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

Back to NRHP list missing coords
Many of the pages in Category:NRHP list missing coordinates have coordinates for all current listings; they appear here only because of one or more former listings. Do we want the category to include lists that lack coordinates only for former listings? I think we shouldn't: if I remember rightly, NRIS doesn't give coordinates for delisted sites, and its address locations often aren't sufficient (e.g. Borden Institute at Clark County, Indiana is located simply at "West St."), so we simply can't get coordinates for lots of them. It's also not that important, since they're not on the Register anymore. If we want to disable this feature, i.e. make it so that the category and text are only displayed for current listings, we could probably make it so that they don't appear when the  parameter of NRHP row is filled with. If we get any former listings that don't have this parameter, some will be errors and the rest will be weird exceptions for which we can use the  feature. Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If they don't give them I agree we don't need it. Otr500 (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with Nyttend.  Magic ♪piano 22:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to say coordinates are more important for former listings. Former listings are typically demolished buildings, and these can of course not be identified by sight. Street addresses and other relative location indicators may change over time, and a street grid is especially prone to doing so when the buildings abutting it change. Coordinates, if accurate ones can be found, provide the best record of where an NRHP listing was located when it existed. Knight of Truth (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would disagree that having coordinates for former listings is something to strive for. There is, however, a practical problem that they may be somewhat more difficult to come by than those for listed properties.  Perhaps delisted properties should be placed in a separate category.  Magic ♪piano 16:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

slightly related
I have some comments that are slightly related. It seems that the coordinates are of the actual site, and it may be hard to find or get there based on that. Within the last week, I've been to Walthourville Presbyterian Church and McIntosh Sugarworks, based on putting their coordinates in my GPS. In the first case, the coordinates took me into a rundown trailer park. That must be the closest point on a road to the site. I had to get back onto the highway and go a bit until I saw it. In the second case, the GPS kept sending me back and forth on a vacant stretch of road (saying that I've reached my destination). Then I discovered that I had to go to an intersecting highway to get to the entrance to the site. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I recommend checking the validity of coordinates before going on photo trips (they are sometimes significantly off). I use satellite views, street addresses (when available), and descriptions from the nomination (if it's available), all of which may also help to identify from which side to approach a large site.  It also helps to have seen photos of what you're looking for.  Magic ♪piano 22:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you. But I've been trying to provide some photos of things that don't have photos (not on Wikipedia, at least).  I guess I could google first to see what it looks like.  But in both of these cases, my GPS took me to the closest point on a road it has in its maps.  In both I had to stop on a different road and walk a piece to get there.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Some of these locations have more problems than coordinates that are extraordinarily far off, in fact.  The Lafayette UMC, which lacks coordinates, was causing National Register of Historic Places listings in Christian County, Kentucky to end up in the coords-missing category, but instead of adding coordinates, I added nolatlon=yes — the coordinates are nonexistent, the location ("Off Kentucky Route 107") is extraordinarily vague, and the one-page nomination form gives no coordinates, no map, and nothing else to identify the location.  I even went around on Google Street View and failed to find it; as far as I can tell, the building's gone (no results for a current church of this name), and probably the only way to get the location is actually visiting Christian County and checking some sort of print (or handwritten!) records at the courthouse or historical society.  All of this is a reason that I'll often try to check the coords before going out and correct them if possible, and why I've downloaded tons of nonfree online photos, including everything that I could find through Ohio's now-not-working NR pages.  You should be able to find online images of most Georgia sites, because NPS has put most Georgia nominations online and most nominations include photos.  Go to http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/xxxxxxxx.pdf and replace xxxxxxxx with the refnum (for example, http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/87001357.pdf is the Walthourville Presbyterian Church), and change "Photos" to "Text" to get the text of the nomination, which will normally include relevant identification details and will often include a map.  Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you for that help. That must be an old photo of the Walthourville Presbyterian Church because now from that angle there are a lot of unsightly power lines, etc, which is why I got it from a different angle.  (Yes, it was photographed in 1986.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

 * There actually are coordinates in that nomination form, but they point to a field west of Lafayette with no nearby buildings; it doesn't even look like something used to be there. (They're printed in the Revision Dates box for some reason, and for all I know they might be coordinates for something else.) Though that just confirms that we need to use nolatlon=yes here; having no coordinates is better than having grossly misleading ones. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Be careful, though. You can't just plug those coords into Google Earth and get an accurate location. Given the 1977 date on the form, it almost certainly uses the NAD27 datum, while Google uses the WGS84 datum. The differences between the datums can amount to hundreds of feet in many instances. You want to find an application online or a GPS app to transform the coords from one datum to the other, then search them on Google or something else. — Ipoellet (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I found a coordinate conversion tool, and the coordinates only moved to a slightly different location in the same field, so unfortunately that wasn't the problem. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, well. Points for trying? — Ipoellet (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

And this is just my idea - I don't know if it could be done. Have the coordinates of the site, but also allow for coordinates of the entrance from a road, street, or highway that would be in the GPS. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Today I went out all afternoon taking photos of historic sites. I got to all seven places on my list, except one. My car GPS took me to the end of a cul-de-sac and said that I had reached my destination. I looked around and there were several buildings there, but none was marked as historic. And none looked historic and there was no one to ask. I took a few pictures in case one of them was the right one - I'll try to look it up to see what it looks like. (Wikipedia and commons don't have a photo.)

The coordinates of these sites are given to a millionth of a degree, which is a few inches. I think I need a hand-held GPS to get me from where the car takes me to where it actually is. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the site? I can offer a better opinion if I know what it is.  Bear in mind that many sites have been destroyed since they were listed — at National Register of Historic Places listings in Pendleton County, Kentucky, more than a third of the sites have been destroyed.  A housing development now sits on top of the Brick Church Mound and Village Site (the picture shows the only surviving earthworks I could find in this once-large complex), and see the short D.S. Rose Mound article with its image.  Meanwhile, is your GPS easily detachable?  My GPS, a Garmin Nüvi 42, comes off its mount and is easily carryable (just be sure to mute it if walking near other people, or you'll get some weird looks when it talks to you :-) and I'll take it out of the car on the occasional situation when I can park but can't easily find a site.  And all this still assumes that you have the right location; the best GPS devices won't help if the coordinates are bad, so do your best to ensure that the NPS-hosted images (http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/xxxxxxxx.pdf) and information from the nomination match the coordinates that you have.  If you really have a bunch of time for working on this, you may even want to spend it on coord work; a year ago, I had a bunch of time for getting photos in Louisville KY, but I ended up using it to verify locations for all 473 of its sites — it made the list better and more useful for everyone, and even for me it was easier, because I knew that I could always trust the coordinates.  Nyttend (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 * What happened to D.S. Rose Mound is a disgrace (in my opinion). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The one I didn't find is Cassel's Store, see National Register of Historic Places listings in Liberty County, Georgia. Since then I've gotten more information about it from the National Parks Service (I haven't had time to study it yet). I downloaded their spreadsheet with photos and text.  It has photos, and it is not a building that I saw.  I don't know whether it still exists or not.  But I have more info now.  The GPS may have put me on the wrong side of the highway.  I can take the GPS out, but I don't know if it can give me the current lat/long.  I'm considering getting a hand-held one for cases like this where the car GPS doesn't get me quite there, and I can take out the hand-held one and it will show me the direction and distance to it.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The description in the nomination, 500 feet south of intersection of Seaboard Coastline Railroad and U.S. Highway 82, makes me think that the location is approximately 31.82611°N, -81.52611°W, where a house now sits; I think the store's gone. My GPS has a page where I can specify a destination by its coords, and anymore I just almost always rely on this setting: once I've verified the coords, I know that I've got the right spot if I can put them in, while the input-by-address feature can make big mistakes or simply not find the site.  Nyttend (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks - I read that description last night.  Note that the form says highway 82, but it is actually numbered 84 now.  Decades ago Georgia swapped the numbering on part of 82 and 84. I thought that places on the National Register were protected from destruction (by people). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For properties that are not actually owned by the federal government, National Register listing doesn't confer any protection directly. Any additional protection from listing is indirect, resulting from the prestige and visibility that goes with NRHP listing, local norms, and state and local laws. My perception (justified or otherwise) from watching discussions on this page is that NRHP listing carries less weight in promoting preservation in southern states than in other parts of the country.— Ipoellet (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I ran the UTM coordinates in the nomination form through a converter and got yet another possible location, 31.82463°N, -81.52919°W. That one matches up with the boundary description (there's a dirt road to the southeast, at least). It would have been helpful if the NPS had actually attached that "attached topographic map" mentioned in the description. Though we're probably right that the building's no longer standing - it looked abandoned and overgrown 30 years ago, which is never a good sign. It would be nice to get the actual location so we can at least have a picture of the site, but it is what it is. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

 * That is a little different from the other position, I think, but it is also on the opposite side of the road than where my car GPS took me. I agree that it may not be there anymore.  I'll try to have another look sometime.  BTW, I ordered a hand-held GPS unit.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Looking at that location on Google Maps, my GPS sent me across the highway - you can see where the road ends on that side. I looked around there and walked over the railroad.  I did drive around to the other side of the highway, but not as far as the mark on the map. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seeing that the location is "McIntosh", TheCatalyst31 is clearly more accurate than I, since my spot was nowhere near McIntosh. The nomination gives the owner's name, and GIS websites typically will provide the names of current and previous owners, so I was excited to find that Liberty County has a GIS website.  Unfortunately, the site's not running right now (maybe they do maintenance on Sunday evenings?), but if you find it running, you may be able to learn something by looking at lots southwest of US84/SCL Railroad and attempting to find any that were owned by John Tuten of Brunswick as of early 1982.  Also, you could check for a book mentioned in the further reading section, in case they have one at a library near you.  Final note, let me ditto what Ipoellet's said: most privately owned NR properties aren't protected from actions by the owners (that's why the Rose Mound was able to be destroyed, since the owner wanted it to be out of the way), and the exceptions are locations like Mother of Sorrows Catholic Church in northeastern Ohio, which is protected because of a city ordinance.  Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you for that information, I'll check on some of it. I believe that John Tuten of Brunswick was an architect (here in Brunswick).  I've heard the name.  Also, as far as McIntosh, there is a neighboring county named McIntosh and also it seems to be an unincorporated town in Liberty county with that name too.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

More fun with history graphs
In addition to the graphs made from the data found on the Progress page over time which can be found at WP:NRHPPROGRESSHISTORY, I was playing around with the data today and figured out a numerical differentiation routine to analyze the rate at which members of the project have created articles and uploaded images. Here are two graphs of those rates for your viewing pleasure. The graphs show the raw (noisy) numerical data in green as well as a continuous best fit approximation in red, which I think is easier to look at since it has less noise. One cool thing that's immediately obvious is the huge spike in image uploads during WLM/WSM/whatever we decided to call the annual summer upload drive this year, although the 2013 drive gets kind of washed out when the data is averaged since there weren't many data points during that period (*disgruntled sigh*). It looks like our "average" is about 10-15 new articles and images per day! Great work everyone! Enjoy!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

February NHL meeting
For those of you who, like me, had been wondering why there was no NHL meeting last fall, the NPS page announcing the Feb. 11–12 meeting explains why: it was postponed till next month. Why I don't know, but it doesn't matter at this point.

There aren't too many proposed new NHLs this time around—about eight. And one withdrawal that I doubt anyone will argue with. All, luckily, are ones we have articles on, even in two cases where they aren't even listed on the Register yet.

First on the agenda there's a theme study: Labor Archaeology Sites of the Industrial Era, which may be worth perusing for background on some possible future NHLs similar to the already listed Ludlow Tent Colony Site.

The new nominations are:

 * First People's Buffalo Jump, described as the eponymous state park south of Great Falls, Montana. Important site for ritual animal sacrifice by local Indian tribes.
 * Henry Gerber House in north Chicago. Home of founder of first-ever gay rights organization, started in the mid-1920s and abandoned after two years of police harassment. Not even on the Register yet, but it's a contributing property to the Old Town Triangle Historic District, designated a Chicago landmark and so we already have an article (it would clearly benefit from expansion).
 * Lafayette Park, Detroit. Successful urban renewal project and the world's largest collection of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe buildings. Already listed on the Register and we already have an article.
 * Red Rocks Park and Mt. Morrisson CCC Camp, Jefferson County, Colorado. Best known for the natural amphitheater which my generation best remembers for the concert that became U2's Under A Blood Red Sky album and video. The article is Red Rocks Park.
 * George Washington Masonic National Memorial, Alexandria, Virginia. Self-explanatory, I guess—the conspiracy theorists are going to love this one. Already listed; article here.

We end with a trio of Federal courthouses in the Deep South notable for the many important civil rights cases handled there by district and appellate judges of the Fifth Circuit:

 * John Minor Wisdom United States Court of Appeals Building (nomination), New Orleans
 * Frank M. Johnson, Jr., Federal Building and United States Courthouse (nomination), Montgomery, Alabama.
 * Elbert P. Tuttle United States Court of Appeals Building (nomination), Atlanta

The designation to be withdrawn belongs to the Old Blenheim Bridge, the only double-bore covered bridge in the East and arguably the longest single-span covered bridge in the country, in North Blenheim, New York. Washed away during Hurricane Irene in 2011.

So, doesn't look like we have much to do as far as taking pictures or creating articles goes. What we need to do with these potential NHLs is expand the existing articles to the degree desired and needed. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Less than 2,000 to go!
Hello everyone. We're almost done with reviewing pictures for Summer of Monuments, but we still have 1,631 pictures left to review, so we could use your help! As a reminder:
 * Step 1: Create an account here.
 * Step 2: Begin rating pictures here. A picture will load; hover your cursor over the pictures and you will have the option to rate between 1 and 5 stars. Rate pictures not just on their aesthetic quality but also their ability to illustrate what the monument is in an encyclopedic manner.

If you were having technical difficulties before, they should be fixed now. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your help! Harej (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Regester Log House in SW PA
I've taken a couple of new photos of the Regester Log House now that the leaves are off the trees. This house is within a few feet of the coordinates listed in the nomination form, though that could be random chance, from the 1974 photo, it looks like it was a bit higher up the hill. The house there now is of very similar construction, but really doesn't match the left house in the 1974 photo. It might be a reconstruction from parts of the original house just moved down the hill a bit. Anyone in the area have any thoughts? Generic1139 (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comparing the 1974 photo with File:Regester Log House South and West Facade.jpg, it looks like the right part of the 1974 building was removed. On the left part vs. 1974, just count and compare the placement of the windows and doors. I don't see the chimney on the 1974 pic, but it might be there.  You can even count the logs on the front - I get 12 in each case. Seems clear cut to me.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I spent a lot of time looking at that, and at the relative spacing between the logs. The upper window is different and the frame of both windows is larger.  The spacing of the logs is close in most, but not all, areas within the limits of the old photo.  My biggest problem is the west facade, the left hand side in the old photo.  It seems to show an upper window, or at least a boarded up hole for one, but it isn't there in the new photos, File:Regester Log House East and South Facade 2.jpg is clearer.  I was imagining someone moving the house as is, but the far more likely case is that it was disassembled to the logs, and reassembled.  That's an easier explanation for for how it was moved, rotated, placed on a new foundation, some of the spacing between logs changed, a window was deleted (requiring new logs, and a new chimney added.  Generic1139 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting case study, but I haven't found any place where it has been written up. 1st thing I should say is that while concentrating on details is important, I missed the new foundation.  Whoops!  The bigger windows might just be the outside boards added around the opening.  If you blow up your pix, there is some indication of something around the "missing window." (4 logs above the door) The nomination form is interesting, not just because it's from 1974 and real short.  It indicates that the missing right hand side building was older, and that the lhs building originally had a gable end chimney (thought I saw something on the old photo).
 * BTW, old logs seem to shrink a lot. So I suspect that many of them are reset or replaced more than occasionally.  That likely happened here, or maybe the cracks were just refilled. I can't tell anything about moving or rotation from the photos.  But it is likely, as you said, that the building was moved down the hill in pieces and reassembled and fixed up.  What happened to the older building?  Maybe it was just falling down, or the foundation gave way.  Hopefully they saved the pieces.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

GA listings
I added Dupont Circle Fountain and General Philip Sheridan to the GA section on the project page, but when I look at this page, they're not there. Does anyone know why? I also need to add Major General George Henry Thomas. APK whisper in my ear  16:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The bot runs once a week. It last updated on the 25th so give it until February 4th or so. It will be added when it runs again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Ok, thanks. APK whisper in my ear  16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

New Mexico - NAN Ranch
Hello,

I worked on the NAN Ranch article, predominantly using the NRHP nomination form. I heard from the owner, who said that some of the information about the house was incorrect. (Discussion here)

I said that the information could not be changed until we had a source, because that is the general modus operandi, but I have been having second thoughts. I know I should not change the information without a source (i.e., guideline to not replace cited content with uncited content + we're then deeply in original research territory), but should the questionable information be removed, or perhaps put in a note? How should this kind of situation be handled?

Thanks so much!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 * IMO: If you reasonably believe that information in the article is erroneous, it shouldn't be in the article at all. Source-ability should never trump correctness. If you can't get a reliable source for information you believe to be correct, I would suggest putting neither the sourced incorrect information nor the unsourced correct information on the article page, but adding an explanation for the omission on the talk page (so that future well-meaning editors don't add back the erroneous information). Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

nomination request from NPS (hey, that rhymes...)
I e-mailed the NPS today asking for a copy of a nomination form that hasn't been digitized. This is the first time I've made a request. I'm wondering if anyone knows if this process actually works, and if so, how long it usually takes to receive a copy. APK whisper in my ear  04:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It usually works, and you should get a copy of the nomination in about a week or two. I've gotten copies in anything from the next day to a few weeks. The "usually" is because they're digitizing nominations from several states right now, and they aren't sending out copies of those while they're offsite being digitized; there's a list here of what's being digitized. (That also might apply to some of the more recent nominations that weren't digitized in the first go round for their state.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Ok, thanks. APK whisper in my ear  04:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it usually works. On one occasion, they couldn't provide a copy and gave me the odd excuse that the nomination file had been sent to the National Archives and the NPS no longer had access to it - for a property listed in 2009. They referred me to the SHPO, which in Oregon I've found to be quite a bit better organized than the NPS. — Ipoellet (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The NPS replied. I was told the form is in Fort Worth and it would be best to contact the D.C. Historic Preservation Office. Oh well, hope they can help. APK  whisper in my ear  06:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox school and embedded nrhp infobox
FYI - something has broken with infobox school where an nrhp inbox with embed=yes is added. I've notified the last editors to make a change to the infobox school template. Generic1139 (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed quickly by Frietjes. Generic1139 (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Change to MHT Links
Hi all --- not sure when this happened, but the Maryland Historical Trust moved to a new format for links to their on-line NRHP descriptions. So all the links originally added are now broken. This has happened before --- grrr. So, for example, the original link to the first listing in Allegany County, MD, 16 Altamont Terrace changed from:

http://mht.maryland.gov/nr/NRDetail.aspx?HDID=314&COUNTY=Allegany&FROM=NRCountyList.aspx?COUNTY=Allegany

to

http://mht.maryland.gov/nr/NRDetail.aspx?NRID=314&COUNTY=Allegany&FROM=NRCountyList.aspx

So, in essence, everything after the last "?" needs to be removed to reactivate these links. Any ideas?--Pubdog (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like these can be updated with AutoWikiBrowser, using find-and-replace with regular expressions. I'm going to start working my way through the list, though it might take a while to get through all of them. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The links to boundary maps of historic districts are also broken, and might take more than a simple regex to fix, if anyone else wants to look into that. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You guys are the best! I see many of the links have been updated.  Cheers!--Pubdog (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Maryland Historical Trust: please never change your URLs again. I (finally) finished updating the links you pointed out with AWB, and I'll take a look at the boundary maps next. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 18:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Updating the boundary map links turned out to be easier than I thought, so they're done too now. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Does anyone here have handy a discussion of why we have articles titled, for example, National Register of Historic Places listings in Multnomah County, Oregon? There is a discussion taking place in which I'm involved that claims this goes against the encyclopedia's naming conventions. If these are wrongly titled I imagine we will have to move them. Valfontis (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for context, I'm not canvassing but since the article in question has already been listed at ARS and it is NRHP-related, the discussion is taking place here. Valfontis (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't point to a specific discussion, but I do recall that the current "National Register of Historic Places listings in X" was arrived at as a more natural wording than the previous format "List of Registered Historic Places in X", especially given "RHP" was not in usage anywhere beyond Wikipedia. The reason for county-by-county lists is an application of summary style to the NRHP: the object of interest is the single National Register, but with 90K+ entries it couldn't possibly (or at least not usefully) be listed in a single article. Breaking down the whole Register by county was a natural approach because that is a core organizational element of the Register itself. — Ipoellet (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the gist of the complaint is that the titles lack global context, but I think they are already pretty unwieldy, aren't they? Without adding "United States" to all of them, I mean. And no other country has something with the exact name of National Register of Historic Places. Valfontis (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See section 14 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 17; it's the final section, but it takes up half the page, because it's where we ended up picking the "NRHP listings in X" convention. Length was part of the discussion, and you're right on there being no other National Register of Historic Places.  Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Missing listing?
Having recently driven over the Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge near Cleveland OH, I read its article and was surprised to see a National Register-related citation in the references. It goes to this page, which is not currently working because our SHPO has temporarily (?) taken down most of its website, but you can see the page at archive.org. It claims that the bridge was NR-listed on 16 January 1986, giving a refnum that doesn't even appear in NRIS (I ran an Elkman search for the refnum and found nothing, and for Northfield, including delistings, and found nothing that was a bridge in Ohio), so I checked the recent listings and discovered this precise bridge on PDF page 9 of the 1986 listings. Also see the nomination form, which is accompanied by letters from NPS to a couple of local government agencies. How to handle this one? I initially thought that the date was for a delisting (a mistake like nrhp.com makes), but the recent listings says clearly that it was listed on 16 January 1986. If this were in NRIS, it would be a thoroughly normal listing; the confusion arises from its absence from NRIS. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Personally, I take the Weekly List as authoritative over the NRIS, so I'd say it's pretty clear that it was listed on 16/1/86 and should therefore appear somewhere in our list articles. But the ref in the article also says that it has been delisted - without citation. If the bridge isn't in NRIS, I don't know how you'd find the Weekly List record of the delisting. The NRHP ref was added to the bridge's article by User:Mapsax on 7/7/12 - perhaps that user can give some guidance on how (s)he knows the bridge was delisted...? — Ipoellet (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 * [I'm a "he"] Sorry, all I know is what's on the talk page over there, that the bridge was listed at one time but wasn't at the time that I was editing the article. Mapsax (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help from both of you. I've sent NPS an email with most of these links and asking their opinion.  Nyttend (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ipoellet, I heard back from NPS. They say basically "hm, that's interesting; it's in the old database, but somehow it didn't get transferred to our new database" and specifically call it a "database glitch".  They're going to contact the SHPO about it, although I suppose I won't hear the results.  Any objections if I just add the bridge to the lists where it would go?  Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Go. Do. — Ipoellet (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Land but not buildings crossing a boundary
I know of two instances in which a listed property is described as having its items of significance on one side of a jurisdictional boundary, with land extending into another. One of these is Bourne Mill, which is almost entirely in RI, with a very small spit of land in MA. The other is Sellers Farm (which I am now looking at its nomination), which is mostly in AR (including all nominated structures), with land only in OK. The nominated land area is small (about 1/4 acre). Should it also be listed in the adjacent Oklahoma county?  Magic ♪piano 19:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say base it all on the CP locations. If it's just a single property, list in the state where it's located; if it's a district, or a non-district with multiple contributing properties (e.g. a farmstead), list it in a state only if at least one CP is at least partly located in that state.  Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A related mini-project
I've been scanning the postcard collections at the Presbyterian Historical Society for pre-1923 photos in Pennsylvania of mostly Presbyterian churches (a few Reformed, a few non-churches). See Commons:Category:Postcard_collections_of_the_Presbyterian_Historical_Society. When I finish PA next week, there should be over 600 photos uploaded, but it may take awhile to sort out a few entries. The category is meant to include one postcard for each named church in each town in PA (as long as a pre-1923 card is available). I'm guessing that only 5-10% of these are NRHP sites, but perhaps another 5-10% are in historic districts, and another 5-10% are on a list of historic churches kept by the PHS. So maybe 15-25% of general interest to this project, but that's still a guess. A lot of these will end up in List of Presbyterian churches in the United States or a Pennsylvania spinoff.

While I won't be doing anything anywhere as complete for other states (and I won't be doing any scanning on nice days in the summer!), if you know of any special Presbyterian or (German) Reformed churches that need pix for this project let me know on my talk page. Churches in HDs may be particularly hard for me to track down on my own. If nobody asks, I'll just concentrate on those in the List of Presbyterian churches in the United States and on the PHS historic list.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

NRHP Focus
It looks like Montana, at least, is now scanned and available on NRHP Focus. It may be worth investigating other states.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 60; all but 11 states should be online now. (In my experience it's actually at least 12, since I don't think Louisiana is online yet either but it's not listed there, and there could be a few other states like that I haven't checked yet.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd missed that update.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Litchfield Historic District
Litchfield Historic District seems to be a National Historic Landmark District, though the 68000050 nomination doesn't explicitly say so, but it is tagged as such our usual places. It isn't clear (at least to me), if 78003456 is an expansion of the National Historic Landmark District, or if it is a new HD that happens to have an embedded NHLD inside it. How can I tell? We have an info box on Litchfield (borough), Connecticut marked as an HD. Generic1139 (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I read the 1978 document to describe an expansion of the 1968 designation. See PDF page 63, the start of the statement of significance. It's arguable that the historic district and borough articles should be merged, since the two were made coterminous by the 1978 increase (PDF page 64).  Magic ♪piano 18:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Is the entire expanded district then a National Historic Landmark District, or just the original 1968 piece? CT Trust seems to draw a distinction, see the notes section where it talks about the National Register historic district being coterminous with the village and borough, but that a portion of the Borough is an NHLD. Generic1139 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Hmm. The town's district commission certainly makes a distinction.  Magic ♪piano 22:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

New New York Nominations Portal
Hi all --- noted today that New York launched a new fangled portal to get to the NRHP docs and other materials ... CRIS. The old system is still there, but an intro page blocks you from accessing it. The docs are still in the old OPRHP site

See Kibler High School http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=2377

The CRIS link is: https://cris.parks.ny.gov/Uploads/ViewDoc.aspx?mode=A&id=36214&q=false

Any idea how long the old OPRHP site might still be up to access the NRHP docs? Not as straight forward a URL change as the MHT.--Pubdog (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh, they changed the IDs too, which means there's not an easy automated way to do this. It also looks like some of the newer nominations aren't on the new site yet - Automobile Club of Buffalo and The Baptist Church of Springville didn't show up for me. Unless I'm missing something in those URLs, I'm not sure how we're going to fix those other than manually (and I admittedly don't have the patience to fix 5,000+ URLs manually). If there's any pattern to the new IDs, or a way to figure out which IDs correspond to which properties and forms without manually checking, we might be able to pull off something creative with the bot - but even that's going to be difficult, I think. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sent the following email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>this morning:

 * Good morning:

 * Congratulations on the launch of the new CRIS site. Very impressive.  I'm very happy to see that the PDFs of NRHP documents are consolidated. This makes using them so much easier than in the old OPRHP system.

 * I don't know if you are aware of this, but each of the NRHP properties has an entry in Wikipedia. See the Wikipedia New York project at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_New_York

 * Each entry is currently linked to the NRHP document and photosets in the old OPRHP system. An example is:

 * See Kibler High School: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibler_High_School

 * http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=2377

 * The CRIS link is:
 * https://cris.parks.ny.gov/Uploads/ViewDoc.aspx?mode=A&id=36214&q=false

 * Any idea how long the old OPRHP site might still be up to access the NRHP docs?

 * To continue access to these documents 5,000+ URLs will need to be updated in Wikipedia. Do you have a crossreference or formula that can be used to update the Wikilinks to the documents in CRIS?

 * Any assistance or guidance you can provide is greatly appreciated

 * Best wishes
 * --Pubdog (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Following is the response I received today from NYS OPRHP<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

 * I consulted with other OPRHP staff, and they were unaware of the Document Imaging links used for NRHP listings on Wikipedia. Apparently, these were added to Wikipedia by people outside of OPRHP. We do not have plans to edit or maintain these links; however, other people are welcome to do so at their discretion. The URL format in your example (with the ViewDoc query) is probably the best way to link the files, though I am not aware of any plans to use these as permanent links.

 * If you have further questions, please let us know!

 * Matthew W. Shepherd, MLIS
 * Digital Archive Program Assistant

 * New York State Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation

 * --Pubdog (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny that they're saying "apparently..." to the guy who added them to Wikipedia :-) What if you asked for a table of URLs?  For example, "Do you have a list of URLs matched to NRHP properties?  I'm one of the people outside of OPRHP who's added them to Wikipedia, and I'd like to help update the links; if you have a list, it would make the updating process far easier". Oops, I misunderstood what they were saying; never mind.  Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Weekly List
Anyone have any insight whether what's posted right now for the 2/13 Weekly List represents (a) an actual statement of no actions this week, or (b) a temporary publishing error? — Ipoellet (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd guess a publishing error. The only time I remember there actually being no listings (during the government shutdown in 2013), they posted something to that effect instead of a blank listings page. If it's still like that after the 2/20 list goes up we can reconsider, but for now I'd just wait for them to fix it. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A proper listing page has now been posted for Feb 13.  Magic ♪piano 15:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Pioneer Memorial Bridge
The article Blue Bridge (Washington) states that the bridge is listed on the NRHP, and provides a refnum and citation to nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, which I don't consider the best of sources. The bridge is not on our lists, nor can I find it in NPS Focus nor the Washington state database. My suspicion is that the refnum was actually assigned by NPS in the course of an eligibility determination and that the bridge is not actually listed on the NRHP, but I have no way to confirm that suspicion. Does anyone else have any way to check my suspicion? Thanks. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Elkman's tool, it's listed in the NRIS as "Pending/listed", so I'm pretty sure you're right. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

NationalRegisterBot down for the time being.. anyone know what's going on?
I guess you didn't expect to see that header from the bot creator haha, but I'm seriously stumped as to why I keep encountering errors when trying to run the bot. I posted at Village pump (technical)/Archive 135 earlier today, but haven't had any responses yet. I left a pretty detailed description of the error I'm receiving, so if anyone has any insight (we have several programmers, right?), please let me know. I've been trying to run it for the past two weeks or so, but to no avail. Any help is appreciated! Until I can get this figured out, it seems there won't be any bot runs, though updating the Progress page (albeit without updated duplicate/NRIS-only/other data provided by the bot) is still possible if anyone wants to take the initiative to do that. Sorry for the delay :\.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Script to speed up process of assessing articles with no quality or importance assessment
Before the Progress page existed, the only way we really had stats about project progress was through this section on the project page, which includes tallies of the quality and importance of all our articles (but only nationwide, not at the state/county level, which was one motivation for the Progress page back then). To make those statistics as useful as possible, it is necessary to continually assess the quality and importance of all new articles, and I and a few other editors used to do a pretty good job at keeping everything up to date, and the unassessed/unknown-importance categories were almost always kept empty.

Since the creation of the Progress page and my subsequent decline in Wikipedia activity due to external forces, however, that task has kind of fallen to the wayside, and now there are over 700 articles without an importance rating (though only 3 without a quality rating.. perhaps because assessment is reflected on the Progress page while importance isn't?). I realized this a few days ago, but I didn't want to take the time to go through and load 700 individual articles, visit each one's talk page, open the edit page, rate the articles, save the page, rinse, and repeat... because it just would have taken forever in my opinion... or at least longer than I was willing to sit there and do it.

So, continuing with my recent apparent obsession with scripting, I spent my free time in the last few days developing User:Dudemanfellabra/AssessNRHP.js, a script that speeds up this process considerably. The script fires on WP:NRHPTODO (an underhanded attempt to get people to visit there and possibly do some other things while at it? :P) by producing a button at the top of the page. When clicked, a GUI loads and lists out all articles that are unassessed or have unknown-importance and allows the user to select an article to load inline rather than having to visit it individually. When the article has loaded, the user gets direct access to the NRHP project template on its talk page (saving another page load) and is able to edit the wikitext directly in a textbox. The script provides some dropdown boxes for valid quality and importance ratings, and when an item is chosen from the dropdown list, the textbox is instantaneously updated with that choice for quick saving. After choosing the assessment options, the user simply clicks to edit the article's talk page with the updated project template and is given options for loading the next page in the list automatically, ignoring a built-in confirmation box meant to stop accidental submissions, and watching/unwatching the target page.

I've used the script to assess a few articles just now, and it definitely makes the process a lot faster and less tedious, though I'm about to go to sleep for the time being, so I won't be continuing until tomorrow at the earliest. I've only tested the script in Firefox, so it may not work in other browsers, but I don't see anything that should be browser-specific in theory. If anyone wants to use the script, as always, feel free to do so. Let me know if you get any weird errors or unexpected behavior. Also if you have any suggestions, I'm open to modifying the script. Good luck!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon my confusion, but why is it important to assess importance? No objection that you're spending your time on it; I just don't understand why I should do likewise.  Even aside from WP:NRHPPROGRESS, I can understand the help of quality ratings (it helps people who've enabled the gadget that displays article quality, e.g. as "A start-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"), but I've never been able to understand how editors or readers benefit from the importance-rating process.  Perhaps it would help for a project that had a limited number of articles to improve, but when we have thousands of stubs to expand and tens of thousands of non-existent articles to write, will we treat an article differently because of importance ratings?  Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS, the gadget I'm discussing is the one that's described as "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article". Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Importance marks, obviously, how important an article is to a project. Articles with higher importance should in theory be focused on more than those of lower importance. That said, not everyone uses it. The Progress page is similar in that respect. While some people like that its breakdown to the state/county level allows them to focus on problem articles in a given locality, some people would prefer to work on articles that are of great importance nationally, e.g. Top/High-importance sites (mostly NHLs and articles related directly to the Register itself). It's true that most of the unassessed articles will fall under the Low-importance header, but just in case a few of those new articles are high importance (I tagged an NHLD as high within the first few articles I assessed) and someone might want to work on it because of its importance, rating the importance of an article gives them a tool to do so. I personally don't look for importance, but then again I don't really expand many articles at all. The point I'm trying to make is that even if it doesn't seem immediately relevant to you or I doesn't mean we should keep that avenue closed for others to participate in the manner they wish.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

missing photos and restricted addresses
In National Register of Historic Places listings in Glynn County, Georgia there is Brunswick Old Town Historic District and "Brunswick Old Town", which have different numbers. The address of "Brunswick Old Town" is restricted, but surely it must be around there somewhere. Is there any way to find out where it actually is? (I have the spreadsheet of NRHP.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you tried the visitor center on US 17 at the causeway to St. Simons Island? They were very nice and generally helpful when I was there. I would think there would be a local historical society, who should know something. I thought the 'restricted' area might be an archaelogical dig site, though that's a bit weird having one in a city proper. But you'll run across that sort of thing now and then when on the NRHP trail. :) -- ‖  Ebyabe  talk -   Inspector General   ‖ 03:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 * That closed a few years ago, to save money. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 * You could contact the NRHP to try getting a copy of the submission, but the Georgia version might be a better option. -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   State of the Union   ‖ 03:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Link to that. -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Welfare State   ‖ 03:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The copy of the nomination you get from the NPS (and probably also from the state) will be redacted - blacking out the most obvious instances of location information. However, with a close reading of what isn't redacted and some study of satellite imagery, you can sometimes intuit the location anyhow. Fair warning: with a lot of address restricted listings, there isn't much or anything left above ground to get a picture of, though I agree with Ebyabe that something in an urban setting may defy assumptions. — Ipoellet (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, given the 1974 listing date for Brunswick Old Town, the nomination photographs are almost certainly in the public domain (Commons:Template:PD-US-no notice). If you can get those from NPS/SHPO, they can provide a substitute for a current photo, though admittedly less satisfying. — Ipoellet (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're doing a significant amount of work in a particular state, you should try to cultivate a relationship with the state historic preservation office (SHPO), who are the state's keeper of the register. If they're not too busy you may get useful information out of them, and they're not as impersonal as the park service personnel who answer mail addressed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(at least the one's I've dealt with).  You can get copies of nominations not available from the NPS (although I'd ask specifically about whether they provide redacted ones for restricted sites).  In this particular case however, the district nomination at NPS actually mentions the earlier nomination, and places it in some context. NRIS says "Brunswick Old Town" is 110 acres; this is not a very small secret.  Magic ♪piano 03:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a complete answer, but after poking around for a few minutes, it appears that "Brunswick Old Town" is indeed an archaeological site. The NRHP.com NRIS copy (which admittedly is not always accurate) calls it a Late Pre-Historic, Early American village site, which is currently underwater. More importantly, it's also known as the "Bay Street Urban Renewal Area," which after a few minutes of Googling turns up Final Report On Bay Street Renewal: Archaeological Salvage Investigations in the Bay Street Urban Renewal Area (reference only, unfortunately). That's not enough information to place the site exactly, but you might be able to either (a) get a copy of the report, (b) do more Googling, (c) chat with someone in Brunswick, or (d) snap a generic shot of the bay shore. Andrew Jameson (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As an added note, archaeological sites seem to have alternate names or designations more often than not; I often find these alternate names are useful when researching history and location (particularly for the archaeological sites, but for other NRHP structures, too). Andrew Jameson (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing photos
Last year, there was an effort made to secure photos for historic spots that didn't have images. As part of that project, there was a nice mapping feature that allowed someone to easily zoom in and have all National Register locations marked with a green or red flag to show that either a photo existed or did not. The effort has ended, and I can't find any way of accessing the mapping tool. Any thoughts?ProfReader (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Progress page breaks down where images are needed to the county level. In addition, if you visit a county list that is shown on the Progress page to lack images, you can see directly which images are missing in that county and get a map of all of the sites (illustrated or not) by clicking on link to view them on a map usually found right above the tables in our lists. True, this doesn't give you green or red flags indicating whether an article has an image or not, but it does give you indirect access to that information.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Two issues here. First, the original post referred to this link on the wikilabs, which was an interactive map that showed the locations of the sites and which did and did not have pictures.  Was very convenient, especially on a smartphone.  Sadly, that tool seems to be offline.  Second, the other handy links at the top of each page to the Google maps are now broken, as Google Maps no longer allows kml files to be plotted directly into the maps.  These two losses significantly will hinder me, at least, and probably others, as now there's no visual way to see all the NRHP listing points on a map. Edit: the top page links work for the Bing link still, so it's not a total loss yet...25or6to4 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Having the KML files is still useful, since they can (limit 100 entries per file and three files per map, IIRC) be imported into the Google Maps Engine (or "My Maps", or whatever they're calling it this week), but the loss of the automatic plotting is a bit an annoyance.  Magic ♪piano 20:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was hoping someone might have a better solution. Rats. The problem for me is not that the information is not available; clearly, it is. But the ease of access is in the toilet. I'm planning a trip tomorrow that will take me along the way-off-the-beaten path country roads in rural South Carolina. If I had an easy map of the locations that need a photo, I could easily plan to take a few minutes to go off course and snap a photo. But, each county might take an hour or more to drive across, so not everything that needs a photo is going to happen.ProfReader (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rural areas are missing a lot of photos. I've done several of them in rural counties in southeast Georgia, and I have mapped out trips to get quite a few more. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I just added one for Georgia, Glynn County, Windsor Park district. But it is hard to photohgraph some of these "bistoric districts" that go for several blocks.  I picked a house in that district, actually it belonged to my great uncle for decades.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I usually trying taking pictures of several buildings in a historic district, which gives the option of picking the best one for articles. Different kinds of buildings too, where appropriate. In the residential ones, usually that means houses and churches. -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Union of Opposites   ‖ 03:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Well, I need to go over there and get a wide view showing several houses. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm going to tell you people something I found out on my November 2014 trip to New York; The Bellport Academy is owned by a private resident (I'm not sure I want to mention his name), and you'd more than likely need permission to get a picture of that place. I found this out from some tree trimmers who were working on a house around the corner from it. Also, with or without permission, the George W. Denton House in Flower Hill, New York and Denton Homestead in East Rockaway, New York are a bitch to try to find. I don't even think the address for the house in East Rockaway is correct, because I drove down Denton Avenue, and never saw any structure whatsoever with "60" as an address. -User:DanTD (talk)  12:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's likely because the source information you're relying upon is sorely out of date. I previously discussed the case of the Rose Building in Fairbanks, Alaska, and how it's still listed despite having been demolished in 1998.  Furthermore, our listing gives the address 520 Church Street, with a note reading "address has disappeared".  Well, not precisely.  What happened is that Illinois Street was reconstructed during the early 1960s.  Prior to that, one headed north from downtown Fairbanks across the Cushman Street Bridge along North Cushman Street.  After a few blocks, the road made a 90 degree turn to the right onto Church Street, then very quickly made a 90 degree turn to the left onto Illinois Street.  Prior to the opening of the Wendell Street Bridge in 1953, this made up the southern terminus of the Steese Highway.  The 1960s reconstruction softened that S curve.  In the process, North Cushman led directly to Illinois, eliminating that particular block of Church.  From that point forward, the Rose Building carried a North Cushman address;  North Cushman past the point where it turned into Illinois was henceforth a street in name only.  It was really more like a driveway leading to the newspaper offices, the railroad depot, the Rose Building and a few smaller buildings in the immediate vicinity, the latter of which were also demolished to make way for the 2012 reconstruction of Illinois.  The series of events associated with that reconstruction led to the establishment of the Illinois Street Historic District.  The point to all of this: if you're relying upon information which is more than a half century out of date in this case, give some thought as to how such proliferates throughout these listings.  Maybe consider consulting sources other than the ones the project is fond of pushing. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  18:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of date? The Denton Homestead was registered on November 12, 2014. BTW, I just found the coordinates, and thus realize I was looking at the wrong section of Denton Avenue. As for the house in Flower Hill, that thing was hidden behind some trees on a hill. Snapping a picture of that thing would've required getting out of my car, finding a place to park, and sneaking through the woods. -User:DanTD (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Images in Indiana
I just ran the bot and updated the Progress page. After uploading the maps generated from each run, I usually check to see what has changed between the last run and this one to monitor article creation or illustration and keep general tabs on the progress everyone is making. I usually don't comment about any changes because they're usually for the better, i.e. adding more articles or more pictures. This week, however, I noticed a rather drastic change in Indiana images.. see the version from a week ago and the current version. It seems a lot of images from Indiana have either been deleted from Commons for copyright issues or are systematically being removed by a single editor or small group. I didn't take the time to look into it since I'm doing other things, but I figured I'd alert the project to it and maybe find out from the involved editor(s) the purpose of removing this images. Anyone know anything?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at several of the affected counties, many of these are archaeological site entries. Generic1139 (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Are National Monuments automatically listed on the Register?
Sorry to be posting so many questions lately, guys, but does anyone know anything about Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Monument? It was apparently designated recently as a national monument under the control of the NPS. Does that automatically mean it is listed on the NRHP? It was my understanding that all NPS units were listed on the register, but I can't find anything like a reference number or listing date for this site, and it is not included on National Register of Historic Places listings in Dorchester County, Maryland. Anyone know anything about this?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Likewise, First State National Historical Park. Named a national monument in 2013, then recently named a national historic park by Congress.  Lots of mentions on NPS sites, but no refnum for NRHP. Generic1139 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 * The First State National Historical Park was created IMHO so that Delaware would no longer be the only state without a National Park within its borders. It's a grab-bag of different disconnected sites around the state, most, or perhaps all, already listed on the NRHP or NHL.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think "automatically" and "immediately" are two different ideas for the NPS. "Automatically" means they can skip some bureaucratic steps and approvals, but doesn't necessarily mean they will move any faster than otherwise. Just my guess. — Ipoellet (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can anyone come up with a counterexample? Do we know of a national park/monument/similar that is not listed on the Register, despite being designated an NPS unit?
 * Really, though, my question was more related to assessing the article. Should we include sites owned by the NPS but (apparently) not listed on the Register under this project's scope? If so, should they receive an importance rating of High, like NPS units that are listed, or Related? The latter being akin to contributing properties or delisted sites, i.e. those that have some connection to the Register but are not individually listed.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

NRHP row - commonscat not shown if there is no image
If commonscat is present but an image is not, the "more images" line is not shown. An example is National Register of Historic Places listings in Berkeley County, South Carolina, the entry for Pineville Historic District or National Register of Historic Places listings in Kent County, Delaware for Benjamin Blackiston House. I assume the thought was that if there was a category, there would be an image, or maybe there is an interaction with the "upload image" code, or just that "more images" doesn't make sense if there is no image shown. In the two examples, and more I've been working on, the images in the category are the line drawings, which are very nice and informative, but are different than a photo. I don't want to discourage the uploading of a photo by using the line drawing as the image. Any chance of displaying the commons category even if there is no image present? Generic1139 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that including a line drawing in the tables would discourage most folks from replacing it with a photo. Perhaps we have a tendency not to replace images with better ones (in this case "better" only for purposes of the table) since that might result in a bit of conflict.  With almost 70% (!) of sites now illustrated, we should now realize that there are many images that should be replaced.  For example, I've uploaded many photos that have some flaws, but I figured "something is better than nothing" and hoped that somebody would come along and replace it. Perhaps we can come to an understanding that images will be replaced, and how to do it while minimizing conflict.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Though you are right about replacing, I wasn't thinking of the issue of replacing an image with a better one - I was thinking of new or occasional contributors of images. If the table has the "upload image" link, it increases the chances of getting an image from new users, as I once was.  Had that link not been there in 2012 for Mercy Chapel at Mill Run, I probably would not have uploaded, and certainly would not have gotten it tagged properly so someone else could add it to the table and article.  And the listing would not have shown up on the (late, lamented) find a monument app.  It was an excellent recruitment tool, and three years in, for better or worse, I can now add new articles and expand old ones, watch the maintenance lists for info boxes missing refnums and all that.  But I'd hate to cut off that path by using a line drawing as a place holder - unless the object no longer exists. Generic1139 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I support displaying a link to a commonscat if no image is present, partly because it would be labelled "More images", which doesn't really make sense if there is no image there to begin with. If you really want to include a link to the commonscat, you could just add it in the description box if you want, so that you can customize the link text, e.g. "Architectural drawings of ____".--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Confusion in Boston
While assessing the importance of unknown-importance articles, I came across Fort Hill, Roxbury. The article, created in February by User:Chambers617, claims the site is listed on the Register as Roxbury Highlands Historic District, which already has an article that has existed for years. The new article originally claimed it was part of John Eliot Historic District, which is apparently entirely contained within the Roxbury Highlands district, but the creator later removed that claim without explanation. I don't know anything about Boston (I'm posting here in the hopes someone does), but it's probably the case that Fort Hill is a contributing property to one or both of these districts, and the editor, being new, is possibly unfamiliar with the finer details of being listed on the Register, thinking CP status is equivalent to being listed by itself. There is nothing in the Roxbury Highlands district article that leads me to believe it is entirely comprised of Fort Hill, but I could be wrong, in which case, I think the two articles (and possibly the John Eliot district article as well?) need to be merged into a single article. Does anyone have any more local knowledge than I do on this matter?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your comments, Dudemanfellabra. I did indeed encounter a great deal of confusion for how to ultimately frame the page. I set out to draft a page for the neighborhood of Fort Hill. While in the process, I discovered that the area comprising the neighborhood was already designated on the National Register of Historic Places as the Roxbury Highlands Historic District. That is to say, the Roxbury Highlands Historic District has the same boundaries as the neighborhood of Fort Hill. I decided to use the page of the nearby Mission Hill neighborhood as a rough template for the Fort Hill page because it too functions as both a page for a neighborhood and a historic district.

 * If you're wondering why a neighborhood would be designated on the National Register under a different name, my guess is that it has lot to do with racial politics. Roxbury has for the last forty or so years functioned as the center of African American professional community in the Boston area. As the city has gentrified, many communities that were formerly considered a part of Roxbury have been relabeled as separate entities that are parts of Boston, similar to how large swaths of Harlem are now referred to as the Upper West Side in New York City. It looks to me like there may have been political or interest groups at some time that may have wanted to point to the area and say, "this is Roxbury," which is an understandable sentiment. Still, the neighborhood has been commonly referred to as Fort Hill in print for at least a half century; many businesses have adopted the designation, and the residents call it Fort Hill. I wanted to give the neighborhood/district its own Wikipedia page while sidestepping the contrasting agendas. So I left the historic district's page as is; I built a new page for Fort Hill that calls it both a neighborhood and a district and links back to the Roxbury Highlands Historic District page; and I labeled the neighborhood as being part of Roxbury (which appears to be the more common usage), rather than Boston (which is how it is listed by realtors). It was the most neutral approach I could think of.

 * As to the John Eliot Historic District, there are a number of clerical errors on the Roxbury Highlands Historic District page, which I planned to correct but haven't gotten around to. The John Elliot Historic District is located in a suburb of Boston and has nothing to do with the Roxbury Highlands Historic District. The John Eliot Square District is located in the Roxbury Highlands Historic District but the two districts are not coextensive, as the page suggests. Chambers617 (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 * If the historic district and neighborhood are really coextensive (or nearly so), there's no real need for more than one article (which should be based on the common name). The NRHP listing name doesn't have to be prominent (you don't even have to use infobox nrhp, but it should be mentioned in the lead, and its listing date should be mentioned somewhere.  The naming of the district probably had little to do with racial politics, by the way.  It is Park Service policy that listings be given historic names; if the area was historically called "Roxbury Heights", that is the name it would want used.  This policy leads at times to idiocies such as Somerville City Hall being listed as "Somerville High School", even though it spent 20 years as the latter and 150 or so (and counting) as the former.
 * Also by the way, I find it odd that you omitted entirely that the area includes the center of what was once an independent town, that was not a part of Boston until the 1860s, and that you don't explicitly mention in the lead that Roxbury is now part of Boston. These omissions are at best misleading to anyone who doesn't know the geography or history of the area, and doesn't click on links where these relations are explained.  Magic ♪piano 02:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Do you have a reliable source that proves the district and neighborhood have the same or roughly the same boundaries? If so, that needs to be cited, and the articles need to be merged. Since you evidently have much more local knowledge than I do, I am hoping you can sort this out for us, but if you need any help, feel free to post here again; that's what the project is for!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 * @Dudemanfellabra, I reviewed the Jan. 30 1989 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. The boundaries are negligibly different on the North and West but it looks to me like there is a difference of three or four blocks on the South. However, I also found a number of sources that cited to boundaries for Fort Hill that more closely resemble those listed in the Historic District paperwork, and sources that suggest that the names Roxbury Highlands and Fort Hill may be used interchangeably. The Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System lists the neighborhood as Fort Hill, and the historic name as Roxbury Highlands. The Boston Preservation Alliance and Historic Boston Incorporated also put out a white paper that refers to the area interchangeably as Fort Hill, Highland Park or Roxbury Highlands. ("The neighborhood is known alternately as “Fort Hill” for its two Revolutionary War fort locations and “Roxbury Highlands” for its distinct, hilly topography.") There are also more informal sources that discuss Fort Hill and Roxbury Highlands as alternative names for the same area, and show boundaries for Fort Hill that more closely mirror those of the Historic District. I think this suggests that the there is not a need for both a Fort Hill and Roxbury Highlands Historic District page but I will leave it up to someone with more editing experience to make that evaluation. The sources seem to show that many people consider the boundaries of the neighborhood (which I characterized as approximate) to more closely resemble those of the historic district and that I may need to revise the boundaries I have listed for the neighborhood. If we're moving toward one article, please let me know and I'll try to merge the content.Chambers617 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

 * After looking through the nomination form myself, as well as checking the other sources you provide, especially that blog, I can see that this is a debate even among locals, so I don't feel as ignorant anymore haha. That said, it does appear that Roxbury Highlands and Fort Hill are the same place, or at least closely related enough to be covered in a single article in my opinion. It seems to me that the broadest term might be Fort Hill, so I would suggest merging the NRHP district article into that one, although I do believe the current Fort Hill article needs to be restructured or at least expanded so as to highlight the fact that there is an NRHP district there. The nomination form seems to be a treasure trove of information (I didn't read the entire thing), so I'm surprised to see that it isn't cited at all in the current Fort Hill article. In a successfully merged article, I would expect to see a clear history of the area, on which you have already made significant progress, as well as a section devoted to the architecture and cohesion of the NRHP district, which seems to be highlighted in the nomination form. I might also mention, though not in any extended sense, the smaller Eliot district, linking to that article which might be ok staying separated out, though feel free to merge it in as well if desired.
 * I'm tempted to jump in and help with the merge myself, but I really don't have much time to devote to actual development (I'm more of a drive-by maintenance/statistics editor these days, unfortunately, due to outside commitments). I am more than willing to provide guidance or point you to others who can as you proceed with the merge, though. This subject has great potential, it seems, to become at least a good article, if not featured! Though our expertise here will probably be more limited to the NRHP district itself rather than the entire neighborhood, please don't hesitate to post here with any questions or concerns about this or any future articles you plan to write. Thanks again for your helpful contributions!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the comments, . I appreciate you providing your direction and will work towards implementing it. Chambers617 (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Progress milestone
As of the latest update to the Progress page, the project has officially crossed the 70% threshold of uploading pictures--70% of all sites on the register are now illustrated! Not only that, but 59% of sites have articles, so we are sure to reach 60% very soon! Great work, guys! Keep it up!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Congrats to everybody who has contributed images and photos. With spring arriving, I'm sure everybody will be more likely to get outside and get more pix.  I've given out multiple barnstars when we've passed previous milestones, but I'm looking forward to the 75% milestone.  Barnstars for everybody who adds a pic to a previously non-illustrated site from now to July 7 (just after the holiday weekend). Smallbones( smalltalk ) 12:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 * This includes address-restricted graphics, doesn't it? I see, for instance, that Alger Co, Michigan is listed on the progress page as 100% illustrated, although the illustrations include three AR's.  A better count of sites illustrated would exclude these, since they're not really illustrated.
 * Unfortunately, using AR's to turn a county red might dissuade photographers, image-hunters, etc., from trying to find usable illustrations. I realize that it'd create a discontinuity in the time series of progress maps, but would it be possible to change the algorithm so that we no longer count these as illustrated?
 * And thanks once again to DMFB for developing the progress page. It's a great tool for finding counties that need illustrating, and the possibility of turning a county from blue to red (or at least to pale orange) is a nice incentive for photographers on the road. — Ammodramus (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I remember there being some discussion around the time the Progress page was being developed about counting AR images. I've even noticed certain editors going around removing AR images from county lists specifically because they inflate the counts on the Progress page. I think (though I may be remembering incorrectly and/or echoing my own opinion) the general consensus of that discussion was that the AR image should definitely not be added to a row by default. When a property is listed, we shouldn't just say "Oh, that site is address restricted, so that means we need to put the AR image there." If a concerted effort, however, has been made and editors were still unable to take a current or even a historical picture, then the AR image could be placed. It should be a last resort image rather than a default.
 * That said, many sites around the country do not appear to use the image in this manner. There are thus three courses of action:
 * Go around the country to each of the lists and blanket remove AR images, only adding them back if some involved editor reverts with a reason similar to the above paragraph.
 * Recode the progress page to ignore the AR image all together, even in cases where it is not likely that an image will ever be placed for those sites.
 * Do nothing and remain with the status quo.
 * Both of the first options have drawbacks, but looking long term, I'm inclined to lean toward the first option if we do either, but I also am fine with the status quo. If a consensus develops to change the code of the Progress page, it's a very simple change that could be implemented as soon as the next time the bot runs (likely this weekend).--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

First Baptist Church of Columbus, Georgia--is it not listed?
Hello. I will create Dr James H. DeVotie's page shortly. In 1856, he became the pastor at the First Baptist Church of Columbus, Georgia. I don't see it listed here, however. Obviously it's not the same church as the First African Baptist Church (Columbus, Georgia) (not the same address, and it was built decades before the black church). Is it not listed on the NRHP? It's very old and beautiful. I hope you can help. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 * The First Baptist Church at 212 12th Street is listed as a contributing element of Church Square, which also includes neighboring St. Luke's. Church Square was listed in 1980. nomination form  Magic ♪piano 18:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Should we have two separate articles in this case? Probably not built at the same time, by different architects, with different histories...Zigzig20s (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say no to two different articles. I would make an article at Church Square (Columbus, Georgia) and talk about both FBC Columbus as well as St. Luke United Methodist, the only two contributing properties to the small district. The article could start out with a brief history of the district, outlined in the nomination linked above, and point out its significance, i.e. this is the only "church square" from Edward Lloyd Thomas's original plan for the city that is still being used for churches. There could even be a more general description of Thomas's plan for the city and/or the Columbus, Georgia section could be expanded to include more about Thomas's plan and a See also link could be included in the Church Square article. Later in the article, a section could be included for each of the two churches–FBC Columbus and St. Luke United Methodist–that are included in the district. In each of these sections, a small history of the congregation, building, etc., could be included. If either section becomes too long and starts to dominate the district article, only then should it be split out in a summary style fork.
 * All of that said, you mentioned that you planned on creating an article for an old pastor of FBC Columbus... is he really notable? Did he do anything else worthy of mention in a Wikipedia article? If all he is famous for is being the pastor of this church, I would say that doesn't meet the notability requirements for a new article...--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) User:Dudemanfellabra: He was a co-founder of Samford University among other things; there will be enough references. I'm only interested in his church in Columbus, however. Would you like to create the main article about Church Square please, even if it is just a start?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started an article at Church Square (Columbus, Georgia) (and redirected the FBC Columbus link to it) which gives a little bit of history of the square and the town plan in general and then gives a brief history of FBC Columbus and an architectural description of the historic sanctuary. I couldn't really find any freely available information about St. Luke UMC (though I didn't search very hard), but I did find this book that you may be interested in if you want to expand the article a little more. If you live around the area, the article could be improved by adding a quality image of the church if you are able to take one and upload it. Good luck!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Can't access NRHP
I've tried using the NRHP database for the first time with no success at all. In National Register of Historic Places listings in Monmouth County, New Jersey

links to http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregadvancedsearch.do?searchType=natregadvanced&selectedCollections=NPS%20Digital%20Library&referenceNumber=87002561&natregadvancedsearch=Search which gives a error. Is it them or me? Thincat (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's them. The Focus site has always had frequent downtimes, but it's been getting worse and worse. I never go through their search anymore, just using direct links to the PDFs. For example, filling in your refnum makes the URLs http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/87002561.pdf and http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/87002561.pdf. HTH, Ntsimp (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for both parts of your reply. That sorts out what I was wanting to do completely. Thincat (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the very high unreliability of NPS Focus, why do we link to it on essentially every row of our lists? If it confused an editor, think what it must do to our readers. — Ipoellet (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a leftover from when PDFs were the exception rather than the rule. The landing page at Focus at least had some of the info, and if they happened to have the forms scanned, the links were there. I'm inclined to think we should phase out that link. Ntsimp (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NPS Focus went down around the same time most of the forms went up, and the NPS doesn't seem to have a plan for bringing it back, at least not in its current form. I agree that we should take out the links for the time being; we can add something back in if they ever put up a replacement. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that those links were no longer working. If that is true, I say we get rid of the link as well, possibly replacing it with a direct link to the nomination form itself, since most are now digitized? Or perhaps we could remove it all together and just wait for the remaining states to be uploaded before linking to the nom forms? Or code NRHP row to detect if the list is in one of those states (using the page name), and also to check if the site is Address Restricted (as we do already for categorization), and only include a link to the nomination form if neither of those is true? We could add a parameter to manually suppress the link if it is an odd case that hasn't been uploaded yet, so we don't go linking to non-existing forms as well.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's asking an awful lot of the lists - making the lists a one-stop-shop for links to all the information is overloading a table format that is better kept clean and straightforward. If a reader wants greater depth on a listing, the first place we should be sending them is to the WP article. If the reader wants to keep drilling down after that, we can link them to databases or nom forms from the article. In that context, it might make sense to build a link to the nom forms into the NRHP infobox rather than the lists. — Ipoellet (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thinking a bit further, if we are concerned about having some sort of in-depth information for those listings where we don't have an article yet, then we could put a link in the underutilized "Description" column. Insert the link as the content of the description parameter rather than setting up a bunch of new logic and/or parameters in NRHP row. I would see this as a temporary, stopgap move until such time as someone can write an article. — Ipoellet (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This link still works as of 19 March 2015: http://npsfocus.nps.gov/npsadvancedsearch.do?searchtype=npsadvanced, and can even be used to search for items by refnum http://npsfocus.nps.gov/npsadvancedsearch.do?term1=73000168&npsadvancedsearch=Search&selectedCollections=NPS+Digital+Library. For maximum chance of getting the user something, the link could go to a "possible further information" script, possibly smart enough to know which states are digitized, that populates the docs/NRHP/Photos and docs/NRHP/Text urls, and provides the search link. Generic1139 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The focus links, including the one at the start of this section, are working again.Generic1139 (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota
I don't know how many South Dakotans are active here, but Shannon County, South Dakota was recently renamed Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota. I hesitate to move the NRHP page, National Register of Historic Places listings in Shannon County, South Dakota, because I don't know if it would interfere with all of the scripts used by the project. But I thought I would let you all know it should probably be moved to match the recent move of the main article. kennethaw88 • talk 02:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved around some pages, but suddenly I realise that I'm not sure how best to fix stuff at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress. In particular, that page relies on FIPS codes; does the federal government change those for a county rename?  I'm clueless, so I'll wait for input from the page's real maintainer or someone else who's better informed than I.  Nyttend (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If the Shannon county list is moved, all that needs to be changed on the Progress page is the link so that it isn't a redirect (and probably put it in alphabetical order for aesthetic reasons). Even if the FIPS code does change legally when a county name is changed, we don't have to change it on the Progress page since all it's really there for is to give an ID for the county in the maps we generate. That's why we're able to put a FIPS code of "00000" on all the territories and even "ddddd" on duplicates. The actual values don't matter.. just as long as they match what is in the map. If we do change it in one place, we need to change it in both.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. I knew that you used FIPS codes for the map, but I didn't know if you'd want to change it with a county name change.  I already moved the list, but I moved it back lest I break things with the codes; I guess I'll move it back back.  Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Help sorting out a dubious claim
Some local websites have claimed that the Durfee House of Geneva, New York, estimated at 1787, is the oldest extant frame building west of Rome, New York. This seems highly unlikely. I just put the article together and found date discrepancies between a couple sources. B137 (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With a quick search, it appears that the Carter Mansion in Elizabethton, Tennessee is both older (1780) and farther west than the Durfee House. Although, really, there aren't a whole lot of 18th century frame structures around, so I wouldn't be surprised if Durfee House is in the top ten oldest frame structures more than X miles from the Atlantic. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Even top 10 would be surprising for the whole country basically outside of New England. I would venture to guess that what they really meant to say but didn't clarify is that they are limiting to New York State. Not 10 miles away to the SSW, there is a large wood frame house that dates to 1790, so it wouldn't be surprising if it wasn't even true for just the western part of the state in which case it is simply a nonsensical claim. Heck, I own a house to the southwest that dates to 1800, but to be fair both of these buildings are older than everything on the NRHP for this area that I have seen. B137 (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I'd find this claim a bit surprising without doing any research, considering Geneva is about the same longitude as Washington, DC; major colonial-era communities in Virginia like Richmond and Charlottesville are west of Geneva, and it would be odd if no wood-frame buildings survived in those regions from the colonial period. Research: Rising Sun Tavern (Fredericksburg, Virginia) (built 1760, 38°18′24″N 77°27′42″W) is west of Geneva (42°52′44″N 76°59′35″W).  As B137 says, the claim gains in credibility if it is restricted to New York State, as west of Utica was Iroquois land until the Revolution, where it is reasonable that only the stone buildings of Fort Niagara have survived from the colonial period.  Magic ♪piano 16:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess a lot of it comes down to the whole New York thing. But doesn't this pre date the current boundaries of New York? This was during the time Ontario County, New York was still being split up after it theoretically extended all the way to the west coast. It seems like a long shot but perhaps it is the oldest frame building in the then-boundary of Ontario County still existing. But like I said, with the ~1790 Arnold Potter House being just a stones throw away, it seems very unlikely that there aren't quite a few frame houses of this time period to the west, even bar everything to the south. The house doesn't even seem to be on the register, or even a contributing property to one of the historic districts. Probably because it has been so heavily modified. B137 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One note, B137 — 1830s relocation and 1840s expansions aren't particularly relevant here. Relocation and modification both hurt eligibility because they take a building away from its historic context.  But when a building's been in its current place for something like 180 years and hasn't been expanded in something like 170, it's definitely acquired a sufficient historic context in its current place and condition.  If the SHPO decided that it didn't qualify as a colonial-era building, they'd base their full evaluation of it on whether it qualified as an example of the 1840s context, at latest.  Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Cross-county site
I've just photographed Route 66, State maintained from Montoya to Cuervo (refnum 97001395), listed as being in Quay County, New Mexico. In fact, although Montoya's in Quay County, most of the segment, including Cuervo, is in Guadalupe County. Thanks—Ammodramus (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I go ahead and add this to the Guadalupe County list?
 * If so, I assume that I need to add it manually to the list of duplicates in the NRHP-in-NM list article. Is there anything else that I need to do to make sure that it won't be double-counted on the progress page, etc.?
 * I would make sure from the nomination form that the specific section listed (which may not be the entire length from Montoya to Cuervo) actually crosses the county line.. the forms usually have maps for things like that. If the specific section is entirely within one county, don't add it to both lists. If it does, then add it to both lists and add it manually to the list of duplicates in the NM article. If it is added to both lists, provided the reference number is the same in both, the bot will automatically detect it as a duplicate on the next run and update the Progress page accordingly.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The nomination explicitly describes it as being in both counties, so it should be on both county lists.  Magic ♪piano 19:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. I wanted to make sure I wouldn't inadvertently screw up the Progress-page statistics.  Ammodramus (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"Address restricted"
Apologies if this question has been addressed before; I haven't seen it.

I know that the Register/nominating organizations have their reasons for listing properties as "address restricted"; I also know, however, from local experience if nothing else, that it's not always difficult to ferret out where such a site is in the first place. A pair of questions:

One: if we know where the site is, is it kosher to provide coordinates? (I'm thinking particularly of the Orange and Alexandria Railroad Bridge Piers, for which coordinates are available. I added them to the list for Fairfax County; someone else added them to the list for Prince William County, and I thought it only fair that they should be listed both times.)

Two: what about photographs? Same principle applies, I should think. (I can think of one site in particular which is "address restricted", but which I believe is marked and celebrated by another entity.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know we've had a few discussions on this (I think this was the last one) and it's still not entirely agreed upon, but the general policy seems to be using common sense. If the site's marked, or the location's available from an easily accessible source, then it's OK to post the location, but if you have to do a lot of digging or use sources that require special access to get it's probably not a good idea. Photos are more generally acceptable unless they clearly reveal the location, since they aren't as useful to anyone trying to find a site for the wrong reasons (and good luck getting a photo without the location anyway). There's a lot of gray area in that (especially around what counts as an accessible source), but that seems to be the general consensus. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the case of the O&ARR piers, it's hard to take any concealment seriously given that the nomination includes a map with the exact location highlighted. Mangoe (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This question has occasionally been contentious when it has come up, with tension between the positions urging caution and restraint for the sake of preservation, and those recoiling at real or implied censorship. Since I know very well that I fall in the former camp, I hope I worded that fairly. But in some cases the location has become such public knowledge that even I can't see any purpose in not publishing the location (e.g. the Fort Yamhill Site in Polk County, Oregon, which has been fully developed as a state park). Also, with regard to photos, many AR listings are archaeological sites such that photos of the location itself would be both uninteresting and uninformative. ("Oh, look. A patch of dirt. There's interesting stuff under it, though!") In these cases, a historical photo or a photo of artifacts recovered from the site can be better encyclopedically than any alternative (e.g. Fort Rock Cave in Lake County, Oregon; bad example Paisley Five Mile Point Caves in the same county). — Ipoellet (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the other site I was thinking about was Santee Indian Mound and Fort Watson, which I may have a chance to see (but then I may not.) Near as I can tell, that's under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and they apparently have no problem letting people know where it is, even if the state does. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone has put coords in Siege of Fort Watson.... Another "cat out of the bag" example is also in the Lake County list: the Greaser Petroglyph Site, where the article links to a picture of a sign erected at the site. Mangoe (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tended to approach this from an WP:OR POV: if you can find a decent source for the location, the it can (and might as well be) included, but if you have to deduce it or otherwise work it out, it shouldn't be included. The same thing goes for photos: if you have to work out whether you've photographed to the right thing, then that photograph shouldn't be used. Mangoe (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just closing this out by noting that I visited the mound site today, took a photo, and uploaded it. Considering a.) the site is located on "Fort Watson Road", and b.) Santee National Wildlife Refuge has identified the site on its maps and erected signs directing drivers to the mound, I think I'm OK to do so.  I will work out some coordinates when I have a moment - for an "address restricted" site it's terrifically well-marked. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Fort Laramie National Historic Site
I don't know why I keep falling into these odd ones. Fort Laramie National Historic Site is marked as an HD in NRIS, and therefore in the county list, but with the Historic Site name. It was apparently a historic site in 1966 and is still labeled as such on the big sign out front. The 66000755 refnum points at a 1984 nomination pdf that was marked as "already entered" at the top and "already listed/for confirmation" in section 12. It was not issued a new number. The 1984 form notes that the Historic Site contains 832.45 acres while the Historic District has 536 acres. Is the article and the refnum for the smaller Historic District (though the name is "Historic Site")? Should this be discussed in the article? Do we go with two articles, one for the historic site and a 2nd for the district? Recast the existing article as the Historic District? Unless there is a dissenting opinion, I plan to add a embedded NRHP infobox for the HD, add a section on the contents of the HD with a ref to the 1984 nomination form, and move on.Generic1139 (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

 * I'd presume the historic district encompasses the subset of a larger NPS property that is actually historically significant (i.e. excluding park service areas and buffers that NPS has purchased as part of the park and environs). Definitely not separate articles, and the distinction is IMHO barely worth mentioning ("the historically significant parts of the site were listed ...").   Magic ♪piano 22:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

 * "National historic site" and "historic district" are separate but not mutually exclusive statuses. In this case, they definitely refer to essentially the same place, and should have only one article under the NHS title. When you embed the NRHP infobox, it should state the smaller acreage in opposition to the larger acreage in the parent infobox. A footnote will be necessary to explain why the difference. — Ipoellet (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

New Photos
I got some new photos during the past week. I got Miltimore House and Wynyate in South Pasadena, California and the Franklin Thomas House in La Cañada Flintridge, California - they're in their respective city categories in Commons. Why is it that these house are all obscured by vegetation? GRRRRR Einbierbitte (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

 * I think that when they're deciding whether a house merits NRHP listing, they also give it extra points if it faces north. — Ammodramus (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 * It's easy to get a shot of a house without vegetation. Just move it north of California and take the shot in the wintertime. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 * North of California is Oregon, and lemme tell ya that ain't no solution. Or at least only a partial one. Points to Idaho, though - vegetation is generally only a minor problem there. — Ipoellet (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Arbor Day is coming up in less than three weeks; should we be protesting? — Ammodramus (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Elkman's tool
The refnum search function on Elkman's infobox creator hasn't been working for a few days. Search by property name is working. Generic1139 (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 * What's broken is clicking on infobox links from city and county searches. (At least that's where I see it.) I left a note on his talk page a few days ago.  Magic ♪piano 02:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Search by reference number has been working fine for the last few days - as has NPS focus. Generic1139 (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Elkman left me a note that he fixed it (at least what I was experiencing).  Magic ♪piano 18:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Upload Image
I like the "upload image" link on the list pages and hope it stays, but isn't it time to remove the wsm campaign from it? Generic1139 (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

St. John's Church (Savannah, Georgia)
St. John's Church (Savannah, Georgia) has a plaque on it saying that it is on the NHRP (I took photos today and I have one of the plaque.) But the article doesn't mention NRHP and neither does National Register of Historic Places listings in Chatham County, Georgia. So, is it or is it not on the NHRP? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The church is in the large Savannah Historic District, and likely counts as a contributing property. The adjacent parish house is listed on the NRHP as the Green-Meldrim House. Generic1139 (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Adolph Boesel House
Lets discuss the Adolph Boesel House. The house was moved from its historic address after it was listed and later noted as destroyed by the Ohio Historical Society. It remains in the NRIS data base. The article has a nrhp infobox photo of the original house in its new location, as well as an nrhp infobox embedded in the nrhp infobox with an image of an unrelated new house that just happens to have been built at the old location. Problem #1, the embedded infobox shows up in the NRHP infobox needing cleanup category. Easily fixed by removing the embedded info box and the photo of the unrelated house at the old location, as the image just shows the new house with little location context. The bigger problem is the use of the new house at the old location in the county list. In that context the new house/old location photo is misleading, given the limited summary available on the page. Moving to the general case, we do try to show the location of destroyed properties, and in cases where the photo is of an empty lot, an empty foundation, a ruin, a HABS photo of the original building or the like, the correct information is relayed, even in the overview context of the county list. In the case of an intact house, I think we're not doing the right thing. We're labeling an unrelated house as the historic house. In cases like this, should we not leave the image on the county list empty - or at least use the image of the original house in its new location? Generic1139 (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So to make sure I'm following this, the original house was moved to a new location but is still standing, but the Ohio Historical Society classified it as demolished, and now we're using a picture of the old location in the county list instead of the actual house at its new location? Assuming that's the situation, it makes a lot more sense to me to use the picture of the house in its new location, even if the move wasn't approved. The closest example I can think of is the Gartz Court in Pasadena, CA, which was moved and is very much still standing, but is still under the old address in NRIS as far as I can tell; I updated that address on-wiki a while ago when I was photographing a bunch of the Pasadena sites, and I got pictures of the moved buildings rather than the original site. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Adjustments made. Generic1139 (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Atalaya and Brookgreen Gardens
This is an interesting question in how to handle several different, but related, listings, all located in Georgetown County, South Carolina. A 1600-acre portion of Brookgreen Gardens (total size >9,000 acre) was listed on the NRHP in 1978, and adjacent Atalaya Castle was listed in 1984. In 1992, a 550-acre portion of Brookgreen Gardens was combined with Atalaya into the National Historic Landmark District Atalaya and Brookgreen Gardens, which uses the Atalaya refnum. The South Carolina SHPO has a nomination form for just Atalaya Castle, and there is a separate NHL nomination for the combined properties from the NPS. The castle nomination is for one acre.

What's unclear to me are several things. First: how should the infoboxes and categories at Atalaya Castle (US) and Brookgreen Gardens be organized? I've presently described them as "listed on NRHP, contributing to NHLD"; there is explanatory text in the body. Should they be categorized into Category:National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina (Brookgreen presently is, Atalaya is not)? Second: In National Register of Historic Places listings in Georgetown County, South Carolina, should Atalaya and Brookgreen be colored as NRHP or NHL(D) (one is now colored NHL, the other NHLD)? Third: should Atalaya and Brookgreen Gardens appear separately from Atalaya on that list (it doesn't right now), even though they have the same refnum?  Magic ♪piano 15:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments requested....
...at Talk:Mount Morris Bank Building and Talk:Mount Morris Bank Building BMK (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

When new National Historic Landmarks are listed
To folks who update lists and articles when new National Historic Landmarks are designated, please remember to also add proper categories, and to adjust the importance in the talk page banner of the article. (For those who missed the press release, there were five new NHLs, and one delisting).  Magic ♪piano 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking for a while that we need some sort of step-by-step guide for handling Weekly List items: how to do a new listing, how to do a delisting, what to check for with "additional documentation", etc. The forgotten step that bothers me is that when a new listing is added to a county list, the state list and national list aren't updated. I'd be happy to take a stab at a step-by-step guide, but it's going to take me probably a couple weeks to get to a first draft. — Ipoellet (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"Creating articles" by just redirecting them to lists of buildings
I've recently been working on assessing the importance of all the unassessed articles under the project's scope and have moved on to now tagging untagged articles, found with the help of the Progress page statistics (Side note: I'm doing this with a script that makes the job faster since you don't have to visit each individual page). In the process I have come across several "articles" which are bluelinks on the county lists and are thus counted as articled on the Progress page but in reality are just redirects to other articles which only mention the building in passing, e.g. as part of a list of buildings that share some characteristic. This is not the first time I've come across this kind of thing, but since it directly affects what I'm trying to do now, I decided to bring it up here. I personally don't think these types of redirects should be created. All they really serve to do is beef up the statistics for that county on the Progress page without actually adding any information about a given building. This is especially true if the target of the redirect is assessed Start or higher because just like that the net quality of that county has shot up without the editor doing a single bit of work.

Take, for example, the recent case of the Sosa-Carrillo-Fremont House, which previously redirected to Arizona Historical Society, simply a list of museums owned and operated by the society. While sure, this does give a little bit of context to the building, even a small stub that says the building is listed on the National Register and then links to the Historical Society article is much preferable to an uninformative redirect. I created such a stub there and linked to the nomination document so some future editor who is more interested in the site's history can expand it at will. It didn't take very long, especially since the nomination form is available online, and sure it can be expanded probably five- to tenfold, but what's there now gives at least a brief introduction to the house rather than just a mindless redirect to a list of unrelated buildings. I don't see why anyone who creates a redirect like this couldn't take the time to put that much effort in him/herself, but it seems this is a common thing.

I also came across the Vagabond Motel, currently a redirect to an article about an architectural style in Miami. The section to which the redirect links is a list of buildings that exhibit the style and is thoroughly unhelpful. I would have created a small stub in this case as well, but the listing is so recent that the nomination form is not online anywhere to my knowledge, and so I'm stuck. Does anyone have any local knowledge or is anyone willing to search for alternate sources to create a short stub in place of the redirect? If not, I think the redirect should be deleted all together. If there is no more information that an architectural style, that doesn't tell the reader any more than a redlink.

Does anyone know of any more cases like these? I've seen quite a few over the years, but I can't put my hands on any at the moment. Am I the only one that thinks these redirects should not be "allowed" (meaning their creation should be discouraged in favor of stubs [or longer articles if the editor is so inclined] and existing ones should be stubbed or deleted)?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Imagine that you're using a printed encyclopedia and see "Buildingname. See architectural style".  You then turn to the style, and you see it mentioned that "Some of the buildings in this style are X, Y, and Z".  Since printed encyclopedias are space-limited, this would make more sense for them than for us.  Do they ever do this?  This is common in Florida; lots of site names are redirected to lists.  See WhatLinksHere for San Jose Estates Thematic Resource Area, and the related links at National Register of Historic Places listings in Duval County, Florida, for an example.  I've long wanted to see them deleted, but I've never gotten around to making a nomination.  These lists provide nothing more than one can get on the county list, so it doesn't help anyone to redirect site names to them.  Nyttend (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 * University of Arkansas Campus Historic District is a historic district with a large number of separately-listed buildings (in National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Arkansas). Most of the buildings are described in at least stub form in the district article; some have separate articles, while others are redirects into the district article.  I've seen this in isolated cases in connection to other university campuses.  Magic ♪piano 12:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 * I've definitely come across these (and their cousins, neighborhood historic districts which redirect to city articles) while going through the untagged articles. My rule of thumb is that if the building fits into the article and there's actually some coverage of it, then it's OK, but if the target article barely mentions the building (like with the Vagabond Motel) or if the building's description feels shoehorned into the article (like Coleman Theatre) then I don't tag it and wait until there's an actual article. (In more egregious/recent cases I sometimes just delete the redirect.) I think most of the remaining untagged articles fall into these categories though, so we should figure out something to do with them. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In general, they ought to be deleted. In the past, I've sometimes just changed the link; lots of "Building at [address]" listings have articles entitled "[address]" (see New York City's 203 East 29th Street, for example), so we could resolve the problem partially by changing the Duval County list so that "House at 3325 Via de la Reina" links to 3325 Via de la Reina, "House at 7245 San Jose Boulevard" links to 7245 San Jose Boulevard, etc.  It would avoid the need to go through RFD, and these ones in Florida are generally far too old for R3 speedy deletion.  We should distinguish these lists and redirects-to-MPS-pages from what are effectively group articles, e.g. Zaleski Mound Group where I wrote one article for three sites because it was easiest to cover all three in the same page, or a university historic district article where each of the individually listed buildings has a relevant section.  Finally, not all neighborhood HD redirects are a bad idea; Kentucky's "Crescent Hill Historic District" quite sensibly redirects to Crescent Hill, Louisville, because pretty much the whole neighborhood is a historic district.  The problem's when a redirect's created for a small district, e.g. the ten buildings of the "Placename Commercial Historic District" are redirected to a thousand-person village.  Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing the links makes it more likely that the eventual article will be misnamed, unless whoever creates it knows what's going on with the redirect. Since I imagine most of these aren't that new (and we can use R3 on the ones that are), I feel like the best solution would be to make a list of which redirects we need to address and gradually work through either RfD-ing them or writing the articles. It'll take some time and effort, but otherwise I'm not sure how we're going to keep these from slipping through the cracks. The currently untagged articles are a good starting point, but I'm sure there are a few that are tagged too, if anyone comes across them. (As for the neighborhoods, I was referring more to stuff like West Miner Street-Third Street Historic District - which is a redirect to a section that doesn't exist, no less.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Responses in order:
 * There has actually been discussion before about linking to lists/MPS/TR pages (though I'm too lazy to look through the archives for a link), and currently the Progress page code counts any link to a list-class article which has "National Register of Historic Places" in the title as unarticled and all other list-class as stub. I believe I suggested expanding that check to include the terms "Thematic Resource" and "Multiple Property Submission", which would take care of the Duval County, Florida articles anyway. I'm not sure why or even if I was persuaded not to expand to include those terms, but if no one opposes that move now, I'm more than willing to do so. I think I remember there being a valid reason not to exclude all list articles for the sake of some HD articles which consist mainly of a list of contributing properties, so I wouldn't want to do that. Searching for a list of exclusion terms makes more practical sense, though. As for linking to addresses, I think I agree with TheCatalyst31 that we should not modify the links to exclude "House at" but should rather just do something with the redirects directly. I agree about the "group" articles and districts, which would not be affected by the change to the code I proposed above.
 * I agree we should make some list, and I was actually thinking in my free time today about a method to get NationalRegisterBot to produce that list since it already goes through every single link from the county lists when I run it ~weekly anyway. The best idea I've come up with is to get a list of all redirects and maybe also links where the name and article parameters are sufficiently different, i.e. don't trigger if the only difference is a parenthetical disambiguation, "The" or similar modifier, or some other small difference that we could slowly refine until the list got better and better. The latter part will be substantially harder to code but it doesn't appear too far outside the realm of feasibility. From that list the both can check if each page has an NRHP infobox. This would be better than checking for an NRHP project banner on the talk page because some articles are tagged inappropriately while some are completely untagged.. I think an NRHP infobox or some other measure of whether or not an article is about an NRHP listing is better than the project banner. We could slowly refine the code to get a better and better list and use it as a guide for work. Of course I may be over-complicating the issue since a manual list may be less work to compile and definitely trigger fewer false positives. My point is that if it is deemed too big of a job to do manually, I am willing to attempt some level of automation if the project thinks that will be helpful.
 * I am willing to create short stubs for these articles if the nomination documents and other sources are online if others are willing to help in the effort. For newer listings like the Vagabond Motel I talked about above, I don't know if that will be possible but we can try or else just RfD them. If no one objects to the change in the NRHPstats and Progress page code for redirects to list-articles, I'll go ahead and implement that, and if the project thinks a bot-generated list would be helpful, I can try to write up some code to produce one.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a response on the link-changing: the reason I suggested doing this is that many articles already use the "[address]" name format; it's not as if all such articles are entitled "House at [address]" or "Building at [address]". If I change House at 3325 Via de la Reina to 3325 Via de la Reina, and then someone creates an article at the latter title, I don't think we should consider it to be misnamed.  It's completely different with something like Terra Ceia Village Improvement Association Hall: if it were a redirect to its MPS page, we wouldn't have a valid alternate name.  Dudemanfellabra, your idea of all different-from-NRIS links sounds like it would require a massive amount of work.  Tons of articles are different in ways much bigger than (location, state) or "The"; cf my Zaleski Mound Group example, other places like Canfield Island Site or Bedford Village Archeological Site (both use alternate names because the NRIS just uses their Smithsonian trinomials), or Mother of Sorrows Catholic Church and Court Avenue, for which NRIS uses unhelpfully vague and exceptionally odd names, respectively.  Not trying to say "don't do it"; I'm just not sure whether you'd get much benefit from all the work.  Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also advise you to be careful about excluding all articles with an NRHP infobox; the aforementioned West Miner Street-Third Street Historic District does have an infobox in Yreka, California, but it still looks a bit odd in an article on a city of >7000 people. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * About differently named articles, if we're following WP:NRHPMOS, we should be linking to the official NRHP title anyway (plus disambiguation/other encyclopedia-wide conventions), and that title should be a redirect to the common name/actual name of the article if it differs from the official listing name. That way if anyone Googles the official title they definitely get the correct article (Google knows how the redirect system works). This is not guaranteed if the official title is not a redirect. So my point is that any link which points directly to an article with a title completely different than the official name is not really following our guidelines anyway and should be changed to be a redirect.
 * As for the infobox marking whether or not the article is about a site on the NRHP, I can't really think of anything else that could be determined in a programmatic method. Maybe a combination of factors? Like an infobox is 1 point, a variation of the phrase "listed on the National Register of Historic Places" could be another point, etc., and if an article gets some number of points, it's determined to be definitely about an NRHP listing? Can you think of a better way? Or if not, things that could be "points" in this system?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * An example of an article linked from a county (actually, a city) list that does not have an info box, or a mention of NRHP in the article text, or a redirect, but does have a project tag: The Flats for 'Old River Road Historic District' from National Register of Historic Places listings in Cleveland, Ohio . That's a candidate for immediate return to redlink. I'm in favor of the generation of a list of article from county lists where the [link|text] form is used, as those should probably be a redirect.  Lets see how big it is and then how hard it might be to remove false positives, if any. I agree that list where the article is some algorithmic distance away from name would helpful, even though iterative tweaking to the algorithm might be needed.  A simple removal of words in parenthesis and 'the' might be enough to make it manageable.  Such a list is needed to help us catch 'The Flats'-like links.Generic1139 (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly familiar with Cleveland neighborhoods, so I'm not clear how much area The Flats embraces. Normally you could check the boundaries of the HD with the Ohio SHPO's historic district map, but (like a lot of other stuff they run) it's really flaky and currently not running.  The HD is a small but homogenous group of commercial buildings (it took a while to find it when I was there in September), but I'd never objected to the current redirect because I wasn't sure whether the popular conception of The Flats embraced just that little chunk of the East Bank floodplain, or if it were a lot bigger.  It's not as obviously bad as it would be if Mechanicsburg Commercial Historic District were redirected to Mechanicsburg, Ohio, a 1600-person village with boundaries that are unambiguously far far bigger than the four-building district.  Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My issue with the flats isn't just size of the district vs the size of the area described by the article, it is that the article makes no mention of the district, other than the template. Of course, it would be much easier to add information if data was more consistently available for Ohio. Generic1139 (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I had to resort to this recently for the 11 archaeological sites of the Dan River Navigation System in North Carolina Thematic Resources in Rockingham County, North Carolina. There are no individual applications available and the number of articles tempted me to create a single one for the TR.  I don't think I've had to do this before in the thousands of stubs I've created.--Pubdog (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, Nine Mile Canyon is another obvious archaeological case for consolidating multiple listings into a single article: 125+ individually listed, interrelated sites in a single geographic locality. — Ipoellet (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few of those giant archaeological site TRs out west, and in many cases the sites don't even have proper names; Hudspeth County, Texas is a particulary egregious example, as is McKinley County, New Mexico. Even for buildings there are some cases where redirecting to a list of buildings is a good idea; Iron County MRA, for instance, where most of the buildings don't have enough individual information to write more than a stub about them. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Why this project is important beyond Wikipedia, part XXIX
As I prepared to type this up, I chanced across Dudemenfellabra's note that we have passed 70% of listings photographed. It's an important milestone. This story reminds us why.

An edit to our article on the former Brandreth Pill Factory in Ossining, New York, this morning alerted me to the illegal demolition of the main building, the one I took six years ago and used as the article's lead image. Now, that's probably going to have been the last good picture of the building before it got demolished (see right, and compare to the image with the news story I linked).

As many of you know, I have taken lots of those pictures of NRHP-listed properties, mainly in the Hudson Valley where I live but also in other Northeastern states, and even as far as Aspen, Colorado, and environs. Some of those properties have been altered or renovated since I visited them, and I haven't always been able to take an updated picture (yet). Some have suffered fire damage. And some were in bad shape at the time, and have been demolished or collapsed since then (I'm really surprised that what's left of the house part of Beekman Meeting House and Friends' Cemetery is still standing; I would say "much less listed" but anyone familiar with New York's NRHP listings would be utterly unsurprised by that).

This is the first time someone has just up and demolished one of those properties when there was no good reason to do so. I never intended for that picture to be a memorial to what that building was, certainly not so soon. I actually feel sort of used about this. But it's what's left (and all that will be left in a few days' time, whether the village gets a stop-work order or not). And that's better than nothing (but not by much).

Years ago, when I described this project to someone involved in local history, he said offhandedly that it could be the most important historic preservation project since the HABS. I understood, but the full meaning of that has not become clear to me until now.

So, when you next head out with your cameras to shoot buildings, structures, objects or sites, remember that sooner than you think the picture or pictures you take could be all that future generations have to see of these. Remember Jobbers Canyon. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Tell me about it. Not even six months after this photo (the first time I ever set out to purposely photograph a NRHP listing), Gudgeonville Covered Bridge was hit by arsonists and destroyed. Thanks to KLOTZ though, we actually do have a photo of another covered bridge that had burned after having been struck by lightning in 1996. Niagara  Don't give up the ship 23:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 * I caught Ehlers Round Barn less than a month before its roof collapsed under a heavy snowfall, leading to its delisting. I missed several other Nebraska sites by months.
 * Because of expriences like that, I've got a directory on my hard drive called "Insurance shots": very bad photos that I'm keeping in case a building burns down or is tornadoed away before I can get back to it under better photography circumstances. Ammodramus (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a big reason I've been involved in Wikipedia photography. A big reason that I spent tons of time on non-NR photography while living in southwestern Indiana (see how many files are in the subcategories of this category).  A big reason that I'm currently finishing a non-Wikipedia project of photographing every building in my city, especially because that project resulted in a pre-fire image of File:House fire in Beaver Falls, front.jpg and pre-destruction images of at least two buildings that have been destroyed in the last month.  And it's why I'm thankful that I've gotten images like File:The Chadwick, Indianapolis.jpg, which burned a few months after I took the photo; the Indiana SH