he check, with what website/web service did he check, that kind of thing. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * said "I checked the Copyright Office's online records". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I repeat: many online editions of US Copyright Office records are not hugely helpful. For example, the renewals database from Stanford University only gives books, so one can't use it for checking for the renewal of photographs: doing that would be reckless. Before we start depending on his check, we need to know that he used a database in which this post-publication registration would necessarily appear if it existed.  If that's not necessarily the case, due diligence has not been exercised, putting us at significantly greater risk of copyright infringement, and on a much less significant side, significantly greater risk of the image getting deleted here and/or at Commons.  See the Recklessness (law) article for what I mean.  Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked the official online records catalog of the U.S. Copyright Office, which includes "Copyright registrations for all works dating from January 1, 1978, to the present, as well as renewals and recorded documents", so it should include the copyright notice if it exists. I searched under the photographer's name and various iterations of "Sylvester Mumford House", and I didn't get a result for anything to do with the nomination. So I think we're clear on that front. And for the record, I'm a woman :) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Nyttend, I think we have to use the best information we have. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that the Copyright Office itself published any of these records; thanks for correcting me. No objections remain on my part.  And Bubba, the thing is that these records are also published in print (things like the Stanford database are digitized versions of the originals), and due diligence requires that we check the print source when we know that the online source is inadequate, because the print sources are the best we have.  Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, I don't have access to any printed source. The database shows six pieces of software that I've copyrighted, so as far as I can tell, it is OK. The database after 1978 seems to be good: "The Copyright Office is an office of public record for copyright registrations and related documentation. Copyright registrations for all works dating from January 1, 1978, to the present, as well as renewals and recorded documents, are accessible through the Copyright Office online records catalog." Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as I said, I didn't know that they had all stuff from recent decades online. Meanwhile, regardless of the quality of digital editions, you do have access to the original printed copies; perhaps you can get them in Georgia, but even if not, you can drive to southern Indiana and look at http://iucat.iu.edu/catalog/14456873 whenever the library's open: it's not impossible to do that or to hire someone in Bloomington to look at them, so as far as due diligence is concerned, you definitely have access to them.  Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that is ridiculous. I see no reason to doubt the copyright office.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to doubt them. The point is that they don't have all stuff online for all years, and this is what you have to do (minus the long driving) for years when they don't have stuff online.  Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But they say that they do have everything since Jan 1, 1978 online, and the photo in question was from 1981. And the printed book may be published from the database.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me quote myself for the second time: I didn't know that they had all stuff from recent decades online. Meanwhile, except for recent years, all online sources are digitisations of printed books, unless they were working with digital databases in 1919.  Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 * So then, I don't have to drive to Indiana to look at the physical book? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Good discussion. When I've uploaded nomination photos as PD, I've always done due diligence at copyright.gov but I hadn't considered the pre-post-1978 issue for what records are online. So I'll have to go back and review what I've uploaded now. Ah, well... — Ipoellet (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The rule before 1978 was just "published without a copyright notice", so there was no option to register it within five years. I'm not sure if that means the notice would have to be on the nomination itself or if it could be registered separately at the time of publication, though. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As an illustration of some of the issues this discussion has touched on, here's an example of a pre-1989 nomination photo that I would not upload due to the precautionary principle and inability to complete due diligence: Nez Perce Snake River Archeological District (nomination with photo), nomination prepared 1977-04-04, listed 1978-12-22, no copyright notice, haven't bothered to check for registration. The issue I see is that the photo is from 1969, author David G. Rice, both of which match to a paper listed in the bibliography section. I don't have access to that paper to assess publication status/date, copyright notice, or whether the photo is in it, so I don't believe we can assume PD and I won't upload the picture. (Even though I like the picture and think it would be very useful.) — Ipoellet (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Download nomination form
How can I download a copy of the nomination form (74000683 in particular)? If I click on the link (under date listed) that is supposed to take me there, it doesn't do anything. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The links below "date listed" haven't worked for some time since the NPS started to redesign its website; we should probably just remove them at this point. As for that specific nomination, it apparently hasn't been digitized since it's an address-restricted site; you can request a copy with the address information redacted by emailing the NPS at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you, my state agency sent me a PDF of another one today, so I'll ask them. (The rough address is mentioned in 79000727, which encompasses the area of 74000683.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The NPS-hosted nominations have a consistent URL; the only difference from one to another is the reference number. Go to Elkman's infobox generator and supply the refnum, and if it's in a state with nominations online, you'll get a link to the nomination.  Georgia's are online, so your nomination is available at http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/79000727.pdf.  If the 74000683 nomination weren't restricted, it would be at http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/74000683.pdf.  Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you, it says that the 1974 one hasn't been digitized. That is because the address is restricted, right?  The 1979 one available there is a little different from the one that my state agency sent me.  It is from a "file copy" made before some of the things were filled in, and it also includes a three-page "list of intrusions" 1927-77.  These are apparently things that had been built in the last 50 years in the historic area and were not considered historic.  The fourth paragraph of the second page of the 1979 document gives some good clues to the location of the restricted address of the 1974 nomination.  And I asked the person that sent me the 1979 form to send me a copy of the 1974 form, but I got no response today.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Well, the list of intrusions is in there, just in a different place. The downloaded one has a list of property owners which the one they sent me doesn't.  Also, the maps are different.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 * They replied today. They didn't send me a copy of the form, saying that it was an archeological site only.  But it is easy to figure out where it is.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Bubba73, not trying to get on your case here, but making a general point. This gives us another snack out of the can of worms about how much information about restricted sites we want to be including here.  This is an encyclopedia, not a detective agency.  And if you have to piece together clues, even if easy to do, are we running afoul of WP:NOR, and in particular, about original research: "... includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Generic1139 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Well, the later NHRP says that it is three blocks by seven blocks on Bay Street. It also says that the area was leveled in 1974.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 * WP:OR prohibits "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". Clearly they exist, whether the NR nomination,, or any published sources within the Arnall T. Connell Papers held by the Atlanta History Center.  Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those links. I thought it was probably in the local newspaper too.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, agreed, if there is a reliable published source that says the location for Y is X, then yes, put X in the article with a ref. If, however, source #1 says the location of Y was within M general area, in a section that was dug up and paved over, and other source #2 lists several areas X, Y, and Z that were dug up and paved over in the area, one of which was in general area M, then stating that Y is at X is OR, and WP:OR prohibits synthesis. Otherwise, all you can say is Y is within M. Generic1139 (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That is what I did at National Register of Historic Places listings in Glynn County, Georgia, for the description of the 1974 HRHP "Brunswick Old Town". A few months I go I was reading about the "old town" and the "old town historical district" on web pages. I thought that "old town" was referring to the original plan of the city. Actually, according to the history of Brunswick website, it was referred to that way. The "old town" was the original plan and "new town" was built later outside "old town".

I put a description of the 1974 NRHP "old town" as basically being the same area as the 1979 "old town historic district". The NRHP "old town historical district" is slightly larger than the original city plan and (for instance) specifically lists the old courthouse, which is two blocks north of the original city plan.

Then when I got the 1979 nomination form of the "old town historical district" a few days ago, I saw that I had been mistaken - the 1974 NRHP "old town" is a small part of the original city plan, and thus not the same as what was locally known as "old town". It has a few sentences about the 1974 "Brunswick Old Town" NRHP and I put that into the description of the 1974 "old town". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Civic Stadium (Eugene, Oregon)
Project members may be interested in Civic Stadium (Eugene, Oregon), an NRHP site that was destroyed by fire yesterday. All constructive contributions welcome. We can add the 'Former NRHP sites' category after it is officially delisted. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If the Oregon SHPO follows the example of Pennsylvania's, delisting may take decades. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ORSHPO is variable on that. Sometimes they're quite prompt, other times they take years. — Ipoellet (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted. Is it best to go ahead and add the 'former' category, or should we wait until it is official? NRHP participants would know best practices better than me. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Entries remain listed until they are formally delisted, regardless of the physical status of the property. There are many listed-but-demolished properties on the register.  Magic ♪piano 18:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's also at least one demolished-then-listed property, Site of Ferdinand Branstetter Post No. 1, American Legion in Van Tassell, Wyoming, which was a vacant lot when listed in 1969, and which remains a vacant lot, albeit one with a historical marker. — Ammodramus (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And one listed-then-demolished-then-listed-again property, the John Marshall House Site in Old Shawneetown, Illinois. And if that wasn't strange enough, the house was demolished so a less-accurate reconstruction of the house could be built. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * However, the Branstetter site was listed as a site, intentionally commemorating where the American Legion post had been; it's not like they listed a building after it was destroyed. See Holy Rosary Catholic Church (St. Marys, Ohio) for that kind of situation: the building was listed a year after being destroyed, and the NR gives no indication that they knew of its destruction.  Ohio's bad on that kind of thing; I've visited a lot of NR-listed empty lots that have been empty since the 1990s or 1980s.  For example, see the Lockington Covered Bridge, destroyed in 1989.  Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Delisting success
I've seen a number of people express frustration about demolished properties staying on the Register for a long time. I've been making my own list, some of which is at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues/Utah. Late last year I tried reaching out to the Utah SHPO, and I emailed them a list of 10 demolished properties. They thanked me and said action would be taken after appropriate bureaucratic delays. The July 2 weekly list shows two from my list: the Utah Slaughter Company Warehouse in Salt Lake City and the Utah-Idaho Sugar Factory in Salt Lake County. I know my report was the impetus for at least the first one, because the SHPO official told me they had extensively searched the records and found no one had noticed that building had been gone since at least 1991 to make way for what is now EnergySolutions Arena (aren't building projects supposed to be checked for impact on historic places?). So it can be done; I recommend you give it a try! Ntsimp (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I've also had success with the Maine SHPO -- there are a few delistings on the pending list now, one of which I brought to their attention. There will also likely be further ones, as I recently asked them about two properties, which they had apparently petitioned for delisting some years ago. I really ought to work on the SHPO of Massachusetts, where there are a significant number of "issue" properties.  Magic ♪piano 19:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move of Independence Park (Houston, Texas) to McCullough Park (Houston, Texas)
I have started a discussion on the talk page about moving Independence Park (Houston, Texas) to McCullough Park (Houston, Texas), as this reflects the current name of the park. Your feedback would be appreciated. 0x0077BE ( talk ·  contrib ) 20:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

New UNESCO World Heritage Site
Morning, FYI, the San Antonio Missions were added to the UNESCO World Heritage Site list today. The list does include all 5 missions, including the Alamo. 25or6to4 (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Rebuilt house?
I was completing photos of NHRP sites in three rural Georgia counties today (Appling, Pierce, and Jeff Davis). However, the Pace house at National Register of Historic Places listings in Jeff Davis County, Georgia was destroyed by fire in 2011 and rebuilt as accurately as possible. I added my photo of the rebuilt house - is that OK? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine to add a photo of an empty lot, or a lot where a different building has been built; at worst it's that. Definitely not a problem.  Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure if it was rebuilt at the same location - I can call the historical society and ask. But I think it probably was built on the same site because most of the bricks at the front stairs are old bricks, except for a layer of new ones on the top.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

NPS site - search / direct link to specific National Register of Historic Places broken?
Hi, history nuts! Am I missing something obvious, or is the NPS search function broken? Looking for direct link to NRHP Reference # 91000254 for Robert_E._Lee_Monument_(New_Orleans,_Louisiana). As embedded in my citation needed tag, could not find Lee Circle from 2008 cited link of http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/All_Data.html nor on advanced search by reference number, name, or location at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregadvancedsearch.do?searchtype=natregadvanced; found on 7.8 MB spreadsheet at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Main.xlsx. Can we do better? Thank you! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Try http://www.crt.state.la.us/dataprojects/hp/nhl/attachments/Parish36/Scans/36053001.pdf that's from the Louisiana state SHPO. NPS Focus is notorious for going down and being otherwise difficult to work with.  You can however send an email or snail mail to the NRHP and they will send you a copy of the nomination form.  There are also photos (usually we presume they are copyrighted, but ...) that you can also get through some SHPOs.  For this one go to http://www.crt.state.la.us/cultural-development/historic-preservation/national-register/database/index search in the "Historic name search" for Robert E. Lee and you'll get a list of the nomination form (above) 3 pix and a map.  Sometimes you can't link to the pix, but this is an attempt seems to work. Note that somebody, somewhere is always trying to patch the system, so that these links tend to be unstable.

 * BTW this nomination form is very short, but very interesting with material on the "cult of the Lost Cause" and the "deification of Robert E. Lee." Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you! That helps. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

North Carolina ostensibly done
Happy to report that stubs and updates to existing articles to link to nomination forms at NORTH CAROLINA LISTINGS IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES done. Some counties are not quite 100 percent because nomination forms from April 2015 not yet posted and NC does not post nomination forms for archaeological sites. Cheers!--Pubdog (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! That's a big state, and one that was near the bottom of the Progress table until you started working on it. Any plans for the next state? (Maybe the last Southern colony left, now that its nominations are in NPS Focus?) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 15:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bravo!! I know how much of an encouragement it is to others (e.g. photographers) working on the state when you come in and write articles for the whole state. Well you didn't ask "What should be my next project?" but I can make some suggestions: Georgia, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maine would complete your east coast romp. But somebody is doing some great work in Arkansas, so I'm sure some articles there would be appreciated.  Or talking about great work, why not Nebraska (though Ammodramus never seems to need encouragement!).  Once again, Bravo!  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes. I'm working on photos of NR places in Georgia.  I feel more likely to get a photograph of something if it will also go in an article about the place, instead of just "List of NRHP in X county", which few people see.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Or you could hit Indiana, where virtually everything's illustrated. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all! Let me ponder a bit.  I really dread the thought of using Focus.--Pubdog (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an advantage of doing Indiana; virtually everything's online through the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice work, Pubdog! Not only have you created good stubs to replace redlinks, but it looks like you've gone through existing bluelinks and expanded two-sentence NRIS-only substubs into something that a reader might actually find useful (e.g. this version to this one).  If you're keeping a count of articles that you've created, I think you have every right to add those to your list.  Ammodramus (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK Nyttend ... how does this first stub look. Devised template for Indiana NRHP county links, citation, and county stub.--Pubdog (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you; if you keep this up, it will be a huge help. Curious, though: are you doing anything with the SHAARD site besides using it as a way to access the nomination form?  If not, why cite it?  You can just cite the nomination form; see what I did at John L. Nichols House, for example.  Meanwhile, be sure to check Commons for a relevant category; around 350 of the state's sites, i.e. nearly 1/5 of the sites statewide, have their own Commons categories.  Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the articles themselves may be finished, but they're far from fully illustrated. Check out National Register of Historic Places listings in Wilson County, North Carolina. There's a historic church that I'm sorry isn't listed on NRHP. -User:DanTD (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I like doing photos, but that is a 6-hour drive for me. Perhaps someday I can talk my family into a vacation there.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's a contributing property in the Wilson Central Business-Tobacco Warehouse Historic District. Ntsimp (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Reflinks broken
I just found out one of the reference links to the Roslyn Village Historic District was changed, so I tried to fix it, and it still doesn't work(http://www.historicroslyn.org/Pages/RoslynNY_Bcomm/historic/index). I don't know if it's just my PC, but it keeps going to my anti-virus site's safety search page. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Right now it is working for me. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 * The HDB link that had been giving a 404 error works fine here in firefox, chrom, and IE after you made your 14:51, 20 July 2015 change. The nomination form uses the older link to a system that requires java, that will result in security messages of various types depending on the brower and java plugin you have. I replaced it with the newer link that doesn't need java as long as I was there. Generic1139 (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Photo?
Fort Argyle lacks a photo. This PDF about Fort Argyle, page 8, figure 5 has a photo that looks like it can be used. Since this is the work was done by the US government, it is OK to use the photo, right? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at the PDF and I don't see where it credits the author of that photo. We would need to see that or know who took the photo in order to determine if it's public domain. Jonathunder (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no copyright notice and it is a publication of the US government. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The DoD doesn't employ many archaeologists (unlike e.g. the NPS), so it's highly likely that the dig and photo are the work of private contractors and not the US government itself. Without more author/license information, we can't make the assumption that the photo is PD. (And don't get me wrong, the same would apply to a pic in an NPS document as well.) — Ipoellet (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a historical marker on public land near where I'm going this weekend - I'll try to photograph it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Well, I drove three times through the area where it was supposed to be but I didn't see it. Since then I got the coordinates for it, which should help.  I put them into Google Maps and the street view shows it there.  I'll be back in the area sometime... Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Moving images to the commons
Can somebody move File:Hortonpoint.jpg to the commons? Wikimedia took my ability to move images to the commons away from me when they reformatted their tool for doing a while back. A category already exists for that lighthouse and it only has one image. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, using commonshelper--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I used, and it didn't help me. -User:DanTD (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The first time you use it is says you are not logged in and gives a link. You need to follow he link and log in (or possibly be recognized by the software). The second time everything is ok.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Problem after going to Windows 10
I went to Windows 10 today. Now, in IE, when I click on the lat/long and click on "Google Maps", it brings up a map briefly, but then some things in the upper left corner drop down, the map disappears, and I can't get it back. OpenStreetMaps works, but I often need to look at the Google Earth from Google Maps to see if a site is accessible. Is there a fix for this problem? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Firefox doesn't have the problem. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

degrees/minutes/seconds
Where does the degrees/minutes/seconds in "NHRP sites in X County" come from? Many of them are not accurate.

I hit four cities the other day, taking photos of NRHP sites. A lot of the time I spent more time looking for one NR site than it took to drive from one city to the other. If I enter a street address into the Tom Tom GPS that I've had for a few years, it will say "you have reached your destination" - often when I'm not even within sight of the destination. My old Garmin got me closer AND would even say which side of the street it was on.

So when the GPS tells me I'm there, I start walking looking for the address. Most buildings these days don't have the street address, which makes it hard. So I figured that when that fails, I will use the latitude and longitude, and that will get me right to it, since if degrees/minutes/seconds are accurate, that will get within 70 feet. But some of these are off by 2 blocks (or more).

So where does that data come from and why is it so inaccurate? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Copying this from the coordinates note that's sometimes on the state/county lists:

"The latitude and longitude information provided in this table was derived originally from the National Register Information System, which has been found to be fairly accurate for about 99% of listings. For about 1% of NRIS original coordinates, experience has shown that one or both coordinates are typos or otherwise extremely far off; some corrections may have been made. A more subtle problem causes many locations to be off by up to 150 yards, depending on location in the country: most NRIS coordinates were derived from tracing out latitude and longitudes off of USGS topographical quadrant maps created under the North American Datum of 1927, which differs from the current, highly accurate WGS84 GPS system used by most on-line maps. Chicago is about right, but NRIS longitudes in Washington are higher by about 4.5 seconds, and are lower by about 2.0 seconds in Maine. Latitudes differ by about 1.0 second in Florida. Some locations in this table may have been corrected to current GPS standards."

 * So basically, it's mostly NRIS errors that we unwittingly propagated, with a bit of a mapping oddity thrown in. If you see any locations that are a bit off, please go ahead and fix them. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

 * On my next trip, I plan to take my hand-held GPS too, for when the car GPS doesn't get me close enough. I'll see how it corresponds to the data we have.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC):::
 * I've found that it reduces frustration on my photo-trips if I locate my targets in advance using Google Maps/Earth/Streetview. While the coords and addresses provided in our lists are typically sufficient for this purpose, more often than not I will also review the nomination file and photos to glean any location and appearance details. Just going out with my GPS and camera without the advance prep often leaves me irritated and dissatisfied. — Ipoellet (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As a rule I'm opposed to working out locations in the field or from maps. It's one thing to correct obvious typos, but pulling out the GPS is original research. You can always reduce the precision of the coordinates; that's what I do for lighthouses when I don't have a light list entry or Kraig Anderson available. Mangoe (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Errors are plentiful especially in 20th century entries. In the field I use the GPS in my camera and the better GPS in my camera phone, and get more errors but usually different errors which can be worked out. When bad listings make me miss the target completely it takes a lot of web searching and other study to get right. Sometimes it's a couple miles off. When it comes to correcting our WP coords, I treat Google Earth aerials as authoritative. Across the decades they only vary by a few meters in the New York area. In Pittsburgh there's often a ten, sometimes twenty meter variation, caused perhaps by the higher altitude. Perhaps we should have a standard method of specifying the source of our coords. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Back to Bubba and Ipoellet — a couple of years ago, I did exactly this, going through all the Louisville nominations and tightening the accuracy of the coordinates for all 400+ sites. A good deal of work, to be sure, but it saved tons of wasted effort when next I visited the area.  Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Mangoe - I couldn't disagree more. The core piece of information that we're drawing from our sources here is "location". "Coordinates" are just one of numerous different means of expressing/specifying the "location". Others in our source documents (NRIS and nominations) include prose, maps, photos, addresses, etc. Coordinates themselves can be expressed as lat-long or UTM, and in different datums like NAD27, NAD83, or WGS84. It is not OR to translate among these different means of expression as long as we're still expressing the same "location" idea from the source. Nor is it OR to correct errors as long as we're still expressing the same "location" intended by the source. Nor is it OR to synthesize multiple location expressions in the source to publish one that describes the fundamentally same "location" even if it looks superficially different. (Synthesizing information from multiple sources is OR, but here I'm talking about synthesizing multiple expressions of the same information in the same source.) At minimum, we owe it to our readers to standardize our source data to express coordinates in the same format (lat-long) and datum (WGS84 - Wikipedia's unstated default, the current nomination form's stated default, and the datum that Google uses) and with features that work with the geographic tools our readers are most likely to use (see GeoGroup). This demands departing from a verbatim transcription of the coordinates in the nominations or the NRIS. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

latitude and longitude
Here is an example of an incorrect lat/long - The Bryan County Courthouse, in Pembroke, GA. National Register of Historic Places listings in Bryan County, Georgia lists 32°08'00" N, 81°36'39"W. Since the listing just says "college st", I put in the lat/long. The GPS took me to an industrial park and it was obvious that the courthouse was not there. I found the courthouse and parked right at the front of it (on the city street). My GPS said that I was at 32° 08.007' N 81° 37.318' W. That is 32° 08' 00" (correct), but 81° 37' 19" - 40 seconds of arc off. It isn't an apparent typo (at least in D/M/S). About 1,050 meters off. I haven't corrected it yet, but I plan too. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

In decimal degrees the listing is: but I measured (my car GPS, parked on the street closest to the main entrance):
 * lat=32.133333
 * lon=-81.610833
 * lat=32.13345 (close enough)
 * long=-81.62197 (not close enough). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 * For what its worth, the nomination form gives the location as zone 17, easting=442390 northing=3555200. The actual location, where you found it and using a point near the center of the nominated block is easting=441390, northing=3555400.  This is an error of easting=001000 and northing=000200. Possibly a mis-reading of the original topo map when the nomination form was written? In any case, human error reading the map, multiple conversions and rounding from decimal and d/m/s, its a wonder it all works as well as it does. Generic1139 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you. I didn't know what Easting and northing were until just now.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Another one I failed to find is the CW Deen house, listed in National Register of Historic Places listings in Appling County, Georgia. Taking the lat/long in that article and converting to easting/northing and comparing that to the nomination form gives a difference of 194 meters in northing - similar to the 200 meter difference above. (Only a 5-meter difference in easting.) I read Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system and it says "... current UTM northing at a given point can be 200+ meters different from the old". (I think the system changed in 1984.) So I think that is probably the reason for the ~200 meter differences in northing. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Datum shift (what you described) is a very plausible explanation for a part of the difference you describe. Since the Deen House was listed in 1982, the nomination almost certainly uses the NAD27 datum, while your contemporary tools probably use NAD83 or WGS84 (very similar to each other). The map here suggests the shift between NAD27 and NAD83 in Appling County should be in the high 20s of meters. I imagine much of the rest is just measurement error in the preparation of the nomination. In the absence of GPS, I imagine most nomination preparers in 1981/82 likely just guesstimated easting and northing from paper USGS maps, attempting to trace lines in from the map border. Depending on the scale of the paper map, this could cause some large error. — Ipoellet (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

 * This geographic stuff is pretty new to me, but it is interesting. Not knowing what the CW Deen house looked like, I misidentified a house, photographed it, and uploaded it to Wiki Commons and the list of NRHP in Appling Co.  Then I looked at the nomination form, and it was certainly the wrong house.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Created my first NRHP article
I just created my first NRHP article, West Darien Historic District. I borrowed the infobox from another article and altered, so please check that I did it correctly. For instance, I copied "NRISref|2009a" - is that right? Also, what about the lat&long of a historic district? Should it be somewhere in the middle of the area? The nomination form gives about 7 or 8 corners. I used the one in National Register of Historic Places listings in McIntosh County, Georgia - is that OK? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Historic districts get nrhp_type = hd. Also, if available, always put in a reference to the nomination form, and the photos, both of which are available in this case.  The easiest way to get them, for listings prior to 2010 or so, is to use elkman's infobox generator as a starting point:  http://www.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php. You can steal the location from the county listing after checking to make sure it is valid and somewhere near the center of the district, and somewhere in the district for odd shaped listings.  Take a look at elkman for this one, you can also use the location info and the nris info. Generic1139 (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Hey, thanks! That also creates the infobox and does a lot of work to get the article started.  I wish I had known about that earlier.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 61


text:
Athous tauricola

Athous tauricola is a species of brown-coloured click beetle from the family Elateridae which can be found on the Crimean peninsula and Ukraine.

title: Athous tauricola


text:
Talk:Charles Jessel

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Jessel. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409054047/http://www.sabahtourism.com/en/destination/district/1-kota-kinabalu-capital-city/ to http://www.sabahtourism.com/en/destination/district/1-kota-kinabalu-capital-city/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charles Jessel


text:
ѩти

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to take
 * 2) to catch
 * 3) * from the Homily against the Bogumils, 1193:
 * "cu"

- не могѫтъ ѩти рꙑбꙑ

 * 1) to seize
 * 2) * John 7:30, from Codex Marianus, 4073000:
 * "cu"

- искаахѫ же ѩти и ·

 * 1) to arrest
 * 2) * Mark 6:17, from Codex Marianus, 2061700:
 * "cu"

- тъ бо иродъ посълавъ ѩтъ иоана• i съвѧза и въ темьници•

 * 1)  to cling to

title: ѩти


text:
User:Emanaton

User Context
Hoping to find something I can contribute meaningful discourse on some day. For now, I'm just enjoying the services that Wikipedia offers and correcting minor / blatant issues as they present themselves.

Contact

 * Email: wikipediaUser a_t emanaton d_o_t com
 * Instant Messenger:
 * ICQ: 72704989
 * MSN: emanatonsi a_t hotmail
 * AIM: emanatonsi
 * Yahoo: emanatonsi
 * Google (Jabber): emanaton
 * Website: www.emanaton.com

title: User:Emanaton


text:
User:SpiritRagnarok

Basic Server informations: RATES: 3000x/3000x/1000x CARD DROPS: 10% NORMAL/ 5% MVP/ 1% RARE BOSS MAX LEVEL: 255/150 MAX STAT: 250 MAX ASPD: 195 INSTANT CAST: 150 Dex PK MODE: From Level 200 ————————————————————————————————————————

Max HP: 3.000.000 Max SP: 8000 Guild Cap: 11 MEMBERS Commands: @go, @warp, @autoloot,@alootid, @ storage, @market, @home, @main, @autotrade, @mi, @ii @storage, @gstorage, and many more! ———————————————————————————————————————— PVP POINTS SYSTEM ( Donation items via PVP points! ) PRIVATE MVP ROOM ( 15,000,000 Zeny ) BUFFED MVPS ( Face with challenges! )

CUSTOM INSTANCES ( Team up and enjoy the adventure! ) ———————————————————————————————————————— CUSTOM GUILD CREATION ( Kill the MVP to obtain Emperium ) BALANCED CUSTOM ITEMS ( Create your unique character! ) CUSTOM LEVELING DUNGEONS ( UMBALA AND NIFLHEIM ) REDUCED AFTER-CAST DELAY ( NO KIEL CARD NEEDED ) EXTENDED VENDING SYSTEM ( Choose your currency to vend! ) FROST SERVER WOE TIME SET FOR DIFFERENT TIME ZONES FREE NEWBIE HEADGEAR AND EQUIPMENTS

title: User:SpiritRagnarok


text:
Deer Avenger 2: Deer in the City

Deer Avenger 2: Deer in the City is a video game developed by Hypnotix and published by Simon & Schuster Interactive for Windows and Macintosh in 1999.

Development
Brian McCann, known for his frequent appearances on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, voiced the character Bambo and wrote jokes for Deer Avenger 2. According to Hypnotix founder Mike Taramykin, McCann recruited colleagues from NBC to be voice actors for the series. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler were among the actors to voice characters in Deer Avenger 2.

Reception
The game received mixed to unfavorable reviews. John Lee of NextGen said that the game was "woefully short on gameplay, no question, but at least it's good for chuckles. Unless, of course, you're a hunter or a sports writer."

title: Deer Avenger 2: Deer in the City


text:
Talk:Autodesk Maya

Since no one seems to have claimed this section yet I would like to stake my claim here and start building up a comprehensive guide to Maya so that I can share my experience with those who wish to learn about Maya. I love this program, I've used it for many many years - and being allowed to lead a section dedicated to teaching Maya would be a dream come true. --Garsondee 20:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Autodesk Maya


text:
Sam Y. Zamrik

Sam Yusuf Zamrik (born 1932) is a Syrian/American mechanical and consulting engineer, and Emeritus Professor at Pennsylvania State University and expert in the field of high pressure technology, and fracture mechanics. He is more generally known as former president of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in 2007-08.

Biography
Zamrik born in Syria in 1932, and came to the United States in 1950. He started his studies at the University of Texas, where he obtained his BA in Mathematics in 1955, and his BSc in 1957. Next he continued his studies at the Pennsylvania State University, where he obtained his MSc in engineering in 1961, and his PhD in engineering in 1965.

After his graduation in 1965 Zamrik started his career in the industry. In 1962 he joined the Pennsylvania State University and worked his way up from instructor, assistant professor, associate professor until in 1976 he was appointed professor in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics. In 1998 he retired and was appointed professor emeritus. In 2007-2008 he served as president of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Zamrik was awarded the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division's Robert M. McGrattan Literature Award in 1991; the Central Pennsylvania Section's Outstanding Mechanical Engineer of the Year Award in 1992; the ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Medal in 1996; and the ASME Dedicated Service Award in 2006. In 2010 the ASME renamed the Pressure Vessel and Piping Medal to the ASME S.Y. Zamrik PVP Medal.

Selected publications

 * Sam Yusuf Zamrik (Ingénieur mécanicien), R. I. Jetter (eds.). Advances in Design for Elevated Temperature Environment: Papers Presented at the Second National Congress on Pressure Vessels and Piping San Francisco California June 23–27, 1975. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1975.
 * S.Y. Zamrik and E.H. Perez (eds.). High Pressure Technology, Fracture Mechanics, and Service Experience in Operating Power Plants : Presented at the 1990 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, June 17–21, 1990.
 * S.Y. Zamrik, Gary R. Halford, S.S. Manson (eds.). Material durability/life prediction modeling: materials for the 21st century : presented at 1994 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Chicago, Illinois, November 6–11, 1994.

 * Articles, a selection
 * Zamrik, Sam Y. "An Interpretation of Axial Creep--Fatigue Damage Interaction in Type 316 Stainless Steel." J. Pressure Vessel Technol. (Trans. ASME) 112.1 (1990): 4-19.
 * Zamrik, Sam Y., Daniel C. Davis, and Lee C. Firth. "Isothermal and thermomechanical fatigue of type 316 stainless steel." Thermomechanical Fatigue Behavior of Materials: Second Volume. ASTM International, 1996.
 * Zamrik, Sam Y., and Mark L. Renauld. "Thermo-mechanical out-of-phase fatigue life of overlay coated IN-738LC gas turbine material." Thermo-mechanical Fatigue Behavior of Materials: Third Volume. ASTM International, 2000.

title: Sam Y. Zamrik


text:
User:Sarblyth

I am the Chemistry coordinator for the FHSST (Free High School Science Texts) Project. Hopefully our Chemistry book will be on Wikibooks soon!

title: User:Sarblyth


text:
User:Ortega93

I recently wrotea Wikipedia entry on Women's Way and I want to be open about my relationship with the organization. I am a summer intern with WOMEN'S WAY. I began in May and will end in August. I chose to write a Wikipedia entry about the organization because I think unbiased information about it should be easily accessible as it is very prominent in the Philadelphia area. I was also fascinated with Women's Way's history. I did not write the article intending to advertise or promote Women's Way, merely to clarify its impact and purpose in a way the website does not. I did not get paid to write the article. Though I support Women's Way and find its causes to be more than worthwhile, I did my best to remain unbiased while writing. --Ortega93 (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

title: User:Ortega93


text:
File:EveningWithFredAstaireAlbum.jpg

Summary
Album cover of An Evening With Fred Astaire; recording of historic 1958 TV show. Fair use album cover.

title: File:EveningWithFredAstaireAlbum.jpg


text:
Movie Making Manual/Hosting

Where should we host our Movie Making Manual?

=Reasons for keeping it on WikiBooks=
 * It's free
 * It's neutral teritory
 * It helps keep knowledge in one place
 * We're likely to get more hits
 * It'll be a real pain to move the book elsewhere
 * People are already starting to learn about the book and might be put off if we move it now

=Reasons for taking it elsewhere=
 * WikiBooks is SLOW (although they have ordered 5 new servers which may speed things up)
 * We can't get access to the MySQL database (not a major problem)
 * There's no easy way to backup all our work (although I imagine that wikibooks do run regular backups)

title: Movie Making Manual/Hosting


text:
tiger economy

Etymology
Originally in reference to the "Four Asian Tigers" (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore), from the importance of the tiger in Asian symbolism.

Noun

 * 1) A place enjoying very fast economic growth.
 * As the levels of education improved, many South East Asian countries became tiger economies.

title: tiger economy


text:
User:David Awuk

Hello, I am a new user to the Wikipedia community. If I make mistakes, please tell me so that I can learn.

For my contributions on the Spanish Wikipedia, please visit [].

—David Awuk (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

title: User:David Awuk


text:
User:Skyangelko~enwikiversity/Amatsu Kuntou

The name means Heavenly Education. This is the teaching of Mizu Shura. Mizu Shura is several teachings between the reality and dreams. That is why it is called Amatsu Kuntou. Though the teachings aren't traditional Japanese (not Japanese period) they use the japanese language. It is not religon or anything like that. It is educating people It was founded by a person with the codename Violet Ai. The first lesson is called Sono Faito. It means The Fight. This teaches life is hard and people never understand. People kill for their own gain. So defence is mandatory. People who study this take on learning several months of Tai Chi, Kung Fu, Southern Praying Mantis style Kung Fu, Northern Shaolin Kung Fu, Northern Seven Star Praying Mantis, and Ba Gua.


text:
Latin stream/Second Declension

Latin nouns are divided into five declensions, plus irregulars. Most second declension nouns are of the masculine gender. The second declension endings are as follows in the singular: Our example word will be: vir, viri, m. Man.

Here is the plural:

Common second declension masculine nouns: Ager, agri, m. field Gladius, gladii, m. sword Oculus, oculi, m. eye Puer, pueri, m. boy Servus, servi, m. slave

Now, second declension also accommodates neuter nouns, but the endings are slightly different. Neuter nouns are as the declension given above, with the following exceptions (using Pilum, -i, n. javelin, as an example word):

Common second declension neuter nouns: Bellum, belli, n. war Periculum, periculi, n. danger Regnum, regni, n. kindgom saxum, saxi, n. rock

Note that the nominative and accusative forms are the same in both the singular and the plural.

title: Latin stream/Second Declension


text:
Wikipedia:Early closure to avoid unnecessary confrontation

The Proposal
This policy is being proposed to greatly reduce the hurt in cases where an AfD which is clearly heading for one specified outcome causes friction and flaming between participants. The draft of the policy reads:

"If an AfD has been running for long enough to give a very clear idea of where the debate is headed, and that debate has been attacked, pushed significantly off-topic, seen newbies bitten, become excessively personal or otherwise disrupted to the point of becoming seriously incivil and / or downright nasty, that debate can be closed."

Why do we need this?
The main point is that such attacked / disrupted / off-topic / personal etc. AfDs become divisive and get people worked up over nothing, often concerning editors who would not even have crossed paths if they had not commented on an AfD related to a subject they knew little or nothing about, or between editors with existing bad relationships. They are also more likely to see newcomers bitten which can scare off new Wikipedians. The "very clear" is to minimize the risk of such closures going to deletion review - as admins would likely not want to get dragged into something controversial at DRV by closing a truly contentious debate, then this would be effectively self-regulating.

Again, it must be stressed that the eventual outcome of the debate must be in no doubt. While this will ultimately be down to the closing admin, I do not believe fears over the interpretation of this clause should cause concern. The community has trusted admins with their powers and we must give them freedom to exercise their judgement for the good of Wikipedia. Nobody is going to close an AfD which has been running for 36 hours and has 4 votes one way and 3 votes the other by citing this policy, but, for example, a debate which has only the article creator and perhaps one or two unknown allies or a lone dissenter sniping at a large group of established editors who believe the article and associated topic either falls a long way short of or clearly meets the standards required serves no purpose remaining on the board other than to cause friction and unnecessary argument.

One objection to this might be a lack of "due process". Notwithstanding the fact that becoming policy would mean AfDs closed under this rule would have received "due process", I for one have seen several debates where a dissident few have used the final days of a doomed or saved article to flame others with no chance or intention of changing the end result. AfD is a contentious enough area as it is without sockpuppets, trolls, flamers or users unfamiliar with Wikipedia space conduct getting ordinarily cool, calm Wikipedians stressed out for no reason. It is also not the place for editors with pre-existing serious differences of opinion, possibly compounded by bad-faith nominations, to hang out their dirty laundry.

Related pages

 * Snowball clause, on the early closure of discussions


text:
BSBCMN304A Contribute to personal skill development and learning

From the official document:
 * "This unit covers the skills and knowledge required to support own learning and skill development needs in the context of an organisation's goals and objectives."

Basically, that means ... (translate above into plain english)

You can read more about this unit on the National Training Information Systems Official document for BSBCMN304A.

This unit forms part of the following qualifications:
 * Cert IV Websites Qualification in Australia

How this unit will help you
After learning and applying the skills required by this unit you'll be able to demonstrate your skills in:

 * translate the above elements and performance criteria into plain english and summarise here...

Ideas for learning the required skills
...

Ideas for demonstrating this unit
The best way to demonstrate these skills is ...

Grading
If you are demonstrating this unit as part of a formal course, you might find that the unit is graded (meaning you can not only demonstrate your competence, but can also gain a credit or distinction). Your facilitator may already have set criteria that your college uses. If not, here are some ideas for possible credit/distinction activities that you can discuss with your facilitator:


text:
Cookbook:Molasses Taffy

| Confections

Ingredients

 * ½ cup fancy molasses
 * 1 ½ cups granulated sugar
 * 1 ½ Tbsp vinegar
 * ½ cup water
 * ¼ tsp cream of tartar
 * 4 Tbsp butter
 * ⅛ tsp baking soda

Procedure

 * 1) Combine molasses, sugar, vinegar and water in a heavy saucepan over medium heat.
 * 2) Cook to 255–270°F (124–132°C). The hotter the syrup, the harder the final taffy will be.
 * 3) Remove from heat and stir in butter, cream of tartar, and baking soda.
 * 4) Pour into buttered pan or onto marble surface, and let cool slightly.
 * 5) When cool and thick enough to handle, grease your hands. Grab the candy mixture with both hands, and stretch it apart while twisting slightly. Repeat this process, pulling and twisting the candy until light in color. This pulling and twisting process incorporates air and lightens the candy.
 * 6) Cut into 1-inch pieces; wrap in squares of waxed paper.

title: Cookbook:Molasses Taffy


text:
User:MetaBohemian/Math

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
$$F_G = \frac{G m_1 m_2}{r^2}$$

Resolving Forces
$$F_x = F \cos \theta$$

$$F_y = F \sin \theta$$

$$\tan \theta = \frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} \to \theta = \tan^{-1} \frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x}$$

Pythagorean Theorem (Distance Formula)
$$r^2 = (\Delta x)^2 + (\Delta y)^2$$

title: User:MetaBohemian/Math


text:
Talk:David E. Potter

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David E. Potter. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070909191721/http://www.brunel.ac.uk/about/hongrads/1998/potter to http://www.brunel.ac.uk/about/hongrads/1998/potter

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:David E. Potter


text:
accanito

Adjective

 * 1) fierce, keen, cutthroat
 * 2) fierce, assiduous, dogged
 * 3) inveterate
 * 4) constant and loud
 * 1) fierce, assiduous, dogged
 * 2) inveterate
 * 3) constant and loud
 * 1) inveterate
 * 2) constant and loud
 * 1) constant and loud
 * 1) constant and loud

title: accanito


text:
Talk:It Ain't Me Babe (album)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Turtles - It Ain't Me Babe.jpg
Image:The Turtles - It Ain't Me Babe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:It Ain't Me Babe (album)


text:
Elsbeth Plehn

Elsbeth Plehn (7 March 1922 – 13 December 2001) was a German operatic contralto and voice teacher.

Life and career
Plehn studied school music and music education at the University of Königsberg. In Dresden, she took singing lessons with Herbert Winkler and Martin Flämig. She was successful as a concert and oratorium singer.

In 1959, she became a lecturer at the Hochschule für Musik Carl Maria von Weber and was appointed professor in 1975.

Among her students were the bass baritone Peter Olesch, the mezzo-soprano Annelott Damm, the soprano Carola Nossek, the voice teachers Christiane Junghanns and Christiane Bach-Röhr and the director Michael Heinicke.

title: Elsbeth Plehn


text:
User:Daipenmon

Daipenmon was born 24 years ago, and owns a lot of video games and Transformers and other toys, is taking karate and is a green belt, also he has plastic and metal swords, a pair of metal sais, foam nunchunks, and a six-foot bo(uses the bo only), watches anime and animal planet, and dislikes going to hospitals, due to a fear of needles, and was taught how to use computers by Sandy Thompson. I had aides to help me during school, Vicky sword, Sandy Thompson, and Rita "Yates" Causey, and Optical therapy and Speech therapy, l became a voter two years ago, but who l voted for remains known only to me.

title: User:Daipenmon


text:
Category:Bloom Clock Project Plants

Note: this category is used for tracking purposes when major changes are made to the Bloom Clock profile templates. It is intentionally redundant to Category:Bloom Clock Plants.

title: Category:Bloom Clock Project Plants


text:
-itate

Etymology
Borrowed from. Compare from the same source.

Suffix

 * , giving a quality or characteristic of an adjective; -ity

Usage notes
Forms nouns from adjectives and sometimes other nouns. Examples include:

Etymology
. This particular form of the suffix is used in neologisms, and based on. The inherited form is found in older words.

Suffix

 * 1) -ity

Usage notes
Forms nouns from adjectives and sometimes other nouns. Examples include:

title: -itate