Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide

This page is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles

distinction between historic districts vs. other NRHPs

I removed the following from the article, at least for the moment: "Sometimes entities such as plantations are actually historic districts, due to their encompassing multiple structures. Errors caused by confusion between sites and districts are rampant on Wikipedia. Don't blindly trust a classification without verification." I don't know if it is fair to characterize the lack of distinction between historic districts vs. other NRHP places as errors. You could also characterize the failure to distinguish between sites vs. structures vs. buildings as errors as well. Also, I believe there is currently no good way to verify whether a place is a district or another kind of place. Only for NHLs is the type distinction apparent, as far as i know. And i am not sure whether plantations are sometimes districts because they have multiple structures or whether it is because they sometimes encompass multiple distinct legal properties. Certainly there are many NRHPs that have multiple buildings and/or multiple structures which are not historic districts. So i don't think the quote i removed got it exactly right. Maybe the type distinction doesn't belong in the style guide yet, or maybe there is some other statement that can go back in about this topic. doncram (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I don't know why some entries are districts while others are not. I do know that the confusion and resultant errors are widespread.--Appraiser (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletin 15 has a definition of district on page 5. It seems that a plantation would be a district. The only way to be sure is to get a copy of the nomination and see how the author classified it. Einbierbitte (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that large agricultural properties, even if they consist of one parcel of land owned by the same person, are considered districts. Does the bulletin explain this? Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

requirement of use of infoboxes

The draft article states that all RHP articles should have an NRHP infobox (or does it say they should have an infobox of some kind, not necessarily NRHP?). That statement is probably too strong. In the past I suggested making that one requirement for NHL articles, and there was thoughtful and strong opposition expressed. See [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 4#Quality Rating of NHL articles. I do like the infoboxes, and i think they benefit most RHP articles. doncram (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objection to adding the "Wikipedia style guideline" category to the page?

This appears to be a style guide, in name and content. Any objections? I'm trying to make it easier to find these pages by sticking them in the usual cat. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly new, unpolished, and doesn't necessarily represent a very large consensus. We wouldn't want to claim it is very official. If that's okay, by all means, categorize away. doncram (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People are creating style guides all the time, and that's very helpful. We don't want to inhibit that process, but on the other hand, we recommend that unpolished style guidelines not add the cat until they've had more work done. It's up to you. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

I edited the Coordinates section to try to capture info from recent discussions (some now archived) at WT:NRHP. Could usefully be improved from where i left it. Mainly, i don't understand the statement there that "Coordinates should be rounded to the nearest second, which is equal to 22 meters at 45o latitude. Leaving more precision is misleading and mathematically incorrect for most RHPs." I thought it might be reasonable to round inaccurate NRIS coordinates. But if one has precise info, why round? If we were writing out the coordinates in text of the article, I would agree that rounding is appropriate. But encyclopedia users most likely won't see the coordinate numbers and observe their roundedness or observe excessive precision in the numbers. They will most likely see a point on a Google map, and may zoom in to the satellite photo view of a given building. If you round, the point is randomly moved away. In google map satellite view, there is no way to indicate precision, say a fuzzy zone of likely location, and the best point estimate to provide for such applications is the precise one.

The Minneapolis Saint Paul Rochester & Dubuque Electric Traction Company Depot is quite small, and a rounding error of up to 11 meters (1/2 second of longitude) would move the pinpoint off of the structure. I just checked, and that article utilized the default database precision of 1/100 of a second, but the pinpoint isn't even near the structure. Additional digits imply that they are correct and meaningful. I started rounding when I found that the NPS database often places the pinpoint 100s of feet from the site. There's no point in providing precision that doesn't get the reader any closer the the right spot. So if the site is sufficiently small, wherein being within 11 meters is insufficient to pinpoint the NRHP, the author needs to take the time to use Google Earth, or similar program to verify the location to correctly provide more digits. But for most NRHPs 11 meters just means that you're in the living room instead of on the back porch. And I think it would be wrong to provide precision that hasn't been verified, independent of the NPS information.--Appraiser (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions: churches

We absolutely need this:

Articles about churches should take the name of the church and not use other terms from the NRHP name, such as "...Complex" or "...and Rectory", since those are not part of the church's own name but merely describe aspects of the property within the NRIS.

Anyone for consensus? Since an article about a church (or other religious building, for that matter), even a defunct one, on the Register should properly be not just about the building but about the church itself (as most that I've written have been), this just makes sense Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles names should reflect the most-commonly used name for the topic that the article covers, regardless of what the NRHP name is. In general, we have been appending (City, State) for DAB purposes. e.g. St. James Episcopal Church (Santee, South Carolina). So, I think I agree with you, but I'd like to add the (City, State) suffix for church names too.--Appraiser (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I commented about this on a recent creation. Circeus (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split style from sources?

This article is a little long and more than a little intimidating. It seems to me that there are two different things covered here:

sources of information, including the Elkman tool, various web sites, etc.
the style of an NRHP site article

I wonder if we would do well to make this just style and move sources of information elsewhere. That seems particularly good because we also have:

both of which have sources as well.

In fact, the latter is four sections:

NRHP codes -- editor info
Article quality status by State -- status info
NHL articles by State -- status info
State and territory specific sources -- editor source info

Perhaps the status info should move elsewhere and the subpage Editor help should be a brief introduction to two things:

sources -- with details on subpage(s)
style -- with details on the existing style subpage

. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm fine with anything, but I think the way to go is fewer subpages rather than creating more.. there are already 5 million under this project anyway. I've been trying to combine "Editor help", "Resources", and this page into one big thing, and then after it was all compiled possibly splitting it up. I would want to wait until we were finished here to split anything out, but I could see putting like the NRHP/NHL nom form into the "Resources" subpage and then putting all the status information in one place.. I think "Editor help" can be deleted all together and the links to the various subpages about style, resources, and status can appear on the main page of the project.. having more links on the main page for this type of thing makes them easier to spot.

Like I said, I'm cool with anything, but I think we should wait until all the info is here first before we talk about splitting it up. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're on the same wavelength -- I'll separate style from resources and put the resources on a subpage, with the idea that when we've got everything teed up, we can combine the two existing resource directories with the new style subpage into one. As you say, Article Style Guide and Resources for constructing articles could then be two parallel subpages of the main page.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Disambiguating courthouses and other buildings unique within a state

STATE ONLY (WHERE POSSIBLE)

There is clear and unanimous consensus that disambiguation should be as simple as possible. If it is possible to do so, (State) should be the only disambiguator. If not, then (City, State) is equally acceptable. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page currently says If there is an article already named the official title of the NRHP in question, disambiguation may be required. For instance, there are many buildings on the National Register with the official name "First Baptist Church". In cases like this, it is common practice to append "(City, State)" to the official title to distinguish it from all the other First Baptist Churches. Should this be amended so "(State)" disambiguation is preferred when it is unambiguous? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Doncram and Nyttend:. This is primarily about the current dispute on naming of articles on county courthouses, but will likely apply to other articles as well. No US State has multiple counties of the same name, so a (State) disambiguation for Washington County Courthouse would be unambiguous. However, for consistency with other NRHP-listed places, a (City, State) disambiguation has been preferred by some editors. The ongoing discussion at WP:ANI is not the correct forum to make a policy decision of this sort. WP:USPLACE does not currently discuss place names at all, and thus doesn't seem the best location for an RFC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All diambiguators on all Wikipedia articles should be as short as possible, just enough to do the job of dispelling any ambiguity that the reader might have about what subject is being referred to. Therefore, if there is already an article "XXXXX", and a new and different subject also named "XXXXX" has a new article, that article should use the smallest possible disambiguator. Requiring "(City, State)" may force the new article to disambiguate with more information than is necessary, so if "XXXXX, State" sufficiently resolves any ambiguity -- because, for instance, no state will have two counties with the same name -- then that should be used. Whatever is shorter is best, as disambiguators are often a necessity, but should not be expanded without reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(State) only unless further disambiguation is needed to keep it short and simple. If a certain name is ambiguous and disambiguation is required, it should start with (State) only. If further disambiguation is required, then it should be (City, State). -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(State) only, unless further disambiguation, or the County name instead, is necessary because of duplicates. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(State) only per above. --Tarage (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(State) only per above. --McGhiever (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(State) only, at least for courthouses. There are occasional cases where (City, State) is necessary even for courthouses, since some counties have either two county seats (e.g. Prairie County Courthouse) or multiple former courthouses in different cities (e.g. Old Allamakee County Courthouse). (State) is sufficient the vast majority of the time, though. (Other types of properties, particularly ones like churches with names that are often but not always duplicated within the state, are a much trickier problem, and probably should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(State) only for courthouses. This is an unfortunate RfC because it mixes county courthouses with NRHP topics generally, both of which have a well-established consensus backed by policy. Most NRHP topics are houses, and they usually have their location as a qualifier. When not a major city (e.g., Philadelphia), the full town name is normally used (e.g., Portland, Oregon). That's fine because most houses and churches are associated with the town in which they're located, but don't usually include the town as part of their name. County courthouses, on the other hand, which are not all NRHP, virtually always use state only because the location is already mentioned in the title and the courthouse serves the entire county, not just the town where it happens to be physically located. The city is added only in very rare cases where there are two courthouses in different towns in the same county. This is similar to state capitol buildings, which are also disambiguated by state only. So add this sentence: However, established naming conventions that append only "(State)", such as for county courthouses, should be followed. It isn't really necessary except for one editor, but here we are. Station1 (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(State) only, except in the extremely rare case with multiple courthouses as noted above. The city isn't usually relevant since the courthouse serves all of the county. Royal broil 04:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Use only the state for disambiguation if possible. The usual rule for the UK is use "Placename, Settlement" if the building is in a town or city (unless the name overlaps with the town/city) but as the US requires the state to be included in the settlement's name then I'd say just use the state if possible per WP:PRECISE. In the UK there is Elsdon Tower-no DAB required, Halton Castle, Northumberland-disambiguation by county (the equivalent of a US state), Moreton Hall, Bury St Edmunds-disambiguation when located in a larger settlement, Newark Castle, Nottinghamshire-located within a larger settlement but overlap with its name so fall back on county. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(State) only for courthouses. I also second Station1's rational, and I want to limit this RfC to courthouses. Farragutful (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(State) only for the reasons stated above Einbierbitte (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(State) only: Per above; ANY disambiguation should be used only when necessary, and then as concise as possible. As also stated above, especially by Station1 and TheCacalyst31, this discussion should only be about courthouses and not seen as possible sweeping policy changes through project naming conventions. Otr500 (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(State) only as nothing more is usually necessary and makes searching more difficult if someone doesn't know the name of the county seat. If an older facility in a former county seat still exists and is article-worthy, it should have "Old" or "Former" in the name. Otherwise, a well developed article would mention previous courthouse facilities in the article's "History" section. An example is Jeff Davis County Courthouse (Texas) in Fort Davis, Texas. This is the county's second courthouse with the original courthouse, no longer extant, described in a section of the article. Fort Davis used to be the county seat of Presidio County before that county was subdivided. The original Jeff Davis Courthouse previously served as the original Presidio County Courthouse (no DAB needed as no other state has a county with that name). The Presidio Courthouse article mentions its previous facility, but links to the Jeff Davis article for more detail. Also, for urban counties, the entire idea of a county courthouse is rather quaint. Many large counties now have "subcourthouses" or "branch courthouses" spread throughout the county, and typically host various county departments and even different court levels (criminal court versus family court) in several different buildings outside of the structure that most refer to as the historic courthouse. I had a previous discussion with Doncram about this. If anyone cares to read it, it's at User talk:Fortguy#courthouse article title disambiguation Fortguy (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(State) only unless further disambiguation is necessary, as in the case of a common name that does not already include the city, or of a successor building with the same name, in which case (City, State). Yngvadottir (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
State only for all county items (courthouses, jails, etc.), since anything else is redundant in ordinary cases. Obviously this doesn't apply when (state) is ambiguous — e.g. Old Perry County Courthouse (Rome, Indiana) should be at this title because there's also a Old Perry County Courthouse (Cannelton, Indiana) [just no article yet], and Mississippi County Courthouse (Blytheville, Arkansas) doesn't have priority over Mississippi County Courthouse (Osceola, Arkansas) — but when further disambiguation really is needed is a matter for common sense, not policy that goes against common sense. Meanwhile, Otr500 this discussion won't have wide-ranging effects on non-courthouses, since this is already what's being done for other kinds of buildings. WP:NRHP naming conventions only apply to NRHP-specific pages, like the county lists, or to pages lacking other naming conventions, like your average historic farmhouse. Courthouses are just one kind of building that get enough attention from editors not in WP:NRHP to have default naming conventions already; nobody should propose applying WP:NRHP conventions (city, state) to them, just as nobody should apply them to train stations, e.g. Springfield station (Illinois) or Ashland station (Virginia) should not become "Springfield station (Springfield, Illinois)" or "Amtrak station (Ashland, Virginia)". Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and it is good to touch on it for clarity in case the over-zealous editor does start applying it. Otr500 (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(State) only, unless further disambiguation is needed, as when a county has two courthouses (which sometimes happens). Jonathunder (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we end this discussion already? I believe the consensus is clear and overwhelming. Fortguy (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously INVOLVED but I agree. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions say that even the proposer or an involved editor can close when the result is clear enough. Also says a formal close is not needed. It's done. Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I need help with NRHP inbox

Hello! I have a draft page in cue for the Dr. Cyril O. Spann Medical Office, and I need help building a NRHP inbox for it, so that it will follow the formatting standards of other NRHP pages. I can't use the template because the site was listed in 2019. Editors who know how to do this are free to come to my page and do it, or give me a step by step guide to doing it without messing up my current draft. Thanks in advance! ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maps on NRHP pages: a standard

This project seems quiet, but I'd like to introduce the idea of standardizing which maps might be included in every NRHP info box. There is wide variation now.

Examples of the current variation in included maps:

Anoka Post Office (has a location map, a local map, as well as state and country) Fort Snelling (state map only) Fort Payne Depot Museum (state and country maps) Blood Run Site (no maps, just pictures)

Some archaeological sites are "address restricted" such as: Big Gyp Cave Pictograph site (but the county where it is located is mentioned and could be mapped?)

Any thoughts on this? I am not an experienced editor. Thanks! BilCen (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]