User talk:Doncram/Archive 13

correcting Printing House Districts in Chicago

(This is my first attempt at using a talk page - I hope I am doing this right.)

It seems you have helped edit the entries entitled "South Loop Printing House District" and "Printing House Row District" in Chicago. After much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I think I have sorted out some discrepancies here, caused by the fact that there are two Nat Reg districts AND one local Chicago landmark district, all sounding similar. (Also confusing is that one of the Nat Reg districts is desginated a National Historic Landmark and its name is slightly different from the Nat Reg name.) Also, the streets involved are similar, but the address ranges are very specific to each district. Bottom line - I think there is an opportunity to correct all this.

For example, part of the confusion begins with the fact that the title "Printing House Row District" refers to the local Chicago landmark district name, not the Nat Reg name, I believe. So then entries in each of the current listings are somewhat confused.

I'd like to try to correct this, but want to make sure I do it right. What do you think? Thanks. Adgorn (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey you're doing great. I am glad, very hopeful you will be able to help sort out this confusion. Indeed it is confusing, and you sound like you are on the right track. Unfortunately i won't be able to correspond much in next few days, will get back to this later. doncram (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Conformance of Post Office articles

Hello: Another question concerning recent edits, this time by User:Daniel Case. In the articles U.S. Post Office (Dansville, New York)‎ and U.S. Post Office (Hornell, New York)‎, Mr. Case made such revisions as to remove the NRHP name fron the infobox, and remove the county reference and building type from the first sentence (a "standard" I tend to use for my articles). He indicated he did this to conform to other post office articles. I happen to think having a link to the building type (post office) and to the county where the PO is located to be helpful. I also understood from our previous exchange above on the Maryland churches that we should retain the NRHP name in the infobox. How do I petition to revise the standard for PO articles? Thanks in advance.--Pubdog (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, Daniel Case makes a few editorial decisions differently, but does great articles, at a steady pace. And he is more experienced than either of us; he helped me get started in Wikipedia, by the way. I do think the NRHP name should show in the infobox, am not sure about other aspects of this. We have to be careful not to try to enforce some standard that is not better, and where differences are a matter of taste we cannot insist on one way vs. another. I will, however, take a look at these sometime later and make some comment at wt:NRHP or elsewhere, but not for a few days at least. Will leave this item open here on my Talk page until i do respond to you more substantially. Thanks! doncram (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your consideration. I too highly respect the work of Mr. Case and will defer to his style on these stubs, if that is what is decided.--Pubdog (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That was about edits on 30 October or 31 October. On November 3, Nyttend edited the two articles to restore the NRHP name to infobox, as in this edit. I'm not sure who would be up for discussion about this and/or a decision by consensus. There's a similar type discussion at the U.S. Courthouses wikiproject that has not garnered much comment, which makes me less eager to do anything much about this topic. --doncram (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Import

The devs have activated Special:Import for admins on enwiki at long last. We are now able to import content with full contribution histories from de, es, fr, it and pl, just like dewiki's been importing articles from enwiki. I've given it a try at Église Saint-Ambroise (Paris); this will be a big help for WP:HSITES. Let me know if there's anything you'd like imported, although I prefer to keep it to clean titles: complex history merges aren't easy or quickly accomplished.

Also, I haven't forgotten about resolution of the town/HD issues. While time has opened up a little, it's about to close again as house guests descend on us for the holidays: the cleaning/decorating/putting-stuff-away has already begun. I'll plug away as time permits. Acroterion _(talk) 15:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Louis Will

funny recent mention in news [[1]], 10th paragraph Lvklock (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have other pics? I'd like one of the terra cotta details. Lvklock (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Francis Chapel

This is currently a redirect to St. Francis Chapel (Colonie, New York), which seems to be a prominent and notable but not-at-all historical Catholic church near Albany, New York. Could you convert it into a disambiguation page? I've discovered another St. Francis Chapel in New Roads, Louisiana. Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Francis Chapel dab  Done --doncram (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Saugatuck River Bridge

On January 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Saugatuck River Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting

I found these interesting reading.

Wikipedia:INSPECTOR, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance and meta:Eventualism

Lvklock (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hotel Yancey

Ammodramus discovered two of these places: one in North Platte, Nebraska and one [listed as "Hotel Yancey (The)"] in Grand Island, Nebraska. Nyttend (talk)

Hotel Yancey dab  Done --doncram (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

NYS OPRHP press releases about new NRHP listings

Hi don ... Do you recall if you added sites from these press releases to any NRHP county/city other than Orange and Onondaga (Syracuse)? I've removed the sites that have been nominated but not yet listed from those two tables and I'm trying to avoid checking every NY table for these nominations. --sanfranman59 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's it. I forgot about Orange, but i recall thinking i would try to catch Daniel Case's attention by that, and only one edit in a Hudson valley county should be needed for that. doncram (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay Pritzker Pavilion

	<font=3> Thanks again for your helpful comments at peer review. Jay Pritzker Pavilion is now a featured article! TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

NRHP and Davenport neighborhoods

Actually, would you be interested in helping me expand some of the districts you mentioned? CTJF83 chat 19:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i started Riverview Terrace Historic District as a stub, would be willing to help on one or 2 others if you suggest particular districts. I am not familiar with the area, so would prefer you pick. Can you possibly visit and take pictures in the district area? I know that there is one panorama type pic available (perhaps yours?). But, the first/main thing needed is to obtain the specific NRHP nomination form about the district. This is different than the MRA document that is on-line, that i linked already. It would be a many-page document about the district only, probably providing detail on each of the contributing buildings individually and providing overall context. Having it would inform a pic-taking visit and allow good devt of the article text. Can you request that from the National Register? Email to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. --doncram (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mailed, and my panorama pic is of this district, if more are needed let me know, and I can take care of that. If I'm picking a few to do, we can do Vander Veer Park Historic District, Prospect Park Historic District Prospect Park Historic District (Davenport, Iowa), McClellan Heights Historic District, and Crescent Warehouse Historic District. Thanks for your help. CTJF83 chat 18:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, tx for adding to the Riverview Terrace HD article. I'll start up NRHP stubs for the other ones over the next couple days if no one else beats me to it. (By the way, in doing so I am using a neat tool, what's called the "Elkman NRHP infobox generator, available at http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/ courtesy of User:Elkman.) Let me know when the National Register replies to your request. If they have scanned, e-versions to email, let's trade email addresses (I see we both have email enabled) and then I would appreciate if you could email me copies of them. If they can only send photocopies by postal mail, then I will request the same as you have requested and they can make 2 sets and mail out at the same time. --doncram (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I sure will. Thanks for all your help. I'll add pictures from User:Ctjf83/Pictures after I cook some lunch :) CTJF83 chat 20:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think this pic is ok or should I take a new one? CTJF83 chat 20:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice pics there! I like how u have that laid out and captioned, and i like ur panoramic pics especially. I oughta get a camera that can do that. About pics for Prospect Park Historic District (Davenport, Iowa), i think it would be good if you could visit and take new pics of all 23 contributing buildings in the district. You really need the NRHP nom first, to know what they are, probably. For one example of a historic district article that i've contributed to, see Manlius Village Historic District (which does not happen to include a pic of every structure, though I think i do possess a pic for each one). Detroit Financial District is another that does have a pic for each contributing building. Of course it may be the case that fewer pics, panoramic or otherwise, could provide good illustration for an article. I'll ask elsewhere for others' suggestions of good historic district articles to use for models. --doncram (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Those two articles are nice with all the pics. I'll see what I need to take pics of after I get the email. CTJF83 chat 03:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you good with housing styles? If so, what style is this for more description. CTJF83 chat 09:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say, given just a view from as far away as this pic is taken, and no other info. Perhaps an old Greek Revival house, with modern additions? A modern Georgian Revival? Is it a smaller, old house, with modern additions, or is it all relatively modern? I see it has an entry porch with columns and can see other details, but knowing approx. when the house was built and other info would be most helpful. Is it described in the NRHP nom doc, have you received that yet? --doncram (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hi. I replied on my talkpage to the comment you made there. --Orlady (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continues. --Orlady (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

U.S. vs United States

Hi ... taking a break from NY NRHP to work on Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/courthouses. After doing a bunch of articles, the project owner User:BD2412 is now moving all articles with U.S. to United States, such as U.S. Post Office (Missoula, Montana) to United States Post Office (Missoula, Montana). Now after creating what seems like a thousand articles for NY POs, should they have been United States Post Office instead of U.S. Post Office? I appeal to you because I know how much you like POs. Confused again ... time to return to NY--Pubdog (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say to have them at the fully spelled out title because (1) this is an encyclopedia, and abbreviations in titles are unencyclopedic, generally, and (2) it prevents arguments over whether to use "US" or "U.S." - no kidding, I've been in some very heated discussions over the point of punctuation (which was inconsistent among the court names before I moved them, as well). bd2412 T 02:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) To Pubdog: Okay, good, glad you contacted me again. I have been meaning to get back to the Post office naming conformance issue which you raised a while back, and i promised to address, so it is still showing far above here. I asked just now at User talk:BD2412#naming conventions for U.S. post offices and courthouses about having a discussion and where it should take place. Do you have a suggestion where to hash out anything about naming conventions for these? I need to browse the policy/guideline pages about naming conventions and I think this should be addressed at one of their Talk pages, probably. --doncram (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, BD2412, yes that is actually a good point about US vs. U.S. I really have not brought this back into mind properly, but I do recall that was part of the issue for post office articles, about whether to go with one of those or to follow whichever the National Register's database, NRIS, used (which varies). In some previous situations with NRHPs, I have wanted for the NRHP list-articles to adhere to the NRIS database-given official name. Not sure that applies for this. I will try to tally up how many instances of each kind, anyhow. But the immediate question is where to discuss out a bit more. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't sweat the numbers too much, a bot can rename ten thousand articles in its sleep. bd2412 T 03:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Issue still unresolved. See todays move of United States Post Office and Courthouse (Charleston, South Carolina) to U.S. Post Office and Courthouse (Charleston, South Carolina)--Pubdog (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see RFC opened by BD2412 on this point and others, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Request for comment on federal courthouse naming conventions. --doncram (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

St. John's Evangelical Lutheran German Church and Cemetery

Just curious, how did you get the nomination form — request from the NPS or otherwise? I don't remember seeing any Nebraska forms online, so I'd be interested in hearing if you got it some other way. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

St. John's Evangelical Lutheran German Church and Cemetery's nom form by email from the National Register upon request. It was the one of 3 Hayes County ones they had scanned, about which i mentioned at the Address Restricted discussion at wt:NRHP. I was interested to notice Kansas has some or all of its NRHP nom docs online, but Nebraska seems to just have very short summaries and small pics, like linked from this article. --doncram (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note re. Daniel School in Hayes County. I've been in touch with Jessie Nunn at the Nebraska State Historical Society, and she's encouraged me to contact her if there are specific nomination forms that I want. NSHS is in the process of putting them on their website, and they have them up for a number of counties, e.g. Jefferson. I'm not sure what their timetable is for getting the rest online, or the order in which they're posting them.

Sorry I didn't know that you were going to write the article on St. John's—I think I know where it is, and if I'd known there'd be an article, I would have tried to photograph it while I was in the county.

--Ammodramus (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation, please?

St. Henry's Church is currently an article about a (non-NRHP) church in New Jersey, but I'm just about to start writing an article about an NRHP-listed church in Ohio, "St. Henry Catholic Church". Could you create a disambiguation page? Nyttend (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to block because of a request on a talk page, unless it's simple vandalism, and I take it that this is not so. Nyttend (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not completely simple. The edits are clearly in violation, however, of P's agreement to abide by mutually-selected mediator Acroterion's judgments including specific ruling on this exact matter. I asked at wp:ANI. Thanks for considering, but you don't have to get involved.

Sure, will do the disambiguation page requested. --doncram (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on the photos of St. Henry's! I would also have uploaded a straight-on front shot, but I was there shortly after noon, and the church faces straight north: hence the sun made the church into a silhouette, and it doesn't look at all nice. I hope to get more at some point — there are many more NRHP-listed churches in the area that I expect to visit — so I should be able to pass through some time in late winter or early spring. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Polaron

I'm somewhat puzzled: I wouldn't say that Polaron is violating his editing restriction ("converting articles into redirects or vice versa"), but I also don't understand why redirects are needed or desirable when the redirect title isn't discussed in the target article (as you've pointed out). Acroterion _(talk) 18:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Acroterion on both points. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Dominguez Rancho Adobe

I like those new LA County maps. But it caused the infobox at Dominguez Rancho Adobe to fill the page. You don't need more to do - but I tried, and am not able to fix it myself. Thanks Emargie (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Map display was quite akilter there, not sure why. It seemed to fix itself, when i did an edit just removing some extra stuff in infobox, and moving other infobox stuff around. I guess it is okay now. --doncram (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You fixed it. Emargie (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Including "| map_width = " but leaving it blank makes the {{Location map}} template freak out.. so that's what was wrong. Don't include that parameter unless you're going to set a number to it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good to know there is a rational explanation. Thanks to you both.Emargie (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm so clueless...

Since I'm so clueless about the way things are done at WP:NRHP these days, what should I do with Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources now that I screwed up so bad with the names? Should I just put {{db-user}} on it and have an admin delete it? Should I submit it for a regular AFD? I could probably re-edit it so the names are in sync with National Register of Historic Places listings in Center Township, Marion County, Indiana, but since I violated Wikipedia standards so badly, and since I'm completely clueless, I'll let you make the call on this. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are over-statements in my view, but I am sorry that you took offense to my comments within Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cathcart. I've replied further there. --doncram (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

How much is User:Orlady harassing you? Perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship could be looked into? CTJF83 chat 19:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts? CTJF83 chat 00:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your supportive gesture here, and in comments elsewhere. But the process you refer to here appears to be a proposal, not policy. I have not looked into it as I expect it would go nowhere. And, I am really interested in working on NRHP articles, especially with newer NRHP editors in different places, and I would like to focus on that. The contending with Orlady over NRHP articles in CT is really almost over, I believe....well, knock on wood. I will state my case as seems necessary in appropriate forums, and I generally trust it will work out. Anyhow I would hope that you'd work as you have recently to take and add pics, and to do research and develop mainspace articles in your area. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I know there is a dysop policy somewhere, cause admins have lost their adminships. I don't know if she has done enough to lose it or not. If you are going to write more articles about NRHP in my area, I'll gladly take pics. I just dunno if I wanna write a bunch of NRHP articles. CTJF83 chat 01:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Doncram)

Hello, Doncram. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram, where you may want to participate. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That link looks like it's broken because of a template for deletion, so here's a direct link: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've begun to put together an outline for an RfC on the NRHP content disputes at User:Acroterion/RfC NRHP, to be moved to some more appropriate place once it's developed. I'll be working on it in between bouts of snow shoveling, and you're encouraged to contribute as you desire.Acroterion _(talk) 17:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've closed this RfC because there has been no outside interest. It looks like the skirmishes and edit wars have stopped, anyway. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Street Historic District

You left the following message on my talk page, headed "your edit in contradiction to MOSDAB": "Your edit, with edit summary asserting "per MOSDAB", was not that. I reverted. Could we please discuss? I went through several very long discussions about how pages involving NRHP disambiguation should be constructed, and believe this basically complies. If you wish to revisit the previous consensus of numerous disambiguation editors, please explain. --doncram (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)"

(Also added there, copying to here for completeness later):

I think we have discussed this before, but I will reply on your talk page shortly. Station1 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, or here (I'll watch). But perhaps to cut unnecessary discussion short, i am referring tin part to [[See this extended past discussion at WikiProject Disambiguation and this followup. Perhaps you could review those. There have been other followups, too. You may make the point that a given entry includes a link to a state-wide NRHP list, when in fact it should better point to a county-specific NRHP list, in order to best comply with MOS:DABRL, but then wp:SOFIXIT will apply. I do believe you mean well but I also believe that revisiting all this, reasonably well settled already, is not likely to be hugely helpful. Regards, --doncram (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply: The "previous consensus of numerous disambiguation editors" is represented at MOS:DAB. Pages "involving NRHP disambiguation" should not be treated differently. Specifically: (1) Redlinks should not appear on a dab page unless the entry also has a bluelink to an article containing information about the redlink topic. I left the 2 redlinks that met this criterion and removed the others. (2) Bluelinks should not be pipes as a main entry. I corrected the one case of that. (3) Section headers should not be used unless there are sections. (4) Links to sections of articles should come after links to actual articles. I made an exception to that for Marion, North Carolina because that was a borderline case and seemed to make sense where it was. (5) Things in Texas should not link to articles about Wisconsin. (6) It is not necessary to say "listed on the NRHP in [State]" next to every bluelinked entry, because that doesn't help in any way disambiguate one entry from another. On the other hand, where it points out that one entry in Connecticut was in a different town from the town in the article's title, I left that because that is useful for someone trying to figure out which of the several Connecticut articles is the one sought. Station1 (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes i posted at your Talk page at User talk:Station1#your edit in contradiction to MOSDAB and further followed up briefly, to point out previous discussions and to acknowledge that items with bluelinks only linking to state-wide NRHP lists might, for technical compliance to MOS:DABRL require either creating stub articles for each NRHP item, or by refinement of bluelink to point to a county or city NRHP list that has recently been split out from the state-wide NRHP list. Would you please agree to work to remedy the situation, either by creating articles on the NRHP-listed historic districts, or by refining links at the disambiguation page? I started by further refining the first 2 bluelinks justifying items that are primarily red-links. Honestly, I think the better approach is to allow the articles to be created, which has been proceeding at a good pace. --doncram (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad that you're working to fix the bluelinks and I'll leave the page alone for a few days to give you a chance to update. Frankly, I don't think the redlinks [you mean bluelinks, right? --doncram] are very useful, and wouldn't bother refining them even if I had the time, but I would not delete one that pointed to an article containing info about the topic. I fully agree the best approach is for articles to be created; I just think it's better to create the article first and then add it to the dab page, because until it's created there's nowhere for the reader to go. Best wishes. Station1 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean the secondary bluelinks where you said redlinks, right? I don't think the bluelinks are that helpful and I don't particularly want to refine them, like you. Those secondary bluelinks will all be dropped eventually, as articles are created. But having a complete list of wikipedia-notable places named exactly "Main Street Historic District", whether the primary links are redlinks or bluelinks, is helpful for readers and editors, as has been talked out in previous discussions. If you want I could create a stub article using National Register database information for any one primary redlink, but there are a number of NRHP editors who strongly prefer that NRHP articles not be created unless more development than a stub is provided. I would only do one right now in order to demonstrate to you that any one is wikipedia-notable, in case you question that. But otherwise, I hope this is resolved as okay, now. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Where I said redlinks I meant the entire redlink line entry. Dab pages are strictly for navigation, so redlinks on dab pages are rarely useful, and never useful without a corresponding bluelink that goes somewhere useful. Dab pages are not lists and not indexes. Lists and redlinks can sometimes be useful in the manner you suggest, but never on dab pages. I agree with those editors who say create articles that contain significant information, but whether you do that or create stubs, create them first, then put them on a dab page. If you don't want to do that, however, at the very least, please make sure each line has a bluelink to an article with information about the topic (though it seems a waste of time to me); otherwise we send readers to dead ends. As I said, if you want a few days, no problem. I noticed the following articles with similar problems: Broad Street Historic District, Roosevelt School, Jefferson School, Washington School. I'll leave those for a few days too, in case you want to update them. Station1 (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no, well, then what you are saying is you disagree with the MOS:DABRL portion of the MOS Style policy, and how, in numerous long discussions, that has been interpreted to apply to NRHP cases. It is your personal preference, not unreasonable from your point of view, to say that there should not be red-link entries, but that is not policy. Your preference for how the wikipedia should be developed would conflicts with other useful preferences, such as my and other editors' preference that wikipedia readers who wish to find a given historic site should be shown the alternatives (including showing that there are places of a given name that do not have and article yet), and they should not misdirected to an article about a different place instead. This has been talked out before (see the links that I posted at your Talk page, for two discussions) and it is embodied in the MOS:DABRL policy. I'll revisit that now to confirm that it has not been changed. If you want, you could open a new central discussion about the policy and/or its application to one or more of these similar example dab pages, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NRHP. If you do, please invite me to participate. --doncram (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No; with respect, you misunderstand me or MOS:DAB or both. I am saying MOS:DAB (a guideline, not a policy, btw) should be followed and that Main Street Historic District (and the other pages mentioned) currently do not conform. In the first paragraph above I explained precisely how it does not and why I changed them. Station1 (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then this is back to your saying the first 2 items in the Main Street Historic District page did not comply with MOSDAB guideline because their supporting bluelinks pointed to state-level NRHP list-articles rather than the county- or city-level NRHP list-articles that have been split out from the state-level ones, and which now are the Wikipedia articles carrying the red-link to the particular item name, in a useful context, thereby supporting the validity of having the item in the disambiguation page to start with. Is that correct? I "fixed" those first two, by the in-my-view pretty useless step of making the bluelink more precise, to the county-level article. Note the "issue" would have gone away naturally, as the articles would be created within some time-frame of a year or two. During the last couple years, articles have been created for about 20,000 or so out of 85,000 NRHP-listed places indexed in the NRHP list articles, and article-creation has been accelerating. I see that the 5th or 6th or 7th entry in the list is now a bluelink with a supporting bluelink, indicating that an article for what was a redlink has recently been created, so then the proper update now is to delink the supporting bluelink. I don't see the value of refining the other supporting bluelinks, because they will be delinked soon enough in the same way, anyhow. And, readers are primarily served by finding out whether or not there exists an article, and that the place is NRHP-listed. If they click on the supporting blue-link they may be brought to a state-level NRHP page and have to try one or few more clicks to get to a county- or city-level NRHP list article which shows the red-link in context. But they are served well enough IMO. Also, crucially, editors are served, advancing the development of wikipedia in this area. Having the complete disambiguation pages set up now avoids serious confusion, multiple unnecessary edits in having a system that supports creating articles at appropriate names. So, you have a narrow technical point to make, that the guideline is not exactly complied with. I would object to your proceeding by attempting to delete the offending entries rather than leaving them be or making the small effort to bring them into technical compliance with said guideline. I don't think that would advance development of wikipedia in this area; I believe it would detract. I expect you are trying to do what is the right thing here. Please try to consider what I am saying, and what has been talked out in the earlier discussions. But, if you wish, you may open a broader discussion to revisit this area, and you and I will contact various previous participants and get them all to testify again. --doncram (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are trying to pick a fight here or what. This is really pretty simple: I found a dab page with many broken links and cleaned it up in accordance with MOS:DAB. I spent 15 or 20 minutes doing that, carefully checking each link. You undid all my changes within minutes as if the page had been vandalized, came to my talk page to say, in effect, I didn't know what I was doing, and asked me to discuss. I believe I patiently and clearly explained my actions in the first paragraph. You seemed to understand and corrected two entries. I said fine, do the others, no problem. To be clear, I have no issue with MOS:DAB or MOS:DABRL. I have no desire to change any guideline or policy. I have no desire to engage in the kind of protracted dialogue to which you referred me. I generally agree with all the other editors at that discussion, who were patiently trying to explain to you where your unique viewpoint differed from the general consensus. I was not making a narrow technical point. These links were broken. They were misleading readers to the wrong articles. They needed to be changed. I see now another editor, who perhaps has read this exchange, has just gone and quietly corrected these links, in a relatively short time and without drama (thank you very much, Orlady!). That's all that's required if you want redlinks. I will continue to fix WP to the best of my ability. Station1 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all wanting to pick a fight. I was rather trying to be efficient and get it all laid out quickly, both to ascertain more quickly what was your concern, and to let you know that considerable thought and discussion has already gone into the design and building of those dab pages. I remain of the view that tinkering with them further does not add value for readers, and feel that if you believe otherwise you should create the articles or revise the supporting bluelinks yourself. It's nice, yes, that Orlady has helped out by revising those supporting bluelinks. And I'll offer now that I will encourage other NRHP editors to do some of that type of bluelink refining from time to time, as well. With that, I hope we are done. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I did ask other NRHP editors to refine supporting bluelinks from time to time, e.g. as when they happen to be editing a disambiguation page. --doncram (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I just came across Station1's previous edit removing almost all entries from Broad Street Historic District a few months ago, and then I further find my way back to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 39#Broad Street Historic District where Station1 had nicely enough opened some discussion, but then where this was all talked out well enough IMHO. The NRHP disambiguation was also discussed in several other threads at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) at that time in which Station1 and I also participated. --doncram (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was referring to when I replied to you on my talk page "I think we have discussed this before..." Please see 5 sections up on my talk page or the archive of your own talk page. That's also why I mentioned Broad Street Historic District and Roosevelt School (same page) in this discussion. Surely you don't believe that you talking and two other editors disagreeing with you means "this was all talked out well enough". Perhaps you missed my final comment later on that page "Both Roosevelt School and Broad Street Historic District need fixing. The only reason I'm not touching them is because they're still under discussion here and because I'm not interested in getting into an edit war over pages almost no one looks at." Station1 (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I do now see User talk:Station1#Broad Street Historic District and I see that Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 39#restore NRHP dab page please was one of the other discussions, from which you quote. The other editor, JHunterJ, was specifically focusing on his idea that red-link entries should be sorted down to the bottom of pages like Broad Street Historic District. That idea, which he had even advanced by editing it into the MOSDAB's ordering section, was what was fully enough discussed, I guess. In a couple of places there it was just me and him and you speaking, it may look like it was running 2:1 against me, but that was only in narrow sections, where the "right"-in-my-view outcome was achieved anyhow (e.g., that a Roosevelt School dab page move by JHunterJ was reversed), so the final consensus apparent is that the 1 argument prevailed. And there was explicit polling of many editors in other discussion sections above and below, and the overall consensus of these many other editors was that reasonable ordering schemes such as by-state-then-city should certainly be allowed, and the extra work and confusion caused by JHunterJ's reorderings should not be supported, so the MOSDAB's ordering section was returned to something more reasonable. I hope you don't want to revisit the ordering issue (which your recent edit did not re-raise, and which i don't think was your original concern; it was JHunterJ who inserted that issue). I also see that I did acknowledge in one or two of those discussion sections that you had other points to make that weren't talked out. If you want to open a new discussion on whatever those are, now, I would be happy to participate. Currently, I don't see any serious deficiency for readers and editors in the current formatting of Broad Street Historic District and similar dabs, but you could perhaps convince me and others of something. I am skeptical that there would be any wide consensus supporting removal of the red-link entries, though, which was the main alarming-to-me effect of your recent edit. Do you want to discuss other ideas here or at Talk page of one of the dabs? --doncram (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really, because, frankly, you seem to believe your view represents consensus while I believe all the other editors who repeatedly disagree with you more closely represent consensus, but if you want to give it a try... I made 6 types of changes to Main Street Historic District, which I numbered 1 thru 6 in my reply to you, all of which you reverted. You've already addressed point 1, and just now you've addressed point 4. Would you care to address points 2, 3, and 6? Station1 (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I hadn't focused on other than the first one, i guess. About those:

• "(2) Bluelinks should not be pipes as a main entry. I corrected the one case of that." That sounds like your change would have been an improvement, but I can't spot the problem in the current article, perhaps it was fixed by Orlady. Is it still there? I agree that articles' names should be shown, rather than hidden by pipelinks
• "(3) Section headers should not be used unless there are sections." Here I think you refer to the leading in the United States (by state then city). That seems better than not identifying the country and not explaining the ordering, which is not immediately obvious otherwise for readers and editors. In the previous discussions, i think Englanders and other non-Americans prefered for the country to be identified while some Americans think it is obvious and not needed, for cases like the current version of this article which has just U.S. items currently. Using the leading phrase mentioning the United States that way makes it clear how a section for a different country should be added. And IMHO it does not detract for any readers. Mentioning the by state then city order is essential in my view. Some other formatting perhaps would be better.
• "(4) Links to sections of articles should come after links to actual articles. I made an exception to that for Marion, North Carolina because that was a borderline case and seemed to make sense where it was." I don't agree for dab pages whose items are explicitly organized by state then city. It is unreasonable to expect readers and editors to understand a more complicated ordering which would put a section-type entry at the very end, or at the end of a state subsection, or whatever.
• "(5) Things in Texas should not link to articles about Wisconsin." I agree! :)
• "(6) It is not necessary to say 'listed on the NRHP in [State]' next to every bluelinked entry, because that doesn't help in any way disambiguate one entry from another." Well, in the current list that consists of only U.S. NRHP-listed places constructed out of the National Register's NRIS database, I agree it may appear excessive. You could be suggesting to identify them all as being listed on the National Register, at the top. However, there are state-designated and locally-designated historic districts in many U.S. states, and I am pretty sure a few of them have name "Main Street Historic District". One problem is that when other items get inserted, there is no way to identify which are which, and to update the introduction to "all but onetwo of the following are NRHP-listed" or whatever. Someone inserting one will tend not to update the top at all, or to provide an identifying phrase explaining how that item is different than the NRHP ones, if each NRHP one is not identified. It just worked out better given insertions coming into dabs of churches, some NRHP-listed and some not, to have the NRHP listing mentioned within each item where it applied. There are other maintenance-related problems engendered, too, i think, in other NRHP lists if the identifying information is not put in. I can't remember all the other small problems engendered, offhand, but I am sure some would apply in other dabs having NRHP items if not applying exactly here. And then, there is efficiency for editors and some benefit of consistency for readers, in using the same formatting in all of these. I wouldn't want to change from this format lightly.

Actually I think my experience in dabs of churches, some NRHP-listed and notable, some otherwise notable, and some not at all notable, has most influenced me to want to leave the NRHP mention in for even the ones that have articles. In church dabs, it made sense to put the NRHP mention in on all the red-link items for reason of supporting notability, as you understand. It seemed also to work best to keep the NRHP mention on NRHP items that turned blue, as part of communicating to readers that only notable churches named "First Congregational Church" or whatever should be included. It's part of battling against non-notable items being added. Here, I expect that any locally-designated "Main Street Historic District" is probably wikipedia-notable, so it is less of a factor. But still, having the NRHP mention in does help communicate to readers/editors what they should do for adding another item. Paring off the NRHP mention doesn't seem particularly helpful, to me. --doncram (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Thanks for persisting. --doncram (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is helpful in understanding each other. I appreciate the tone as well as the content. I guess the best thing now might be for me to go over the 6 points, explain my view, and say where I think we agree or disagree, and maybe leave it at that.

• (1) I think we agree this is the most important point. I think we now also agree that redlinks are permissible on a dab page if they also have a bluelink that has some meaningful information about the topic, but not otherwise.
• (2) I'm glad we agree! The piped link is Marion, North Carolina, and yes it's still there.
• (3) Here I don't think your position is supported by consensus. Dab pages almost never have anything like that. First, the order is obvious to most readers, imo. If you're concerned about editors, it should at least be commented out so that only editors see it. But the more important point is that you're trying to get other editors to follow your ordering preference when other orders may be just as valid. In fact, since links to sections of articles should come after links to articles (see next point), a different ordering is preferred imo; there are also cases where the most searched for topic(s) is placed ahead of others, although that may not apply to this case. I'm glad at least that you mention some other formatting might be better; say on one line unbolded.
• (4) I think it is usually easier for most readers to get to where they want to go if an uncluttered format lists articles first, and this is preferred by the MOS, but I agree there can be common sense exceptions, such as I made for Marion, NC.
• (5) Not much to say, except if I may offer what I hope you take as a constructive suggestion: If you make your own additional edits to a page, rather than a mass revert, it may sometimes make other editors realize you've given some thought to what you do change back. In this case, at least points 2 and 5 would have been corrected, and perhaps point 1 as well.
• (6) Information not necessary to disambiguate one entry from another should not appear on a dab page. In cases where "there are state-designated and locally-designated historic districts" as well as federal districts all with the same name in the same town and for some reason each had an individual article, then yes, listed on the NRHP would help to diambiguate one from the other, but otherwise it's clutter on a dab page (even though unquestionably a major point in the article itself) that only makes it harder to navigate quickly and easily. Same with churches; if two have similar names in the same city, listed on the NHRP might disambiguate, otherwise not. Notability is never an issue for dab pages; if a topic has an article on WP it's presumed notable (if it's later AfD'd, the dab page link turns red and is removed). That's one reason bare redlinks don't appear on dab pages: without an article, there's no way to establish notability or even verify that the topic actually exists.

So I hope we now understand each other even where we disagree. Station1 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kudos to you, Doncram, for finishing the update of all the links on that page. --Orlady (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, and thanks for your helping. Now, I think the Main Street Historic District dab and also the other four mentioned have now all been cleaned up that way, to fully meet the technical requirement of MOS:DABRL. --doncram (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I also want to thank both of you for your updates. Station1 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the long exchange above and the work Orlady and you did in response, it's disheartening to see this. Is there some reason it's a good idea? Station1 (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a good idea. It is a good contribution to building the wikipedia, to provide disambiguation between 3 wikipedia-notable places named exactly College Avenue Historic District, and several similarly named places that might also be confused. And, in a subsequent step after creating the good dab and after creating one of the articles it covers, i returned to update one of the entries so that it fully complied with the letter of the MOSDAB rules. Yes, you are welcome to "improve" the dab if you wish by refining entries to find the NRHP list-articles that show the same redlinks. However the existing supporting bluelinks do support the current redlinks, in that they point towards existing NRHP list-articles that show the redlinks. And, all the supporting bluelinks will be deleted eventually. And I don't think that focussing further attention here is particularly helpful; it is good as is and serves readers and editors pretty well. It just doesn't fully comply with technical rules made up by disambiguation-focused editors. Perhaps an explicit exception to dab rules for pages like this should be added to the technical rules; i.e., it is the technical rules that are deficient, not this dab page. --doncram (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, i did ask at wp:botrequest for a bot to do all those refinements, tho i could not bring myself to beg, and i felt it was only fair to state that i did myself feel the refinements would be very helpful in building the wikipedia. If you feel more strongly that those refinements are so important, you could comment in support of the bot request. --doncram (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I share Station1's concern here, Doncram. Unlike some of those other pages, College Avenue Historic District is not a long-existing page needing to be cleaned up, but a newly created page that is a problem from its very creation. (I'm not going to help you fix this one.) Disambiguation pages are supposed to be designed and maintained to help users find relevant content. A user who clicks on the blue links on the College Avenue Historic District page is going to be sorely disappointed (and probably will mutter some evil things about Wikipedia), as they will not find any relevant content on the blue-linked pages -- and to find the relevant content they have to know what county the site is in.

If your purpose in creating these pages is to help NRHP Wikiproject participants, then it might be a good idea to create these pages in Project space, where they won't be detrimental to the experience of encyclopedia users. If you want to keep them in article space (as I believe you do), I think the best option is to structure them as set-index articles, with red links for the property names and blue links for the city articles, state NRHP articles, and anything else that contributors choose to include. (The set-index articles could be set up as wikitables, using the same format as the county NRHP list pages.) --Orlady (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, it's a hopeful idea about using set-index articles, but that was previously considered by me and others in the long previous discussions, and basically does not work. The point is to create disambiguation, not to create a list-article for unrelated places only coincidentally having the same name. Slapping a {{sia}} tag on what is really a disambiguation page is not the way to go, was pointed out strongly by JHunterJ i think i recall. There is no readership constituency for a list-article of places around the U.S. or the world which just randomly have the same name. On the other hand, there is some constituency for ships given the same name, because there is coherence and relationship in the naming: when one British warship was retired, another would be given the same name. So wp:SHIPS does use SIAs successfully. But again here, we want just one Fred House article to cover all the houses and actors and other uses of that phrase.

And, i don't know how to put this mildly enough, but it is ridiculous or being uninformed at this point to say the disambiguation page system is detrimental to readers and to editors. The new College Avenue HD one had somehow been overlooked, but it is immediately serving an editor need of identifying in each of the NRHP list-articles that temporarily link there, that a specific article about the NRHP HD of the exact name in 3 places, should not get the shared name, but rather should get (City, State) added. It is OBVIOUSLY a help to readers who might see mention of a College Avenue HD in a newspaper article, and seek to look it up in Google, where the first hit will soon be the Wikipedia dab page, where they will find out that there exists an article about one and that other places exist but don't have articles. It is OBVIOUSLY designed to help readers find relevant content, and further to provide the extremely helpful service of showing that there is not substantial content developed yet about some of them. They will not be "sorely disappointed"; that is an overstatement. If you wish, you can further refine the supporting bluelinks so the readers will more easily find the NRHP list-articles showing the red-links in some context, in county tables of NRHPs. But already O has said she chooses not to do that refinement, and Station1 has previously stated disinterest in doing same. If you don't like it, wp:SOFIXIT by doing the work you are calling for. Again it is highly likely that that work will turn out to be wasted in a few months or a year, after all the NRHP articles are created. --doncram (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the DAB page is useful and important. It is hardly a "newly created page that is a problem from its very creation." I will help you fix this one, since the people who have problems with it don't want to, nor do they want to wait for a bot to be able to do it. Another use of disambiguation pages, besides helping users, can be to help EDITORS, whether NRHP Wikiproject participants or not, to know the proper name to create an article under. This facilitates the process for new editors, and judging from how often we all run across the same people time after time these days (as if we were following each other around), I'd say that encouraging new editors should be of paramount importance. I doubt that "a user who clicks on the blue links on the College Avenue Historic District page is going to be sorely disappointed", as noboby but us Wiki-nreds cares THAT much what they find on a page. I agree that "to find the relevant content they have to know what county the site is in", and that this is inconvenient. But, if we could all constructively campaign for a bot to fix this stuff, so that ALL of our concerns can be met, instead of tearing out or constantly criticizing each others hard work, maybe we'd be further ahead. Lvklock (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi ... created today Main Street Historic District (Roxbury, New York). Hope it looks OK.--Pubdog (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

File:ReynoldsBridge ThomastonCT sm.JPG

I don't pay attention to New York listings, so this is the first time I've seen one of your pictures. Just curious — what kind of a camera is a General Imaging Company A1050? Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! I have a couple cameras that i use. That's a cheap digital camera that, oddly, has a General Electric brandname, which I bought at a discount store for about $80 i think, a few months ago. I see from a label on it that it is made in China and there is the General Imaging Company name on it. It has a 5X zoom and various features that i haven't all figured out. I did try to buy a more recognized brand, fancier digital camera on-line, but the order didn't go through somehow, so i ended up buying this cheap one quickly one day. Cheers, --doncram (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rowland House

Upton Sinclair House

But, hey, what about semi-lame Rowland House or so-what-he-was-a-muckraker Upton Sinclair House in Los Angeles, CA county and--i think--many other pics i've contributed. I have travelled around the U.S.A., and I have some contributed coverage of overseas places too, i think, tho i don't keep close track and am not sure what i have uploaded so far. --doncram (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

AN/I Warning

Hi, this message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding in Edit warring and Article ownership issues with which you may have been involved. (See Here for more information: [2]) Regards! RM (Be my friend)

Uh, I think he's already aware of that. And it's not on WP:AN, it's on WP:RFC/U. And the discussion is attracting no real outside interest anyway. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Article improvements

Thanks very much for all your improvements at the H. Neill Wilson related articles. Much appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I had just come across the DYK nom, noticed it was for an american architect. When i went to evaluate it, then i got a bit involved adding info, yes. Good luck with the dyk and afd on it. --doncram (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your expertise requested please-

In creating the Lisha Kill, New York article a newspaper reference I used refers to the Reformed Church of Lisha's Kill as being on the NRHP listings, yet I cant find it on the Albany County article list under any name that I recognize. I checked the Schenectady County listings just in case because the church does fall in a Schenectady ZIP Code and thought it might have gotten listed there. But so far no luck. I was wondering if you have any ideas, if I cant find any listing of it I'll have to remove that sentence from the Lisha Kill article and it throws me into doubt about anything else I used from that newspaper article. And I havent forgotten your old requests for articles about Alcove, New York and other hamlets that have NRHP listings, I'm slowly making a counter-clockwise sweep through all hamlets that I can find enough sources about.Camelbinky (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Could it be any of the churches which appear in output of User:Elkman's "WhoHas" NRHP search tool, when search on "Reformed Church"? I don't see Lisha Kill mentioned, but perhaps under a different location name? You try, at http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/whohas.php, with search string "Reformed Church". If you can find it there then I could help you more. Certainly there have been many newspaper stories over the years where a journalist got it wrong, about what kind of historic site designation a place got. The poor journalists didn't use to have wikipedia to look up things in. :) --doncram (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. Some of my ancestors were members of that church. I've never had a very clear idea of the specific family geography, since it's all submerged in metropolitan development. (Nice article by Camelbinky.) --Orlady (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh? It also does not appear to be New York State-listed, at least i don't find anything with "Lisha" in its title and no hits on "Reformed Church" jump out at me, when I search at New York State site. The NYS site includes all NRHP sites, and also sites that were nominated and failed to get NRHP designation (perhaps because owners objected, derailing a listing). Usually any place officially deemed "NRHP-eligible" would show up in the NYS site. --doncram (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If it was torn down and delisted within the last few years, would the delisting info be available? --Orlady (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know specifically about NYS's practices for removing info from their system. For NRHP-listed places, the info should always be in the NRIS database. Elkman added capability to the NRHP infobox tool (http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php), to allow us to extract out info for delisted or other-status-than-currently-listed properties that ever got an NRIS entry. It's a bit wonky: for a delisted place the date of delisting appears in the place of the original listing in E's output (similar i think to how NRHP.COM's info can appear, too), and you need to look up at E's page or somewhere what the listing status codes are, but you can mostly figure it out. Running that search with delisted box checked on "Lisha" and then on "Reformed Church" within state of NY, and searching through that output yields no more likely candidates as far as i can tell, though. --doncram (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your time and enormous amount of effort. It is looking very much like the journalist was mistaken, especially since he didnt place a year when it was listed on the NRHP that could help us. Last time I saw the church it was maybe 2 years ago and it looked in good shape from the outside (as I drove by at 45 mph it wasnt a detailed inspection!). Certainly if it was ever listed the words Lisha and Reformed would have been in the title some where. I will continue to look on and off but figure it's better to move on to the next community. Perhaps someone will come across our discussion and nominate the building!Camelbinky (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum- if this helps at all here is the website for the church congregation, the photo is of the church we are discussing. And this is the address- Lisha's Kill Reformed Church 2131 Central Avenue Schenectady, NY 12304Camelbinky (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey you're welcome, and it's no biggy at all. --doncram (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The 1852-built Niskayuna Reformed Church is listed, and in the nom it notes that the 1854-built Lisha's Kill Church closely resembles it. That's probably where the article author got confused. Lvklock (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Francis M. Drexel School

I'm confused about a couple of things:

• What did you mean about the NPS website being down? I'm able to download the MPS form without trouble, and the nomination form comes from the state website, not the NPS website.
• Why rate it a stub? Bear in mind that I never rate articles, so this is a confused question, not a challenging or unhappy question. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The NPS search site has seemed down, meaning i wasnt then able to search for any forms (or, you can search but it will show all non-available, even the ones that are in fact available). I sometimes forget that is different than the permanent URLs to documents being down. If u know the url to an MPS or other document, it is in fact available. And Elkman's system "knows" the MPS URLs because we built up a list of them, and then E incorporated our list into his system.

I just cut and pasted the wikiproject info from another page or an open Elkman infobox window, didn't think about whether it should be left at Stub or changed. Sorry for causing confusion. --doncram (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I understand about the rating; no complaints. I was viewing the MPS form online, so it wasn't down. AFAIK, the NPS has no reason to digitise Pennsylvania's forms, since (except for a few sites listed in the last couple of years) the state website has all of them online. Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Little Chute Windmill

Re your recent edit, there is an infobox specifically for windmills - {{infobox windmill}}. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Olmsted Park System dab

You're the dab pro -- advice please.

We have two NRIS listings for Olmsted Park System (actually, the one in Kentucky reads "Olmstead", but that's an NRIS error and beside the point). They both have articles:

• Olmsted Park - Boston and Brookline, Massachusetts
• Parkways of Louisville, Kentucky

Currently there's a redirect at Olmsted Park System to the first one. I've just put an {{about}} on the first one, but have had second thoughts. Since they are arguably of equal importance, shouldn't Olmsted Park System be a dab pointing at both of them? I had in mind something like this:

---

Olmsted Park System may refer to either of two sites with that name on the National Register of Historic Places:

• Olmsted Park, Boston and Brookline, Massachusetts
• Parkways of Louisville, Kentucky

{{disambig}}

---

Or am I missing something? Thanks, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 21:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems okay. I tend to explain the NRHP-ness on each entry in a dab, so that non-NRHP entries can be inserted by others, but maybe this is the complete set forever, already. And, I think you need to make it clearer on each line why the items are being listed in the dab, say by appending an explanation for each one, as in perhaps the following:

---

Olmsted Park System may refer to:

• Olmsted Park, Boston and Brookline, Massachusetts, also known as Olmsted Park System (and listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under that name)
• Parkways of Louisville, Kentucky, also known as Olmsted Park System (and listed on the NRHP under that name)

{{disambig}}

---

Your goal is to get something out there to help readers, and that is easy for other editors to work with (like to add other entries, maybe not relevant here), and to do it in a way that doesn't attract deletion of your items. You can also add a "See also" section if there is something possibly also confusing, but not named the same, such as Olmstead Place State Park:

==See also==
*[[Olmstead Place State Park]], Ellensburg, Washington

although that is probably not needed here, given Olmsted spelling. You're doing fine. --doncram (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, I personally would want to add Olmsted Park System in bold in the lede of the Kentucky article, explaining it as an alternative name. I see it does appear as the title in the NRHP infobox there, but it still should be mentioned in the article text in bold, IMHO, else it is a mildly surprising redirect for readers coming from the KY NRHP list-article that should show the NRHP name. --doncram (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider adding Buffalo, New York parks system which is locally known as the Olmsted Park System in Buffalo, NY.--Pubdog (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

All done, thanks to you both. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

BOT

Didja see that someone's offering to help with this? Lvklock (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

dyk hook problem

Hi, the main source for your dyk hook here seems to have gone dead. Can you remedy this? Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 17:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about citing documents from NPS Focus as if they were print sources, without giving a URL? Pennsylvania is in the process of converting its NRHP documents from one website to another; while the forms are still online from the old URLs, I don't know how long they'll stay there, so I'm often citing them as print sources when I write new articles. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nida Sameer

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nida Sameer, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nida Sameer. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nagao Sakurai

...you asked why I am interested in Nagao Sakurai (landscape architect). I was born near Spokane, Washington and I am interested in local history. He designed a Japanese garden in Spokane's Manito Park. I should put that on my to-do list. Next I will see if there are any public domain images of any of the gardens he has designed that I can link to and he lived in Japan for 20 years? Must be some history there. I should see if I can figure out how to link to his entry on Japanese Wikipedia, if there is one. Thanks for asking : )--cda (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Doncram, Thank you for your comments on infoboxes in Yeywa Dam and others. You are absolutely correct. I have changed the infobox on Yeywa Dam and addressed your concerns but I'm not happy with the result. The box is too wide as you can see compared with User:Marcus334/Sandbox#Weigyi_Dam. I don't know how to fix it as the coding for these things is above my pay grade, so I am moving on.-Marcus334 (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

College of Physicians of Philadelphia

I can't see any reason not to expand the article greatly - I've got the nomination pdf. For right now I'm trying to make sure that I'm adding it to the NHL Philadelphia list and NRHP Center City Phiily list correctly. And I better get the NHL reference for them. Is there an easy way to renumber the lists? Minor interest File:College of Physicians 2.JPG - I can always go get another photo of the place under snow! Note that Mutter Museum is a pretty big article. Back in 10. Smallbones (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think that I've got all the numbers correct in NHL lists (Pennsylvania and Philadelphia) and NRHP lists (Philadelphia, Center City, and I'll Check PA). My major concern has been whether I've added them correctly to the Center City NRHP and Philadelphia NHL lists, and now it's the best I know how. Is there a central adder/number checker who should be consulted/informed? I checked on the sandbox to see if other entries had been added: it looked like Aaron Copland House hadn't but Camp Incas had - I'll leave that question for later.

The "The" in the article name doesn't look right to me - on the infobox, sure; but on the article name? I found the infobox. I'll check out the Mutter Museum article - to try to avoid too much overlap - then start of the College article. Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realized how detailed and to the point the nomination form is (head and shoulders above most noms). The building, society history, and maybe current programs, should all be easy to do tomorrow. Seems like I made the gravy before roasting the meat. Any chance you can do the switch between The College of Physicians of Philadelphia and College of Physicians of Philadelphia? Last time I tried a double switch like this, I really messed it up. Thanks for everything. Smallbones (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you moved it. It looks fine to me now. It's DYK-eligible now based on expansion and it is already a nice starter article worth giving some attention to; i think you should put it up for DYK. :) --doncram (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It took me awhile but I did nominate it Hook "... that America’s oldest private medical society, the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, displays the conjoined liver of Siamese twins Chang and Eng Bunker in its museum ? " If you can think of a better hook please substitute it - I'm not very good on hooks. Smallbones (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I very much appreciate your helping to mediate the discussion on El Paso-Juarez. My faith in the system is restored, as it were.

Please do feel free to offer me any constructive critisms if you are so inclined. Frankly I don't understand why I had to go to so much effort for something so simple (i.e. what could I do differently in the future?).

Thanks again.

--Mcorazao (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps next time you disagree with a move and want to revetrt, you should just move it back using the move tab instead of creating a whole new article by editing the redirect resulting from the first move. This is what prevented you from simply moving it back properly and what gave you all your trouble. Anyway, we'll see how the current requestd move goes. --Polaron | Talk 02:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume you must realize that this doesn't always work (seems to be a bug in the software). I tried to do the move on this article but WP refused to allow it. Since at the time I was trying to go for DYK and I was obviously going to need admin help to fix it I did the copy as a stopgap measure. And as I mentioned before, since I wasn't the one who did the move, it wasn't really my job to chase down the admins to fix the problem. --Mcorazao (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Polaron, if there is any chance that a page move will be contested, it is far better IMO to open a Requested Move in the first place, which is easy to do. In pretty much any case where an editor has just developed a new article, either the editor should be the one to move it (and you could suggest it), or it should be addressed by a Requested Move. It is just too likely to be taken as an affront, a slap in the face, if you move it without consulting the editor who has just invested a good amount of time and energy in developing something. You may be right about what is the better permanent name for the article when all factors are considered at higher levels, but you didn't present your reasoning to secure agreement before a move. And you have to be polite or it will certainly lead to misunderstandings/contention/ ANI cases. For another example, right now I am addressing what appears to be a misnamed article at Downtown Greensburg Historic District; i just opened discussion at Talk:Downtown Greensburg Historic District. If the editor there agrees up front, then the editor or I will make the move. Or if it turns out there are sources and reasons i don't know about, my opinion about need for move may change. Or maybe there will be disagreement and it is appropriate to open a Requested Move. Requested Moves are usually very polite, helpful processes. What happened here did cost a lot of overhead in ANI discussion and so on already. And the editor has probably lost the DYK. It was just a big unnecessary disruption, which could have been avoided by some polite discussion at Talk page first. --doncram (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved the article as I said on the Talk page before seeing the message from Mcorazao. As I've said, he could have simply moved it back at that time instead of editing the redirect. I didn't think it was going to be an issue at all until after the move was done. --Polaron | Talk 16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I did do the Undo before trying to change anything else. This is a software bug (I've seen it before). WP says that the edit can be undone but when you click "Save page" it simply reverts back to what was there already. I've only ever seen that happen when undoing page moves. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about that, that Mcorazao could have moved it back right then. But, as Mcorazao points out and knows from experience, it is often not possible to move a page back, and it is hard to tell when that will be the case. I have myself thought the move system was broken (and i think sometimes it was), it is so hard to tell. And, given you have made an unexplained abrupt move, what should Mcorazao think you would do if M moved it back? If it happened to me, I would expect that you would yourself move it back again, or try, or otherwise cause a ruckus. I hope you are not meaning to deny the point that an abrupt move of a page that an editor is actively developing, is likely to cause misunderstanding/contention/drama? I think it is very similar to your redirecting a page that i was in the midst of developing (Fairfield Railway Stations or something?), not too long ago. It is almost a 100% rule, that if you interrupt an editor working productively, with an unexplained move or redirect, that you will cause drama. If your goal is to cause drama, go ahead. By doing that, you can almost surely cause distress, disturb an editor who was working productively, cause overhead / involvement of numerous others, and contribute perhaps to driving people out of the Wikipedia project. You have a different choice available, every time, though. --doncram (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page before I moved it. I didn't do anything against the BRD process you always cite. --Polaron | Talk 16:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your pointing to wp:BRD, and generally talking here. I do believe you are trying to improve the wikipedia in the El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area article case and elsewhere. But, actually, I don't think BRD is appropriate to start with. If you read BRD, it is about an option to pursue when there has been plenty of discussion already, and there is deadlock / impasse, when "Editing a particular page has become tricky, too many people are stuck discussing endlessly, and no progress can be made." I am not checking the Talk page there, but I don't have the impression that was the type of situation there. If you apply "bold"-type moves, you are likely to cause drama. Perhaps you are referring to the issue at Talk:List of NHLs in CT, where i have objected to another editor who did not pursue BRD properly IMO, after the first instance. There, the first removal of material was arguably okay under BRD, as the issue had been discussed out pretty far in other places that the editor and I both knew about, and knew that each other knew about. Here, the issue was not discussed out beforehand AFAIK, though perhaps there was more discussion that i don't known about. And, if there was an impasse, the Requested Move would be the preferred option; a bold move is not needed as Requested Move machinery is available (unlike to address the CT NHLs issue, where there is no obvious other process to go to, instead). --doncram (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Greensburg Downtown Historic District (Pennsylvania)

Yes, your suggestion regarding renaming sounds reasonable; I'm embarrassed that I couldn't copy the name down in the correct order. I can't imagine that anyone would object. This is beyond my technical expertise, and it sounds like you are already knowledgeable about making this type of change. Go ahead!

In case you were wondering, Greensburg, Pa., is my hometown. I also created the Academy Hill Historic District article, although it needs more work regarding references.

I used to access NRHP nomination forms via the Pennsylvania government's ARCH system, which is now defunct. Their newer website (ARGIS) is a nightmare and I have not been successful in accessing it. Thank you for the compliment! Canadian2006 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good. I moved the article per that. Sorry i guess i used to use ARCH some, have not done PA stuff recently, don't get how to get NRHP docs out of PA's newer ARGIS interface either. Also commented more at Talk:Greensburg Downtown Historic District (Greensburg, Pennsylvania). --doncram (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I can help you with the CRGIS (not ARGIS) if you want. The system is overall self-explanatory with multiple help pages if you can find them; try here for some help. I've also emailed you a how-to-use-CRGIS document that someone from the Pennsylvania SHPO sent me. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what kind of computer do you use? You'll have to download some sort of Windows-based program to run CRGIS (I downloaded it in July, so I don't remember what it is), which has worked fine on my Windows-based computer; Smallbones has reported an inability to use it on his/her Macintosh computer. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

New PA NRHP articles

I'm thinking that merging the Manchester Historic District into the Manchester neighborhood article would work, as the historic district is an integral part of the neighborhood.

I left a note on Canadian2006's talk page with links to the documents, as well an offer to try and explain how use the CRGIS system. I clarified, somewhat, how to find things with the database in the editor resource subpage.

By the way, I'm not sure when, but I'm probably going to tap you for a PR of Pithole, Pennsylvania, a ghost town on the NRHP. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! (tho i tried, again, a bit feebly perhaps, and couldnt get it to work), and sure.  :) --doncram (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edgerton

FYI: The estate house in Edgerton Park in New Haven was torn down about 40 years ago, as directed in the will of the owner, who bequeathed the property to the city. The buildings that remain on the property (as an NRHP-listed property) were support buildings (such as carriage houses or gatehouses). --Orlady (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Have interested me in adding a bit to the Edgerton Park article. And then yes the demolition was in 1964 apparently. More at Talk:Edgerton (Hamden and New Haven, Connecticut). --doncram (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... 1964 is much longer ago than I remembered... --Orlady (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

New Haven County NRHPs

As you can see at the talk page, I think that my own error is the major reason for the misunderstanding between us. Sorry for confusing you. Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Montauk Association Historic District

On March 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Montauk Association Historic District, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, Doncram. You deserve this. ----DanTD (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

disambig note

I've replied to your comment on my talk page. —Ipoellet (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I commented, briefly. Lvklock (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Check ur email. Lvklock (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

New Haven

Hi. I userfied the Neighborhoods article, as "not ready for prime time" (namely article space), based on the discussion on the talk page. Neighborhoods articles in general are reasonable to create, but articles should not be created on as little basis as this one has.

Note that I reviewed your latest DYK nomination (Whitney Avenue HD) and found multiple issues. --Orlady (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nawa-I-Barakzayi District reviews

Hi Palm dogg. Glad you found the peer review of Nawa-I-Barakzayi District article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Nawa-I-Barakzayi District/archive1 to be helpful. Actually, it is not necessarily over. The peer review has not been closed. You could, like many editors do, respond to the comments there, for example inserting your responses and/or asking questions. If you respond that you have edited to address a specific concern, then the reviewer who raised the concern may well give you further feedback on how you did. Also i noticed you have somehow put it up for GAR, but it seems not properly done as it is currently showing you yourself as the GA reviewer, and it also seems not correct to do while the peer review is still open, though i am not well informed about GA. I participate in the PR review process sometimes but frankly unfamiliar with how the GA process works. Anyhow, you could comment further in the PR or simply ask there that it be closed. --doncram (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! In that case I'd say close it. You guys gave me more than enough feedback to keep me busy for a while! Thanks! Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

NRHP Info

Where is a good place to find info about the NRHP. Their website really only has basic info, I'm looking for where I can find enough info to create a stub/start article. CTJF83 chat 03:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Your talk page says to reply here, so i will. You can start any NRHP article by clicking on a redlink in the system of lists of NRHP places wikipedians have built up, indexed from here. Hey, the best sources vary according to what U.S. state your NRHP of interest is located in. A very good source is always the NRHP nomination document, which usually is a well-written wp:RS, written by a historian. For some states, the Federal website with this search screen will serve up those documents, but it's confusing: it seems to be promising results even when they don't have the document scanned and available, so in fact you might not get anything there. Some individual states make their documents available separately. If you're more specific about the NRHP of interest i could help more. But, for all NRHPs, there's a handy system to generate an NRHP infobox and appropriate categories and more info, supported by User:Elkman mostly using the National Register's public domain NRIS database. To use it, search for your NRHP by name at http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php. It generates output ready for you to cut-and-paste into your article. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Editor help, which gives state-specific tips and more. Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm working on getting Neighborhoods of Davenport, Iowa to GA, and it mentions both the Blackhawk Hotel and Kahl Building so I feel it necessary to start those articles. CTJF83 chat 04:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Davenport Library has some pretty good info for a stub [3] I'd still like ideas from you on where to find more...especially cause my site is downtown buildings only. CTJF83 chat 04:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course. Well you've made a good start with those. I see you found an Iowa state level nomination form, the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs / State Historical Society of Iowa's "Iowa Site Inventory Form", for the Kahl Building. Its bibliography includes:

• Svendsen, Marlys. “Davenport, Where the River Runs West: A Survey of Davenport History & Architecture”. ND.

which sounds like a useful source, and it also mentions the Richardson-Sloane Special Collections of the Davenport Public Library. If you can go there, the special collections could well turn out to have a file folder of newspaper clippings and locally-published materials about the building. And you certainly should still request the NRHP nomination documents for the two sites, from the U.S. National Register office. Did you ever receive the noms for the several Davenport historic districts that we were working on, a while back? --doncram (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Like, i see the corresponding Iowa Site Inventory form for the Blackhawk includes mention of a brochure from the Blackhawk, which is the kind of local item that a good special collections will keep in a file on the Blackhawk. Also, trying the Quad City's PrairieCat library search screen linked from there, i find: "

Book: The Kahl legacy: the history, the man, the vision / Authors Connie Heckert, Scott Community College Foundation / Material type Book / Subject Kahl Building (Davenport, Iowa), Kahl, Henry C., History Language English / Publisher Scott Community College Foundation / Year [2000]. ISBN 0970515901 / Annotation 1st ed." That sounds like a useful source! So you've made a good start already, but it seems like there's more available locally and in the NRHP nom docs, yet to be obtained. --doncram (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I never received an e-mail. Do you have better luck when you request them? Thanks for the info, I guess I could always go to the library, which I'm sure will have lots of sources....problem is they close too early, so I can't work on them at 11pm and later. CTJF83 chat 21:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, that's not good. I have never had problems. There was just one time when an email request of mine got mislaid, but it was inbetween multiple requests by me and some other correspondence with them about information corrections, so it was very understandable that one email got lost. I have never heard of any other instance where the National Register staff didn't get back to someone promptly (if only to say that it will perhaps take 2 weeks for them to get a photocopy out in the mail, though usually they do it quicker). Could you please try again? You need to email to: "nr_reference (at) nps.gov" (replace the (at) by @ sign and remove spaces). I hope i didn't give u an incorrect email address before. I hear you about libraries not being open when you feel like wikipediaizing. :( --doncram (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I sent it January 31, to the correct address. It is very possible I over looked it when I glanced at my spam folder, I resent it, and will hopefully receive a reply soon. CTJF83 chat 21:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have specifics you work on, or do you just go where you're needed? CTJF83 chat 22:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

They asked me for my home address, which is fine, but I just figured they'd e-mail me a copy...is this how they usually do it for you? CTJF83 chat 05:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

About what i work on, I have some big projects that i return to. These include supporting the U.S.-wide system of NRHP lists by developing lists themselves, developing supporting disambiguation, developing NRHP infobox, and developing the help info available from wp:NRHP. I take and add photos and develop NRHP articles in areas i have visited (and i have quite a backlog to process). I happily work with others interested in developing on NRHPs anywhere in the U.S. Of non-NRHP stuff, i work some on World Heritage Sites world-wide and otherwise in wp:HSITES. And i browse around and do other stuff hard to classify, like helping some recently on the big problem of unsourced Biographies of Living Persons.

About getting the nom docs, I have received a good number that way, by postal mail. Only for some states do they have scanned copies ready to email. Like many govt offices, they find it easier to photocopy than to scan and email, i guess. --doncram (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you want to work on some of the Scott County places with me and develop articles, or are you tied up on other stuff right now? CTJF83 chat 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to. But, the point we were stalled at a while back, was needing to get the NRHP noms to work from. Will you be able to scan what you receive and share by email? I have a scanner that works pretty good and have done that a couple of times with others. Or, maybe i should send a request to the National Register to get photocopies of the same items sent to me, too. Hmm, they might easily be able to run two photocopies at once...I would send a request right away if you can list here what are the places for which you've requested docs. --doncram (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I requested for Prospect Park Historic District (Davenport, Iowa), and my parent's have a scanner I can go use, so e-mailing them is no problem. They won't get tired of sending me copies of the nominations, I hope. CTJF83 chat 18:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As noted on the picture I just uploaded...the sign for the Kahl Building says Kahl Building and Capitol Theatre, should the article remain named Kahl Building as that is the NRHP name, and then just put Kahl Building and Capitol Theatre bolded as the lead? CTJF83 chat 03:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you see my above question? :) CTJF83 chat 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, replied at Talk:Kahl Building just now. Whatever is the most common usage should apply for the article name, IMO, though the NRHP infobox should keep showing the official NRHP name identifying what was NRHP-listed. I don't have any sources to add info to this article, currently. --doncram (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally got the Riverview Terace stuff from the NRHP! CTJF83 chat 21:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Do the map locations have to be of the location within the state? Can it be switched to the location within the city such as the map of McClellan Heights Historic District CTJF83 chat 06:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties

While, thanks to Pubdog, Maryland has at least stubs for every NRHP property, the Maryland Historical Trust has recently posted the noms for every property but those in Baltimore City here [4]. In addition, they've posted the documentation for the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties, which follows the NRHP format for every vaguely historical building in the state, many of them contributing properties in HDs. The server seems to be steam-powered, even worse than NPS Focus, so patience is indicated. The MIHP was mostly done in the 1990s, so it is somewhat dated. Acroterion _(talk)

Thanks! I used it for Bevard House (where i drafted a reference for one of its documents) and for mention at Talk:Hooper House (Baltimore County, Maryland). (Funny about those Baltimore County towns, are they not legal towns or what, why would Bare Hills, Maryland and Upper Falls, Maryland both currently show as red-links. Or is Maryland under-scrutinized so far by wikipedians?) --doncram (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky prod

Hi Doncram/Archive 13 ! The template workshop has now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that policy can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and we hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. --Kudpung (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Charles Woodruff House

Article has been moved; thanks for the notification. I deleted the Oregon redirect, since I seriously doubt that it would be a useful redirect. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Carole Mukogawa

Hi Doncram/Archive 13! This is a one line musician bio that you created back in September. Your last comment was "more research needed". I've spent a little time googling ... clearly Carole is an active session musician, but I can't find references to membership of well known ensembles or recordings in her own name. Therefore I'm not convinced that she satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. What do you think? Where would you like to go with this article?

I've got this page on my watchlist if you prefer to reply here.

Thanks

Cje (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cje, thanks for your note. I was aware of the musician performing as the lead in a small ensemble and knew vaguely of her recording regularly in Peanuts music and otherwise. I am not able to dig up, easily, sufficient evidence to meet wp:MUSICBIO standards, as i don't immediately find individual recordings by her. I wonder if there is some main article in which she could be mentioned, and convert this article into a redirect to that, but marked as a redirect with possibilities. --doncram (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has tagged for expansion/cleanup. So I've just added a note to the talk page to see if anyone else can help. Will see what happens! Cje (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Whitney Avenue Historic District

On March 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Whitney Avenue Historic District, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

NRHP in Salt Lake City naming trouble

Could you take a look at WT:NRHP#Salt Lake City Public Library when you get a chance? I really want to move this into mainspace, but I'm not sure what to name the article.

And btw, have fun with your dab troubles haha.. I hate to say I told you so.. but I told you so. I still think that if you'd just slow down and put a little more effort into each article you create, you'd have a lot less trouble. It only took a few hours (and that's only because I took breaks) to put together this library page, and it's over 10K now. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Meh! I just want to get the NRHP disambiguation done. A hiccup or two is to be expected, when covering so much. I've run up the total of dabs from 1800 to 2500 in very short amount of time. It will all be done soon enough, even if have to pause and discuss further at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation page now. Sure, i'll take a look at that. Saw your posting at wt:NRHP but didn't have any bright ideas for you easily. :) --doncram (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about the NRHP drive for dab pages

Our DAB discussion notwithstanding, I realize that you're active in the NRHP project and hope you'll entertain a question of mine. I know that you'd like the NRHP entries to all have pages, and that you'd also like them to have appropriate disambiguation entries. But why focus on the disambiguation pages over the basic articles? I realize there's some off-chance that someone will create those pages because there is a disambiguation page link, but that's statistically rare. I don't want my DAB opinions to be throwing up roadblocks to another project, but I don't see the pre-emptive creation as all that valuable, which I suppose colors my opinion about DAB policy (although maybe it shouldn't). I'd welcome hearing the NRHP project's motivations for the push. Shadowjams (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your asking and your general thoughtfulness about this.

The disambiguation pages should all be created now, i feel, because NRHP article creation is going on and generating new articles at incorrect, non-disambiguated page names, all the time. They are being created from the NRHP list-articles, which is a big system whose state-level lists are indexed at List of RHPs. One editor is marching through all the New York State ones right now, for example, heading towards creating good starter articles for all 5,000 of them. No one is creating NRHP articles simply because they appear in a disambiguation page. I am not creating the dab pages in order to promote NRHP article creation. They are to head off a lot of conflict, contention, bad links, etc. now and in the future.

One alternative, which has been favored up until recently, was for me to generate at least one quick stub article per new dab page, so that there would be at least one primary blue-link. I personally don't mind that, though it slows me down and prolongs the process of setting up all the needed dab pages unnecessarily. That, however, causes several NRHP-focussed editors to go beserk, more or less: some of them really hate the creation of short stub articles. For creating NRHP articles, it makes sense for local editors to create them when they have visited the sites and gotten pictures, or for the articles to be created systematically according to where sources are available to allow more than minimal stub articles from the get-go. For example, because New York State makes available NRHP nomination documents on-line, the New York State ones can all be created in an orderly way right now, with efficient generation of similar references. It is inefficient and unnecessary to force stub articles to be created, at more minimal quality, at the scattered sites covered in dab pages. But some of the New York pages will be created at incorrect names, causing more work later, if the dabbing is not completed out first, now.

Please also see my commenting a bit further at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#feedback requested on NRHP dab pages discussion just now. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. I think the goal of uniform and orderly dab page creation is a good one. I personally would be ok with a solution that allowed for the quiet creation of those pages (I'm not going to start mass prodding), but leaving the DAB page rules alone. Another idea, and maybe the project already does this, is to make dab page creation standard whenever making the NRHP page (if it's one that needs one, of course).

I haven't yet reconciled two contradictory opinions I have about this: (*) dab pages ought to have two direct links; but (*) insisting on that for these NRHP creations seems dogmatic and unnecessary. It's an interesting question.

Of course, thank you for engaging me in a very thoughtful discussion. As an aside, what method did you use to figure out which pages would need disambiguation and which wouldn't? Doing that by hand would seem pretty tedious, but doing it with a script would be equally difficult. Shadowjams (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

During the last year i have primarily used tools created and supported by User:Elkman, specifically this "who has" tool, which permits searches of the latest version of the NRIS database that the National Register has put into the public domain, and which Elkman downloaded. You could search on a given name and find out if there are multiple occurences in the National Register. More recently, i downloaded my own copy of NRIS, and ran database programs to generate draft dab articles indexed here. I still rely heavily upon the Elkman who has tool in creating and improving dabs, and other Elkman tools which have long been provided to perform other functions. --doncram (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Check your E-mail. Lvklock (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Walter Cook (disambiguation)

Hello, just to let you know that this disambiguation page has been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig. If you have any questions about this, please let me know. Best wishes, Boleyn3 (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notification. As you've noticed, i responded at Walter Cook (disambiguation) by adding another article, taking it out of the criteria for deletion i think. Was not familiar with that criteria. By the way i've noticed your edits to many disambiguation pages on my watchlist, and think you're doing generally fine work. I did notice you adding a cu tag to one or a few articles which already had the {{NRHP dab needing cleanup}} tag already, though. For the NRHP cleanup ones, they are already well marked enough by that tag, i think. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

New red linked dab

Your article is fine, but all it consists of are two redlinks. Are you planning to make them soon? Buggie111 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh. No. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#feedback requested on NRHP dab pages and join in the festivity of it all. :( --doncram (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Cousin, Francois, House

I have just edited the page Cousin, Francois, House to redirect to Francois Cousin House (Slidell, Louisiana) as that is the only page on Wikipedia I could find with the correct title. Cousin, Francois, House had redirected to Francois Cousin House, which does not exist. I'm contacting you in case this is not the way to go as far as your project is concerned. Rejectwater (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• I see you've been busy. Thank you. Rejectwater (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks, yes, just been fixing that up. Thanks for calling it to my attention. I hadn't gone all the way into fixing it properly before. Still messy, as coordinates for the two places are incorrect in the National Register database system. --doncram (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility

Your incivility is not appreciated.[5] Station1 (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hooper House (Baltimore) Correction

The home is actually located in Baltimore county, BUT it is only half a mile outside the Baltimore city line. While I'm pretty sure it would be more correct to say Bare Hills, MD, even people who live there wouldn't know where you were talking about. On mail, the house's address is written in "Baltimore, MD" - so your change is valid. I thought I'd clarify for your benefit though. How do i know this? I lived in the house from ages 12-22ish, and I still keep a room there. Spiral5800 (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages that are red links

Does it make much sense to create a disambiguation page whose contents are entirely redlinks? LadyofShalott 04:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking. Yes, actually! The places are legit entries, wikipedia notable, and comply with MOS:DABRL. Some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#feedback requested on NRHP dab pages. --doncram (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link to the NRHP discussion - I see there has been much said on this issue already. LadyofShalott 04:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Otis Elevator Company Building

The article Otis Elevator Company Building has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page with only redlinks

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Codf1977 (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for commenting. I removed the PROD though. See other short discussions above, and, again, my response is: The red-link places are legit entries, wikipedia notable, and comply with MOS:DABRL. Please see ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#feedback requested on NRHP dab pages. If you have further questions/comments, probably they are best made in that discussion. --doncram (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Natchez Trace

You recently created a disambiguation page that seems inappropriate. These really shouldn't be separate articles and is probably better treated under the existing Natchez Trace article. This is a single old road from Mississippi to Tennessee. --Polaron | Talk 18:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Polaron, and I converted Old Natchez Trace to a redirect. There is one "Natchez Trace", aka "Old Natchez Trace," not a bunch of different roads by the same name. Creating the page was a good thing, though, as there was a need for an Old Natchez Trace page to help people find the article. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I restored and extended the disambiguation page. Am copying the above comments to Talk:Old Natchez Trace and will respond there. --doncram (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Sorry, I have been very busy with new house....

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at User_talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects#BLP_and_wikiprojects_expanding_their_role.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Okip 01:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hammond House

Thank you for keeping the written-out state names when otherwise reverting my recent edit to Hammond House. Also thanks for fixing the bluelink for the Mary Alice Hammond House there. These are improvements. There are still many redlinks on the page, however, that do not have corresponding bluelinks that mention the redlinks. Do you plan to fix these? If so, I will wait a few days before doing anything. I still disagree with the ordering, though, especially since the only article actually titled Hammond House is buried in the middle of the page. Station1 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting here. I am sorry for being impolite in another exchange or two recently. I want to acknowledge that I do think your concerns are generally valid. I however get frustrated when i see content such as legitimate dab items deleted from a page, which might have happened in some previous cases. Perhaps if there are individual items that are not adequately supported, those could be removed to the Talk page for discussion.

Okay, i just revisited the dab article to build out supporting bluelinks for the other NRHP ones listed. And, in the process, i removed a couple and commented at Talk:Hammond House about the inclusion or not of several items. There are actually four places whose articles would now be "Hammond House (__)" with disambiguation in parentheses: one in Canada, two in New York State, one in Texas. I personally think the dab page is now in reasonably good condition, but I have to acknowledge there is room for other opinions about some matters. If very specific to this dab, perhaps best continued at its Talk page. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the bluelinks. I think the entries actually titled Hammond House on WP should come first, as described at MOS:DAB#Order of entries item 3-1 (as opposed to item 3-3), because someone typing in or linking to the phrase Hammond House is more likely to be searching for these topics. Also, Hammond House (New York, New York) is a redirect, and I think we may have agreed earlier that these were generally undesirable. Station1 (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I just went to the dab page to address the New York, New York one, and find that Orlady has just revised the item by this edit, which seems fine. To anyone else watching this thread, over the last year there's been discussion about order of entries and, i think, more-or-less consensus that geographic ordering is okay and specifically can be included in wp:MOSDAB (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Order of entries allowing geographic order explicitly. To be honest, about listing the 4 3 places whose wikipedia articles have name "Hammond House" first, and then the rest by geographic order say, on this dab page, would have some merit. I don't personally think it is worthwhile to mix up the types of ordering though. There are some very short dab pages of places where either way would really serve readers okay. There are some very long dab pages where non-geographic order would seem very unhelpful, in my view. Note, by existing and/or previous dab page guidelines, inserting subsection headers for state names or letters A, B, etc. would justify sorting the places geographically, and override using some rule of putting the exact article name matches. It seems that inserting subsection headers or removing them should not necessitate changing the overall order. So for this and other reasons i prefer just using geographic order for dab lists of places. --doncram (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

330 North Wabash

I am unable to get the 330 North Wabash to show the NRHP header. I also need ref no info, style info and other general assistance with the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure! Added refnum and that seemed to do the trick to show the NRHP header, and showed NRHP listing name in infobox. Feel free to edit down redundancy in footnote i added, or otherwise change. Not sure what style this is, is it International style (architecture), or some other Modernist (architecture)? For whichever, add "architecture= ___" to infobox. Hope this much helps. --doncram (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

I ran across a few more of your dab pages on NPP, and I wondered if you'd considered asking for auto-reviewer status. It would simplify a lot of what you're dealing with in terms of talk page responses, as it would for new page patrollers. I would second your request insofar as it applies to these NRHP dab pages, notwithstanding my reservations about extending that concept beyond that point. Shadowjams (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess that would be helpful. I believed my account already had some status like autoreviewer which removed my edits from the general stream, already, but i guess whatever i already have is different. Indeed it does not seem right to involve NPPers into the well-considered-already, somewhat arcane issue area of the NRHP dab pages, and that has been coming up repeatedly. I'll put my name forward in the linked place for that. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I added an explanation on top of yours, which I'm sure you've seen. Sorry for adding myself immediately above. I knew about the flag, and when I started looking at it for you I thought that it might be helpful for myself too. Sorry if that makes the whole ordeal a little awkward. Shadowjams (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are already on that list... dm (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You've been an autoreviewer since last June. Acroterion _(talk) 12:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Obviously i am not very familiar with how you see these things attached to an account, and how many different things like this are possible. Like are there different exemptions from NPPers for new articles, vs. exemptions from review for edits to existing articles, etc. I can just imagine how dreadful it would be for anyone creating NRHP dab pages without Autoreviewer status, by the way, since i am getting enough heat as it is. Anyhow, thanks! --doncram (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's strange because I thought I was seeing your articles unpatrolled, which is why I assumed you didn't have it. In retrospect I bet my mistake was that I was seeing your pages through AWB and not through new page patrolling, which I got mixed up because I tend to do the two at the same time. Thanks for that anyway, sorry for any inconvenience. Shadowjams (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Natchez Trace (band)

I speedied this - being a nominee for a "best of city local band" award isn't really a claim of notability per WP:BAND. Feel free to repost if you find more information that shows that WP:BAND is met. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That was obnoxious to delete within a minute or two of first edit. I restored and am continuing to develop. --doncram (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Talk:Natchez Trace (band). --Orlady (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And mine. You're mixing up two bands, and possibly three or four. Station1 (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Henry Whitfield House

There is only one such house in Guilford. I'm not sure why you think there are two separate houses. There are two refnums because the house was listed on the NRHP in 1972 before it became a NHL in 1997. The NHL added some outbuildings but I don't think this warrants separate articles for each nomination when there is only one property. --Polaron | Talk 00:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I was just requesting help at wp:RM to undo the move i did, when i got your note. I went back and completed that request. It was a mistake; i was temporarily misunderstanding NRIS records which i thot showed they were in fact two different houses. As i pulled up the 2 sets of full PDF documents, i saw that it was a mistake as photos show same house. Oddly there are many sorta similar cases where two houses of same name in same town exist, and I have recently been identifying and separating many of those which previously had been conflated, erroneously. Glad this is not one of those cases! Thanks --doncram (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Kent Jail on the Portage County, Ohio list — it has two reference numbers because it was listed, removed, and relisted at a different address. Nyttend (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Why mention gender?

At AfD, you made a statement (referring to me) that said in part: "the deletion-nominator herself (her choice to give gender)". I am interested in your emphasis on gender in that context. Did you do that simply to avert a needless typical-of-Wikipedia harangue about whether you had correctly identified my gender, or do you consider that calling someone a female is inherently defamatory, so you needed to caveat your comment by asserting that I myself admitted to being female? I want to believe that the former reason applies, but I have wondered on occasion whether your antagonism toward me is a symptom of misogynist views. --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I was explaining, to non-involved others, why i did not write "s/he", "himself/herself" etc. --doncram (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad (and relieved) to know that. --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Orlady on the attack?

We may need to file an Administrators Notice on Orlady, and her tag-team partner TallMagic (aka Bill Huffman). She's resorting to "wikistalking" me, and claiming as a "reliable source" a snapshot of an outdated website that said in big red letters, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE BECOME AWARE OF SOME QUESTIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATABASE. What do you think? I fear that she's lost all objectivity on the subject I am interested in, which is not libeling an enterprise with questionable and outdated claims of illegal operation that never saw light of day anywhere in the state of Pennsylvania. -- CRedit 1234 (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently unrelated, but this reminds me that there are cons everywhere: FYI. --Orlady (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP Prod testpage

Do you still need Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop/testpage or can it be deleted ? Cenarium (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Users with new unsourced Biographies of Living People under review

Your input is requested at WT:STICKY#Category:Users with new unsourced Biographies of Living People under review Gigs (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Pics

Added some new pics. Take a look at Dr. Christopher S. Best House and Office, Bellinger-Dutton House and Livingstonville Community Church. Lvklock (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Check your e-mail once again. Lvklock (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Added a couple more to lists; Weldon House in Greene County and Dubois House in Columbia County. Lvklock (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sent yet an different e-mail. Lvklock (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prods

Hi Doncram/Archive 13'! You participated earlier in the sticky prod workshop. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few points of contention.
There are now a few proposals on the table to conclude the process. I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks. --Maurreen (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

New Castle County NRHP listings

Thanks for your attention to New Castle County, Delaware NRHP listings. You may not want to make minor adjustments there, because I think this is the most screwed up county listing anywhere (anytime!). A brief explanation won't cover everything - but - municipal names in the county are almost meaningless - there is Wilmington, Newark, and New Castle and everyplace else. Many listings with Wilmington, just aren't close (but how to decide what stays in the Wilmington list?). There are no townships in the County and the "Hundreds" have only historical meaning are are hard for me to find the borders of. I might suggest breaking this down into 4 or 5 new lists, but that would take a bit of work - perhaps 1) Wilmington proper 2) Newark area (NWestern part of County) 3) New Castle area 4) Everything else south of I-94 and 5) Everything else = NE part of county = Wilmington area. It would take a lot of work, and some judgement calls. Drop me a note in a couple of weeks if you'd like to help doing this!. Smallbones (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cecil Alexander

Hello! Your submission of Cecil Alexander at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Storye book (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Feedback request

at Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Wilmington,_Delaware#Cleaning_up_the_New_Castle_County_lists

Thanks

Smallbones (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

McClelland Farmstead

Thanks for the note; I've offered a revised hook. Did you want a link to the nomination form? Here you go; the relevant passage is on the third page. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion, but I've proposed an alternate hook; please check it out. Also, sorry for the confusion; perhaps you already discovered that I meant to say the fourth page, not the third. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that I'm angry? If so, I'm sorry; I didn't mean to create that impression. Please don't "bow out" because of what I've said; there's no way that you're being unhelpful here. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Wilkinson-Martin House

On April 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wilkinson-Martin House, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Critique of Ansel Adams article

Hello! I've done an annotated critique of the Ansel Adams article, which I invite you to review at User:Cullen328/Sandbox Ansel Adams. My wife gave me a copy of the Alinder biography for my birthday, which I've just finished reading. I am now prepared to make a lot of edits to the article, but will start out with various factual "nuggets" rather than a major rewrite. I hope to hear your detailed thoughts on how the article can be improved, so that the process can be a collaboration among all interested editors. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Shelby House

Are you planning to rework Shelby House, or is the current format now accepted by the disambiguation wikiproject? I've created an article on one property by this name, by the way. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't think that I'm trying to get on you about the dab project standards, by the way; I really don't pay attention to their standards (all I know is that your contributions page shows that you're discussing something at their project page currently), so I'm actually curious, not asking a rhetorical question with a point. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for asking. This version of Shelby House which you refered to was not yet acceptable to anyone. It was one that i had created quickly and left in draft form, tagged with "NRHP dab needing cleanup" for me to fix up later. There are about 100 left in the NRHP dab cleanup category that i am fixing up steadily. I plan/expect to finish in a couple weeks. I did just now fix this one up to this current version of Shelby House which I think is acceptable to the disambiguation wikiproject editors. Except there is continuing discussion with one or a few of those, about order of entries. Some want to keep shuffling the entries, out of geographical order, which i think is simplest and best.

The recent advance with them is that the dab page in the current version, which now shows one primary bluelink for the Botkins, Ohio one, would now be deemed acceptable even without that link being blue. From the recent discussions, it is now consensus that pages of all primary redlink items, as long as each has a proper supporting bluelink, are acceptable. In the past those would often be nominated for deletion, and i had previously agreed in negotiation with some of them to create at least one stub article when creating a dab page. Since the stubs were so disliked by some NRHP editors, i pressed to renegotiate that, and i think it is now consensus and will hold. Knock on wood. :) --doncram (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at SunCreator's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

again Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphan tag

Please do not remove maintence tags without addressing the problems as you did here. This page is still an orphan. EuroPride (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:EuroPride, since archived by EuroPride. Resolution was that orphan tag was kept off the page. --doncram (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)

It is obvious you are over 3rr on this article ([6], [7], [8], and [9] are all functionally reverts to basically [10].) During this time period you appear to have engaged in limited discussion at Talk:Old_Natchez_Trace_(disambiguation)#to_name.2C_or_not.2C_the_7_NRHP_places_of_this_name. You should consider yourself on a 24 hour functional reversion ban from the article - if you are to revert it yet again in the next 24 hours, I will report your edit warring. I don't know or care about the DAB, but it appears that two editors disagree with your proposed changes. Engage in discussion with them. If you cannot reach a consensus, seek outside input. If that still does not work, seek mediation. If that also fails, seek arbitration. Continued edit warring will no longer work. Hipocrite (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

T:tdyk listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect T:tdyk. Since you had some involvement with the T:tdyk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). TB (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Carpenter House Changes

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at Jrcrin001's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--

NRHP infobox map question

McClellan Heights Historic District location shown as an area within the city of Davenport, Iowa

You may have missed this up higher.....Do the map locations have to be of the location within the state? Can it be switched to the location within the city such as the map of McClellan Heights Historic District. CTJF83 chat 04:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Currently, only a few maps at less than state level, including for county of Los Angeles and for New York City, are supported in the NRHP infobox map display area, as far as I know. For a NYC place, you could choose locmapin=USA, locmapin=New York, locmapin=New York City, to have a point location of the coordinates given in the infobox display as a dot on the map. Or you could leave the parameter blank to suppress map display. If you have a suitable map ready for use for Davenport, Iowa places, I think you could ask to have that enabled for use for display of point locations. You could ask at Template talk:infobox nrhp about how to get that done, and i for one would like to know, but the answer will probably be to ask at some higher level place. The infobox nrhp uses programming from some higher level place. Also, to include a customized map like this Davenport one where you have somehow highlighted the HD's area, you could simply display that as the infobox's image, in lieu of a photograph. You could ask at Template talk:infobox nrhp about gaining ability to display 2 images, like one for a photo and one for a custom map. That I would also like to learn about. --doncram (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll ask there. CTJF83 chat 17:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)