Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Suffolk County, New York

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

Two different Heckscher Parks[edit]

I just clicked on the Heckscher Park in Huntington and ended up on Heckscher State Park in East Islip. I hope some of the editors know those are two completley dfferent parks. ---- DanTD 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NHS NRHP Applications are online[edit]

New York State has most of the NHS NRHP applications online at http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/default.asp

The search page is: http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_basic.asp

This is a Java application and it does not work intuitively. The applications are graphics rather than .pdf. You have to hit "Results" in the upper right corner after you enter your criteria. I have had problems getting it to work in Firefox but it works fine in Internet Explorer. However all that said it is a spectacular resource. Americasroof (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good to know you are aware of this, and have found more success in MS Internet Explorer software which i don't have installed. My experience in Firefox is that when you get to the results you can see only a 1 inch shallow view of a nearly full-size given document, so you have to scroll down to read very awkwardly. Or, better, you can print the document to paper or to a PDF file, and then read the resulting downloaded PDF file on your PC. I wrote it up somewhat in a section on state-specific resources on the main wp:NRHP page. Would it proper to amend that write-up, to say that you get a proper full-screen view of the document, if you are using Internet Explorer? Since you've used both, could you describe the differences here more (or amend that write-up directly)?
Certainly good idea to add the external link as you did. I think that should be added to all the separate New York State list-articles of RHPs, perhaps with some parenthetical note about how klunky the interface is ("when nothing happens hit 'Results'", and/or "works best with MSIE").
Terminology-wise, I've been using NHS to abbreviate National Historic Site, which is a different program of the relatively few National Park Service owned and operated historic sites. I have been using RHP or NRHP to refer to a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Thanks! doncram (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using Internet Explorer, and I have nothing but trouble with it. ----DanTD (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions[edit]

I just checked and it's working but it's not intuitive.

  • 1. Click "Basic Criteria" in upper right to fill out the data
  • 2. Click "Results" after you define what you want (it's generally easier to keep it broad, e.g., County only)
  • 3. In the results, Click the little document item on the right under the View column (you can actually bookmark individual records).

IMPORTANT: You have to Java installed. Americasroof (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's exactly what I did, and I got "No Records Found" regardless of whether a site was on the national, local, or state level. ----DanTD (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

propose to divide list-article into smaller geo sections[edit]

I noticed a discussion at wt:NRHP (now archived) about long lists, including:

I just installed hidden chapters for National Register of Historic Places listings in Suffolk County, New York, but I haven't sorted them out yet. The only village that I know of that crosses town lines within Suffok is Sag Harbor, New York, so that would either get it's own chapter, or a note regarding the division within the village. In any case, the "Listings by County" chapter alone is 84k long. ----DanTD (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support dividing this list-article, and I could help implement the partition, but into what divisions? I notice about 35 NRHP listings are in one town, which could be split off as a town list. However other towns are smaller, so not much progress is made and too many small articles would be created if each town got its own. Is there any other natural partition of the county? Perhaps north vs. south of the LIE? Or east vs. west of some point? Are there any other official districts / regions? doncram (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know of any NRHP-specific districts, and the L.I.E. doesn't exactly run in a straight line across Long Island. But I did do some brief work today on a list that included North Philadelphia station, a.k.a.; Germantown Junction Station, and it gave me another idea; Alphabetical order. My current proposal is separate lists for NRHP sites starting with A-C, D-H, I-O, P-R, and S-Z articles. Any other suggestions? ----DanTD (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The logical division would be by town. For starters I could break out East Hampton, Southampton, Riverhead, Shelter Island, Southold (which I kinda intended to do anyway but never got around to it). While I love this format I do find the numbering system obnoxious since if new listings come on you have to renumber everything and most people aren't up to that.Americasroof (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was my original intention, but there's still the issue of Sag Harbor, and other villages and hamlets that are split between township lines. But doing it either by town or alphabetically is still better than doing it by the Long Island Expressway. Besides, if by some miracle, the New York State Department of Transportation decided one day to say "Screw the NIMBYists! We're going to extend the LIE to Old Saybrook, Connecticut, like we wanted to do in the first place," you'd have to divivde NRHP sites in Riverhead & Southold towns on which side of the L.I.E. they're on as well. ----DanTD (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, forget the LIE suggestion, it was my uninformed idea. But dividing it into alphabetical chunks would only be a stop-gap and not helpful. It would be more helpful to split into chunks of towns, I think, like National Register of Historic Places listings in Bay Shore, Montauk, and Southampton, but choose towns that are located together. FYI, for List of RHPs in Baltimore which was split at first into 4 alpha chunks, I went back and divided into geographical areas afterwards, based on official districts of the city. Also List of RHPs in Philly is being moved towards geo reorganizing. There's a similar discussion going on about New York City Landmarks in Manhattan. The consensus plan emerging there seems to be to use sets of official Community Districts, like "CDs 7, 9, and 10" to split up Manhattan into small enough pieces. doncram (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Towns are definitely the way to do it. The vast vast majority of the Sag Harbor historic district is in Southampton. The Cedar Point Lighthouse is in East Hampton (I need to change the name to Northwest Harbor, New York to make it clearer). Another advantage of the town framework is that the lists will fit cleanly in the town categories (whereas splitting north and south of the LIE fits into nothing). It's possible at some point we may want to subivide even further (e.g., the multitude of sites within the districts in East Hampton/Southampton/Sag Harbor villages) but new subcategories would fit cleanly in the town organization also. BTW i think the cd 7 etc organization in nyc is a great idea. We don't really encounter that level of detail in Suffolk. The page strucure might ultimately work its way down to this level though: Suffolk -> East Hampton Town -> East Hampton Village -> East Hampton North Historic District/South District etc. But the first pass is getting them into towns.Americasroof (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Okay, good. Further, about any partition that makes sense, there may be some historic districts or other NRHP listings that span across more than one part. So you just repeat those ones: an entry appears in more than one list-article and that is no problem, just like some National Historic Landmarks like Hoover Dam (i think that is one) appear in more than one state. Also, about numbering, it is really not that hard to renumber once that you have reorganized into a new way. And, after, the numbering in the smaller list-articles is not hard to update when, less frequently because they are smaller, a new NRHP listing arrives. doncram (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Towns it is. For the record, doncram, Bay Shore, New York is in Islip (town), New York, and Montauk, New York is in East Hampton (town), New York. Now should we make separate chapters, or full-fledged separate articles? ----DanTD (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by chapters vs. full-fledged articles. Maybe you could look at how Dutchess County or another county is split up into towns, at List of RHPs in NY. But I am sure you are on the right track, just go ahead. By the way, AFAIK, there's no easier way to proceed than opening at least two windows and cutting and pasting table rows out to each of your new source list-articles being split out. Have fun! :) doncram (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Separate full-fledged articles would be like those for Poughkeepsie, and Rhinebeck. Chapters would be like the Exit list for Interstate 26. ----DanTD (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Poughkeepsie approach works for me. In addition there should be a tree category National Register of Historic Places listings in Suffolk County, New York -> National Register of Historic Places listings in East Hampton, New York Americasroof (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The third town[edit]

I've just created a third town list; National Register of Historic Places listings in Huntington (town), New York. You can start removing Huntington from the main Suffolk NRHP list now, and I hope to see the other towns added as well. ----DanTD (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Western Town Lists; Yay or Nay?[edit]

I still have two other NRHP lists for separate towns in Suffolk County in my sandbox, more specifically Babylon and Brookhaven. The question is; Should I add them and lists for Smithtown & Islip, or should I just tag the two I've got for deletion, and forget about it? ----DanTD (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DanT I'm a big fan. Getting all the towns listed seperately is a home run! Keep up the great work! Big Time YAY!Americasroof (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I just added Brookhaven. ----DanTD (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Okay, I'm currently working on another list for the Town of Islip, but I may skip the one for Babylon. Plus, from what I've read about the wreck of the USS San Diego, this might actually be in the Town of Brookhaven, so I could move it there. ----DanTD (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Towns in Suffolk County now have their own lists. I may consider a similar project for the National Register of Historic Places listings in Nassau County, New York. ----DanTD (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I like that each town has its own list, nicely done. It seems unnecessary, to me, though, that each town have a separate article. Would it be okay if I moved some of the smaller town list-tables back into sections on this main page, and changed their separate articles to be redirects to those sections? Please see List of RHPs in OR for an example of the organization I mean. That is a statewide list, with the shorter counties appearing in subsections below an overall tally table. The larger counties are in separate list articles. It seems unnecessary to split out some of these smaller towns, not needed for page-size reasons here. In fact, I wouldn't necessarily oppose if someone put up the Town of Babylon one for AfD. It has just 3 NRHPs, all red-links. Another NRHP list-article of all redlinks was recently put up for AfD, by the way. I think it would be better to combine the small ones back in here. Likewise, I am all for you reorganizing Nassau County if you like, but I would rather the smaller town lists appeared in the main page (with redirects set up to their subsections). However, I don't feel all that strongly about this, you can proceed as you like. doncram (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're not unnecessary. The word "(town)" is there to distinguish towns from Villages and Hamlets. North Amityville is in the Town of Babylon, but not the village. ----DanTD (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss whether article names (or section names) are to include "(town)" or not in the discussion section below. What I meant, above, was that the town tables of smaller towns could be placed into the main list-article page. doncram (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderbilt Museum on NRHP[edit]

The article on the Vanderbilt Museum ignores the fact that it was listed on the NRHP, until I added this fact today. Who wants to start bombarding the article with an infobox, some links, any images that can be found, and other appropriate material? ----DanTD (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Town list-article names[edit]

I seemed to have stepped on some toes by my boldly going through all the town list-articles and renaming/moving them just now. I think all 10 had names in the format of:

which I moved to

DanTD noted to me that "the reason I've added (town) to those NRHP lists was to distinguish the locations from the villages and hamlets. You really shouldn't have renamed them." Sorry, well, i did them all before i got DanTD's message to my talk page. I think the moves make sense, though. The name of the town is surely Southampton, NY, not Southampton (town), NY. And while I assume that there are hamlets or villages carrying some of the same names, I assume that it is not confusing to have the articles under these simpler names. In the intro to each article, it is clearly explained that this is a list of NRHP listing in the town of Southampton, etc. Could we discuss here? If consensus is to move them back I will be glad to help move them back. doncram (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any cases where a village of the same name is outside of the town? Perhaps then an explanatory note would be needed to add to the article, that so many NRHPs located in the Village of ___ appear in (link to the town article covering them). My renaming was consistent with practice for names of other town-specific list-articles in the NRHP list-article system for NYS (see List of RHPs in NY. Poughkeepsie and Rhinecliff, for example, have towns and villages both i think. The Poughkeepsie article explains it covers NRHPs in the town and village of Poughkeepsie, etc. Another concern I have is that I believe "(town)" is not ever part of the formal name of a place and it comes across to me as a potential reference to a wikipedia article name that did include "(town)". That would be a violation of the wp:SELF principle to avoid references to wikipedia itself. Please educate me, if "(town)" is actually part of one of these town names. Perhaps a compromise wording would be "NRHP listings in the town of Southampton, New York", although I still don't think that is necessary if there is not also another article about the NRHP listings in a different Southampton, New York. doncram (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved them back already the hard way. The thing is, these lists are for all NRHP/NHL sites in the Towns, not just those that have the same names. ----DanTD (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well there is no emergency here, but I propose that all of them be moved back, again, to the simpler name not including "(town)". I think that is perfectly fine/clear to have the list for Southampton include NRHPs/NHLs which are either in or not in the village of southhampton, if there is such a village. (By the way, such potential confusion about where a given place is located is one more reason why it might be best to recombine some of the pages, so that a reader trying to find a given place, but unsure which is its town or village name or whatever, can find it in one (bigger) page. The tables could be put in sequence in subsections, or they could be merged into one bigger table, with a column added to indicate town.) doncram (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question whether the Village of Southampton exists or not. The same goes for East Hampton, Shelter Island, Southold, Riverhead, Brookhaven, Islip, Smithtown, and Huntington. And as far as recombining them all into a bigger list, the whole purpose of making separate lists for separate towns is to prevent them from taking half a day to load up before you can read them. ----DanTD (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's any consulation, I do like how you arranged the general Suffolk County NRHP list. ----DanTD (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons galleries[edit]

I just created two commons galleries for NRHP sites in both Nassau & Suffolk Counties today. Everyone can go fill them up, and move the ones from the NRHP in New York list there. ----DanTD (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Suffolk_County,_New_York&oldid=1216206983"