|WikiProject National Register of Historic Places||(Rated Project-class)|
|WikiProject National Register of Historic Places was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 28 September 2009.|
|WikiProject National Register of Historic Places was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 17 October 2011.|
|Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
Threads older than 1 month may be automatically archived by .
Old Town Chinatown
Old Town Chinatown (Portland, Oregon) describes two NRHP-listed districts within its boundaries. I'm curious if any project members see value in attempting to separate out information about the individual districts. I think, ideally, we'd have standalone articles for the districts with lists of the contributing structures. (?)
I'd like to help assess, but I'm struggling to find the NRHP listings for both of the districts. Anyone more familiar with NRHP databases/websites able to share helpful links to the nomination forms? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Update: I think I found one, which can be accessed here or via the 'heritagedata' link here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q51816423 ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hey again - so NARA is the best resource to use.
- Oregon SP Portland New Chinatown--Japantown Historic District
- Oregon SP Portland Skidmore/Old Town Historic District
- Oregon NHL Skidmore/Old Town Historic District (NHL doc)
- There's also Oregon MPS Old Town Historic District, which is not really a district as much as a Multiple Property Submission; you could feature these sites collectively or individually.
- Ɱ, Thank you, I'll take a closer look. Meanwhile, I've started a related discussion on the article's talk page. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Update: I've created entries for Portland New Chinatown/Japantown Historic District and Portland Skidmore/Old Town Historic District, if project members see ways to improve further. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
How best to handle minor items from MPS block nominations that have minimal extra coverage
When I was working on National Register of Historic Places listings in Linn County, Kansas earlier this year, I noticed that Landers Creek Bridge (added to the NRHP has part of a MPS) has basically no individual coverage. While I truly believe that the vast majority of NRHP listings are individually notable, for some of the minor MPS items I don't know if there's enough that can be sourced to really warrant a stub. For instance, the tiny bit in the table is about all I could produce for the Landers Creek bridge. What's going to be the best way to handle this? 1.) Keep the individual very short stubs, 2.) merge to the applicable county lists, or to 3.) create a list article for the MPS submission and then merge the rare handful of MPS ones that have only the slightest possible coverage. Through my occassional work with expanding NRHP stubs, I've come to firmly believe that 95% of these article have significant coverage somewhere and that the 5% are mainly the least significant items from MPS additions. My inclination is that for that small minority, option 3.) may be the best, as it can give additional context for the MPS and the background behind it. Hog Farm Talk 14:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'd make a list article "Historic X of[alternatively in] Y" (where X is the resource type e.g. "bridges" and Y is the geographic coverage area). It doesn't necessarily have to be limited to the entries in the MPS that way. Magic♪piano 15:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, there are cases where there is not enough information about listed places to develop an article. I agree some variation of option 3 is best. May not always be a list article. Missouri Lumber and Mining Company is an example where there are many places mentioned that really should have been grouped into a district but for some reason have individual numbers. MB
- Hey i think it is quite a nice little article, with photo added relatively recently, if i do say so myself. Maybe having the article helped get the photo, who knows. But, theoretically, yes, some minor NRHP-listed places could/should be redirected to a list-article. But usually it does not make sense IMO to create an article about an MPS, which is a study, and an article about a study should discuss the authors, why it was done, what is important about this study, etc., like a Wikipedia article about a non-fiction book. Sometimes the topic of a study can be a Wikipedia article though. In this case, there is List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Kansas, but redirecting to its row there would be less than satisfactory in my view, as the article size is perhaps larger than what could appear in a description there. And the list-article is almost all redlinks. Perhaps an editor could develop about all/most of them in rows there. Another option would be to develop an article about Goodrich, Kansas (currently a redlink) and make a section for it there. At the redirect left behind, bridge-type categories should be left. I see its NRHP document cites a "Survey of Historic Bridges—Kansas Dept. of Transportation"; i wonder if an article about KDOT would make sense, but even if this bridge was a KDOT project it would be too minor to mention. Overall I don't think it is too important to try to reduce the number of NRHP articles; I'd rather see positive development say about historic bridges in Kansas and allow editor(s) working on that to make their own decisions how to group the info. My 2 cents. --Doncram (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
St. Anthony Falls Historic District
The St. Anthony Falls Historic District (Minneapolis, MN) has been included on the NRHP
Coddington, Donn; Hess, Jeffrey. "Nomination of the St. Anthony Falls Historic District to be on the National Register of Historic Places". (1971, 1991). US-DOI-NPS. Retrieved July 1, 2021. is the nomination document
Saint Anthony Falls is a contributing resource to the historic district
The article has a NRHP identification box including:
"Name: St. Anthony Falls Historic District"
> The St. Anthony Falls is only a contributing resource to the Historic District
"Built Apron built 1848"
> The apron is not, the subject of this article; the period of significance starts 1858
"Architect Apron by Ard Godfrey, et al."
> The apron is not, the subject of this article
"NRHP reference No. 71000438"
> standard NRHP page
1. Change NRHP box name to "Saint Anthony Falls"
2 eliminate "Built Apron built 1848"
3 eliminate "Architect Apron by Ard Godfrey, et al."
4, "NRHP reference No" should be more like "part of..."???
List of contributing properties in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District
This article is an organized list of all contributing resources (and only contributing resources) to the St. Anthony Falls Historic District.
5. Add NRHP identification box "St. Anthony Falls Historic District" - Same as box above with deletions?
6. This article has been attacked by mindless Wikipedia bots claiming it needs "additional citations"and "contains original research" - both are false, as explained in talk. Could someone eliminate this box.
Alternate, I could create a new initial section on "Mindless Wikipedia Bots".
wikipedia search for "Saint Anthony Falls Historic District" - redirects to
Saint Anthony Falls
wikipedia search for "St. Anthony Falls Historic District" - also redirects to
Saint Anthony Falls
7. change both redirects to List of contributing properties in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District
BudKey (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Southgate–Lewis House that has to do with, among other things, how reliable the NRHP listings are about architectural style. If anyone has knowledge or experience or opinions about this, please chime in. Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Marble House RfC
This is a new article on a CP of the Dows Street Historic District (listed 2003). The article says it has been individually listed since Jan 2020 and has a ref, without a link, to a nom form. I can't verify it is listed. Maybe it has been nominated but not yet approved? MB 04:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)