This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ebyabe (talk | contribs) at 01:53, 20 October 2006 (Article naming conventions for the project). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:53, 20 October 2006 by Ebyabe (talk | contribs) (Article naming conventions for the project)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | National Register of Historic Places Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Welcome
A big thanks also to all who've chosen to participate in this project. I'm looking forward to much productiveness, but also fun. I think it's neat to learn about all this historical stuff, and am glad to find others so inclined.
And so y'all don't get sick of me thanking you all the time, consider a 'thank you' as understood just about anytime that I respond. Ok? :) -Ebyabe 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Proposed help text
Proposed: Some text added to the talk pages to answer questions about what to do with all the redlinks and DABs on the lists. Text could be added to {{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places list}}, or on the Wikiproject page, etc. Refer to: Kentucky and South Carolina. P.S. There are "related Wikiprojects" for several States —Dogears (talk · contribs) 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup and cross-referencing for the state lists
In the process of cleaning up and cross-referencing stuff on the Minnesota list, I've found a few things:
- There are article entries in the list that point to valid articles, but those articles aren't within the relevant category (e.g. Category:Registered Historic Places in Minnesota). Any articles in the list that are on the National Register should be within the appropriate state category.
- The state lists contain a lot of ambiguous links (as Dogears pointed out above), such as Grace Episcopal Church, Methodist Episcopal Church, First National Bank, and so on.
- Any sites that are in Category:National Historic Landmarks of the United States are also on the National Register, and should be listed within the state's category. The same is true for Category:National Memorials of the United States and other historic sites in the National Parks System.
Also, here are a couple Web resources for doing research:
- National Historic Landmarks Program - list of National Historic Landmarks
- National Register Information System - database that can be queried by state, city, site name, or combinations thereof
- National Register of Historic Place home page
--Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Put those links on the main page. And funny you should mention the articles being under the wrong states, as I noticed that a lot whilst doing the Florida entries. Checking that blue links go to the right articles should definitely be one of our highest priorities. Also creating disambiguation pages for the multi entries (like some of the churches and post offices, for example).
- Good, some things to add to the 'to-do' list. -Ebyabe 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Good morning. I think I've managed to disambiguate the List of Registered Historic Places in Oregon but one creeps in once in a while, so it's good to check out all the blue links occasionally. (Unfortunately Oregon is still mostly redlinks, so it's fairly easy). Besides all of Dogears' and Elkman's excellent advice above, I'd also like to add that the way the NRHP refers to a site is quite often not the way everyone else refers to it, so there may already be an article you can link to. I've been leaving the name according to NRHP on the list and making a piped link to the existing article. And thanks for the infobox. Happy editing! Katr67 13:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I just ran across the TOC at List of Registered Historic Places in California. Looks like a good way to do it. Katr67 14:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Naming conventions can be quite squirrelly with the NRHP. I usually go with how it's listed, or the original name of the place, when it can be found. I also include other names with (also known as other name) It does pay to search, though. Why create a new article if you can just link to (and update a bit) a pre-existing one.
- Example: The former Delray Beach Schools are now part of Old School Square, for which there was an article.
- And let's not even get into the Register getting the addresses wrong sometimes. -Ebyabe 14:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to add that the Oregon list had some duplications and cities put into the wrong counties. I discovered that some of these things are fire lookout towers and such that are located in one county, but the closest town is in another county. For now I put "City Name (vicinity)" next to those but that's only a stopgap measure. Katr67 14:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
There are also the occasional complete misspellings of cities. Like Tavarcs instead of Tavares, Dayton Beach instead of Daytona Beach, Islamoranda instead of Islamorada. And that's just here in Florida. Those I totally correct, to make it, you know, accurate. --Ebyabe 15:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Project infobox
Well...this project came together quickly. I suggest removing the map for the infobox and allowing an image to be used instead. I believe that for this project, a locator map is less useful than an image since we are dealing with specific points less related to geography and more related to history...so images work best. I might also suggest using parser functions only for the infobox as that will make it a lot easier to transclude...example at Template:Infobox Glacier and the usage is demonstrated on the template talk page...the parameters can be easily adjusted and one can even pick a color for the banner at List of colors.--MONGO 06:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
As another thought, perhaps incorporating the date the site was listed along with the structure or district number in the infobox would be helpful...as shown here.--MONGO 06:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I "borrowed" bits from that template; quite useful.
- I'd prefer images be used instead of maps as well. But for so many of them, there aren't pictures. I'm thinking that we can use the map as a default, but if a picture becomes available, the map can always be replaced with it.
- I put in 'Built/Founded' for the a Historic Place's initial construction or discovery, and 'Added' for when it got put on the Register. Yep, that should be on the talk page as part of the 'how-to'
- There's part of me that would really like the map (when one's being used) to be of the state, rather than the whole U.S., but don't know if that would work. Anyone having more info in that regard? -Ebyabe 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Tried both ways, and looks workable in either version:
- with map - City of Alachua Downtown Historic District
- with picture - Hotel Thomas
Open to adding other fields to the infobox, but at least the basics are there. -Ebyabe 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Other fields (some can remain blank for particular articles) might include Site, District, Building and Structure, with the NRHP numerical listing number in the right side of the field, but I wouldn't say that this is mandatory. It looks really nice as it stands now. Good work.--MONGO 20:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good. I've put Austin, Texas locator maps on the ones I've created (without pictures) so far. Did this project really just start yesterday? The question I have about the infobox is what the governing body field should contain. ~ BigrTex 04:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about that. I used the Protected Areas infobox and tweaked it to create the NRHP one. I'd say that governing body should be the actual "owner" of the place. You know, U.S., state, county, city, or private. Sometimes it's confusing as to the ownership. In that case, I'd leave it blank, and maybe put a note on the talk page of the article, or the project here, or both.
- Yes, we did start yesterday. All input (politely phrased, natch) is welcome. Nothing's set in stone yet. As if anything is on Misplaced Pages, right? :) --Ebyabe 13:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Can I add Microsoft Excel files somewhere?
I have some spreadsheets I use to help me when making NRHP info, disambig pages and such. I was wondering if there's somewhere on Misplaced Pages I can upload them to, for general availability. --Ebyabe 16:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure...see Help:Table--MONGO 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Changes
Hi guys! I made some changes. First, I created a userbox. Secondly, I changed the outline of the page, making the title and scope it's own sections. I moved some stuff around to fit better in the outline. Lastly, I also created a naming standard for the articles. However, this should be polled on this talk page. As a temporary measure, I placed as the standard, Name (city).
Any suggestions on the article names?
--myselfalso 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, our own userbox already! I was gonna try creating one, but yours looks fine to me. :) Article naming conventions are definitely a major topic for discussion. I've got some ideas, and I'll cogitate on that for a while, and all you lovermous folks can chime in as you so wish. :) --Ebyabe 21:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Stub and category creation, please pause
I do appreciate the creation of the new ones. However, it may have to be changed. I proposed these at the stub proposals area, and they're in the process of doing so. So let's hold off a bit before adding more of the new stub. If it were just me, it'd be fine, but I want to make sure that TPTB are appropriately appeased. :) --Ebyabe 01:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
To see the history and progress on this, check here. --Ebyabe 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Article naming conventions for the project
- Multiple entries under the same name is so an issue for this project. Just look at U. S. Post Office, or First Baptist Church, for example. To differentiate, there are several options:
- - if necessary
- - if necessary
There are so many city names that exist in multiple states. Miami, Florida and Miami, Ohio is only one example. That's why I'm not enamoured of option 1. Option 2, well, there could be multiple places with the same name in a state. Again, post offices and churches spring to mind. As far as option 3, it's a possibility, but there can be more than one same name place in a county.
I think the last option is the best. My philosophy has been not to only fix problems, but to circumvent future potential problems. , to me, would serve that purpose best. I'm not fond of "sometimes it's city, sometimes it's state, sometimes it's both." It's a little bit too fizzbiny, to my mind. Option 4 would be more generally consistent, overall. Less Sisyphus potential.
But that's just me. What do I know? ;) --Ebyabe 01:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Categories: