Jump to content

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Cambridge, Massachusetts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]

All lists of National Registered Historic Places are generated from the National Park Service. Their Template is the source. No new place can be added unless it is put on the National List. This and other articles were created as transfers verbatim from the List of Registered Historic Places in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, which Wikipedia said was way too long. The original list has links to each new list under the city or town's heading it was transferred from. Size of original article was reduced by about 75%. clariosophic 23:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder. City of Cambridge has photos of almost all properties in Cambridge online.

[edit]

This is a general reminder for everyone. The City of Cambridge has photos of almost *all* properties in the city of Cambridge online for *free*. It is on the city's "Assessing Department" website seen here.

Example 770 Mass Ave. (the Central Square post office across from City Hall.) CaribDigita 23:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but note the copyright notice at the bottom of each page. It is only Federal government images and text that are automatically free of copyright. State and local governments have their own rules.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although, if you click on "Disclaimer" it says info can be used for individual or non-commercial usage?? "COMMERCIAL USE PROHIBITED: This web site and the contents are intended only for the individual, non-commercial use of web site users. No user of this web site may resell, republish, print, download or copy any portion of this web site or the contents for commercial use without the prior written consent of the City of Cambridge, except that reasonable copying or printing of its contents for individual, non-commercial use is permitted." CaribDigita (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good find, but it proves my point. Wiki policy is to use only images that are free for all use, commercial and non-commercial, "Any content which does not satisfy any of the criteria, such as "non-commercial use" only images, images with permission for use on Wikipedia only, or images that are fully copyrighted are classified as non-free." (see Wikipedia:Non-free content).. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, it could be a great resource: for example, if I were to be in Cambridge and carry out a personal Wikipedia Takes Cambridge project, I'd use it to make sure that my pictures were of the right buildings. Nyttend (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can see you point on images that are un-hindered by various stipulations. CaribDigita (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009 scan

[edit]
  • Scanned all links without photos. Made two dab link corrections and added six pictures from the linked pages
  • There are HABS/HAER photos on Cambridge. Some may be appropriate
  • Better yet, a local wikipedian could take several "Sunday strolls" with a digital camera. A nice walk from the major squares could easily yield many nice color pictures. I would enjoy seeing them on this page.
  • My May 2009 upload of the HABS photo of the Cambridge City Hall is probably not correct for the Central Square Historic District. I put is because it is my clearest memory of Central Square. Someone should look up the actual boundaries and contributing properties of that historic district and replace it. I'll leave it up for now, but feel free to delete it. KudzuVine (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
City Hall is within the boundaries of the Central Square District (Mass Ave, Clinton to Main), but it also has its own District, whose bounds on Mass Ave are much smaller. Your photo of City Hall is fine to use in the Central Square District on location grounds, but we've got another photo of it illustrating its own District six rows below. Maybe it would be better to pick up the photo that illustrates the Central Square article....
And forgive me if I've changed something you just did, but I couldn't resist the Necco water tower -- a fun change from a gray building..... . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 00:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Auburn Cemetery

[edit]

I see two listings for "Mount Auburn Cemetery" in addition to the listing for "Mount Auburn Cemetery Reception House". One of them has the National Register Historic District color, the other, later, one has the National Historic Landmark District color. They are essentially the same, differing only in object and structure counts. If a National Register Historic Place (or District) gets upgraded to National Historic Landmark (or Landmark District) (as I assume this was), do we usually list it both ways? Or is there something special about Mount Auburn? Does it deserve a comment in the "Summary" column? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "something special". I've only ever seen this in one other section: Oldfields in Indianapolis is listed twice, having first been listed as a normal district and secondly as an NHLD. I couldn't find any differences, so I took the liberty of removing the non-NHL from the list. It's possible, however, that only a portion of the original HD was upgraded to NHLD. In this situation, NRIS says that HD and NHLD have 170 and 175 acres, 1 and 6 structures, and 0 and 15 objects respectively, so I expect that they're included separately because they don't have the same boundaries. Therefore, I think that it would be best to treat this as a boundary increase, merging the two entries as one and noting simply that the NHLD designation included a boundary increase. Could someone else take care of it at the moment? I'm in the process of preparing to upload thirteen pictures to the Indianapolis list. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'll bet that the 170 versus 175 acres and other differences are just different eyes doing the write-ups. The difference in areas could be something as simple as measuring to the fence versus measuring to the actual legal boundary. It's in a built up area with roads or houses all around -- I'd be very surprised if the boundaries actually changed between the two listings.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

almost done

[edit]

I'm pleased to see that we've almost completely filled in the missing photos on this page. Well done, everybody!

I have had difficulty getting good photos of the James B. Barnes House, the Issac Fay House, and the Patrick Slowey House:

  • James B. Barnes House: The building at 200 Monsignor O'Brien Highway is today the home of Lechmere Carpet. I went to take a picture but it seemed like a sad legacy for this building. An older picture of the property would be more appropriate, if someone can find a free picture of one.The house is currently located at 109 Hampshire Street; it was moved in 1984. Daderot (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issac Fay House: I could not find a building with the address 123 Antrim St. in Cambridge. The houses on Antrim appear to go directly from 119 to 125. Is it possible that this building was re-addressed at some point in the last 20-30 years? Found it! It is at 125 Antrim St even though the NRHP lists it as being at 123. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patrick Slowey House: I was unable to find a building at #73 Bolton St. 71 Bolton St. appears to abut a condo complex at 77 Bolton St. Does anyone know if this building still exists, or has been renumbered? Was there an older Bolton St. that has since been renamed?

If anyone has any bright ideas about these sites I would be glad to hear them. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can empathize. I rode into Cambridge last week and tried to get a picture of the Patrick Slowey House too, and couldn't find #73 either. Here's my 2 cents on other sites that still need pictures...
Cambridge Common Historic District Amendment I couldn't figure out what this actually comprised, but it links to the Cambridge Common. Is that what the link should be? If so, then the Cambridge Common picture could be used.
W. A. Mason House I rode by this one on the same ride, at 87 Raymond St. If I got the right house, it appeared to be under heavy renovation, lots of tarps and workers. So I skipped getting a picture.
Old Cambridge Historic District I have a picture of St. John's Chapel at 99 Brattle St we could use for this. (Went ahead and added the image... Faolin42 (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
It was fun meeting you at the Cambridge Meetup! Faolin42 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job with getting all the pics! I just revised the list-article to drop the 2nd, duplicative row for the amendment to the Cambridge Common Historic District. The HD article already reflects the original listing and the later amendment. It's one listing, later revised. Sorry that i didn't fix the list-article (if it was in this form already) when i started/developed the HD article to cover that, a long time ago. That is now the consistent practice with NRHP list-articles. Again, nice job. --doncram (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I did renumbering of the now 206 listings, not 207, only up to item number 50. Hopefully others can finish the renumbering. Also it would greatly improve the list-article if descriptions could be started. An example list-article that i've worked on a lot is National Register of Historic Places listings in Syracuse, New York which includes a description, also with source, for all or almost all entries, which i submit as just one possible model. You could also just do summaries without repeating the sources that appear in the articles, anyhow. --doncram (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One is the the Common itself while the second one looks like it is (across Mass Ave.) at the parkland surrounding the entrance to the bus tunnel at Harvard. You may have passed by it hundreds of times and never really gave it a second thought. Currently there's a small entourage of (what I would assume) are homeless persons with several tents staying there.CaribDigita (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renumbering of rows done. Great job with the photos folks! With regard to the above properties, if you haven't already, you might want to contact the state Historic Preservation Office. I've contacted several HPOs and have generally found them to be pretty helpful. --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice picture of the W. A. Mason House! I must have had the wrong house. Was it next to the one under tarps? Faolin42 (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually notice a house under tarps on that block, but I admit to a bit of tunnel vision until I got there (biking up Garden Street from Harvard Square). It's possible there was another house under construction and I didn't even see it. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about adding neighbourhood of Carmbridge?

[edit]

I notice there is an un-used column in which is listed "city/town". Would it be okay to rename this as "neighborhood" and include which neighborhood of Cambridge the historic place is located?

Namely:

I'm thinking about listing each historic place (of this list) and include it within its associated neighborhood article. Esp. since the neighborhood articles now are just stubs and could use more info like local: "parks", "schools", "demographics", "transportation info", major roads (routes), et. al. CaribDigita (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Register of Historic Places listings in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Cambridge,_Massachusetts&oldid=1199246072"