Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington, D.C./archive 1

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

Process moving to switch to "Washington, D.C." usage rather than "District of Columbia"[edit]

A process outside of WP:NRHP has started which would change wordings to "Washington, D.C." from what has been practice in WP:NRHP "the District of Columbia".

See Historic Places in the District of Columbia Proposal in progress to change away from " Category:Registered Historic Places in the District of Columbia", and similar change on Category:Images in the District of Columbia

This got stirred up by proposal to create Category:National Historic Landmarks in the District of Columbia, which is now suggested to be "in Washington, D.C." instead.

Assuming these go through, then I predict that the current titles of list-articles List of Registered Historic Places in the District of Columbia and List of National Historic Landmarks in the District of Columbia would also be changed.

If you care about this, participate by discussing here on the talk page of WP:NRHP if you like, but especially by voting or commenting in the category change process. doncram (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

District of Columbia or Washington, D.C.? File:DC 2000 SAMPLE.jpg I think this says it all. I favor Washington, D.C., for all. It's what the residents seem to prefer, even though the Federal bureaucrats may not. clariosophic (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rawlins Park[edit]

Rawlins Park is mentioned on [http://nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/DC/District+of+Columbia/state7.html nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com], but it's not anywhere on this list or any other Wiki entry. Anyone know if their site is mistaken or correct? APK is not a Womanizer 15:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't everyone answer at once now. APK ain't the baby daddy 22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That web site tends to list entries that were approved by the state or local historical commission, but denied by the Nationals. It also could be that the place was approved, but the owner opted not to be listed.--Marcbela (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NRHP.com site provides "Rawlins Park (added 1977 - Site - #77001626) Eighteenth and E Sts., NW, Washington". Running that reference number in Elkman's NRHP infobox generator yields an infobox, with mention: "Note: This property may not actually be listed on the National Register - listing code is DR". I don't know what listing code DR is, but it does appear that it was nominated but that it is not a currently listed NRHP. The details about the place could be obtained by request to the National Register, and the place may well be wikipedia-notable for an article, but if it was not ever NRHP-listed then it doesn't belong in this list-article. If it was listed and was later delisted, then it should be covered in a separate table of former listings, not yet created. doncram (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article[edit]

I'm placing these here temporarily because the current article size is waaaaaay too large.

Temporary (old) listing to be cross-checked with above table

(snip)

Well, some user seems to think the page size isn't large enough and has re-added the listings above (instead of simply cross-checking with the talk page). The current layout isn't going to work. The listing needs to be broken up into separate articles. Example: National Register of Historic Places listings in the District of Columbia (A-D), etc. Now that the list has been re-added, the page size is 171 kb (150 kb w/o the extra list). It's taking me forever just to add an image to the article. APK ain't the baby daddy 15:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the list here, as it got put back into the main article and as i have edited down the version there. Will keep going at reducing the remainder. doncram (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed main list subdivisions[edit]

Since the (very large) National Register of Historic Places listings in the District of Columbia cannot easily be split up by geographic areas (like New York). I propose to split up the list similar to what was done with Philadelphia (over 500 listings). A likely split could be in roughly 100 item subsections: A-C, D-H, I-N, O-S, and T-Z. Some items need to be shifted (2000 Block Of Eye Street, NW would move to "T" two-thousand block, etc.)--Marcbela (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda like what I just mentioned above. I agree. APK ain't the baby daddy 15:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New table is seriously flawed[edit]

The new table is seriously flawed until the old list is integrated into it. That needs to be done before you can think about spltting the article. clariosophic (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Splitting the article would make it far more managable. What are some example of these flaws you speak of?--Marcbela (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):We know, we know. You've said "seriously flawed" several times now. I've been trying to correct it as I've added images. APK ain't the baby daddy 15:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clariosophic is right that the old list entries should be processed first. It makes sense to do that, to capture the useful pipelinks to existing articles and other info in the old list entries, first, before reorganizing or adding too much to the main new table. I am at fault for bad examples, elsewhere, of adding table but not immediately processing old list entries. But i try to process old list entries relatively quickly now, and i think i am not responsible here, knock on wood. Who did add the huge table, anyhow? Then, after that is done, the obvious next step is to split out the SE, SW, NE entries to separate articles, which is easy to do. Then, the remaining, biggest NW ones will probably also need subdividing, which should be done geographically so that nearby places are grouped together, and so that the associated google map links work well. For guidance, I don't find any List of Washington, D.C. neighborhoods general article, but there is List of neighborhoods of the District of Columbia by ward. Does it make sense to use the wards to subdivide NW? Anyhow, the list is flawed probably because it fails to connect to existing articles, which are/were captured in the old list entries. doncram (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. When it's quieter later so i am not likely to get edit conflicts, and when wikipedia isn't reporting "server error" after every other edit, I'll help out processing some of the old list entries. That means: compare the old list entry to the current table entry, perhaps edit the current table entry to link to an existing article, delete the old list entry. In some cases, check the article that an old list entry links to, perhaps edit it to show the NRHP name as an alternative name, or otherwise edit. Sometimes create disambiguation pages where necessary. Repeat. Etc. This is somewhat time-consuming but value-adding work. doncram (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the focus should be on getting the old list verified so that the main list can be split up to get the file size down. One way to help this is to get the old list off of the main article, and work from the list located on the Talk page. --Marcbela (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, i've gone ahead and reduced the old list in the article, by dropping scattered entries that were exactly as included in the table. So, now, i want to keep working with the version of list in the article, rather than the now-different talk page version. It seems easier to me to work in one place, where one edit addresses the table entry and strikes the old list entry. I think that some here are not aware of the respect paid to the old list versions, in developing other state NRHP lists. The old lists do contain useful info, clues that are worth capturing, including about boundary increases that should be captured in the table description of location, as well as in the corresponding article (which sometimes has to be created to capture the info).
    • Fair enough. I just cannot work on the main article from my home computer. It keeps locking up since it's so huge. The sooner we can split it up, the better!--Marcbela (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, it was an IP editor who added the table! i thot they usually vandalized... doncram (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File size is down to around 140k now, so perhaps you can start editing again? It was 150k before Clario added about 20k when adding the old list entries back. I reduced the old list entries and made other changes to bring it down in size. There are about 50 rows so far identified as SE, SW, NE in the sortable Neighborhood column, which can all be moved out when the old list is finished. Help identifying quadrants for more entries would be appreciated. I'll keep chipping away at the old list but am taking a break now. doncram (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Muchas gracias for the work you've done so far. My computer still doesn't like the page size (it either locks up or takes forever to make an edit), so I'm not sure what I can do at the moment. Um, I know the locations of most DC-NRHPs and can help with quadrant sorting (if the computer doesn't freeze). I've been uploading at Commons if anyone feels like adding images to the listing (I still have 2.3 billion left to upload). APK How you durrin? 19:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New table rows needed[edit]

Can some one go through the NRHP new weekly listings, at http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/nrlist.htm, and cut-and-paste the Washington, D.C. ones posted since April 1, 2008 to now? Pasting in here would be fine. There should be at least 14, according to now-segregated entries into old list version in article. Address and other info needed to create a new row for each one in the table. This is a standard step in doing a state NRHP list-article, i just wonder if someone else could do it for this one. I'll keep plugging at the old list entries. doncram (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. APK How you durrin? 12:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First African New Church, 2105-07 10th St., NW., 08001375, LISTED, 1/29/09
  • Randall Junior High School, 65 I St., SW., Washington, D.C., 08001205, LISTED, 12/22/08
  • Shaw Junior High School, 7th St., and Rhode Island Ave., NW, Washington, D.C., 08001206, LISTED, 12/22/08 (picture)
  • Strand Theater, 5129-5131 Nannie Helen Burroughs Ave. NE., Washington, DC., 08001093, LISTED, 11/25/08
  • Third Baptist Church, 1546 5th St., NW., Washington, DC., 08001094, LISTED, 11/26/08
  • Engine House No. 10, 1341 Maryland Ave., NE., Washington, DC, 08001063, LISTED, 11/19/08
  • Nathaniel Parker Gage School, 2035 2nd St., NW., Washington, DC, 08001064, LISTED, 11/19/08
  • Bulletin Building, 717 6th St., NW, Washington, 07000422, LISTED, 11/12/08
  • Petworth Gardens, 124, 126, 128, and 130 Webster St., NW., Washington DC, 08001029, LISTED, 11/10/08
  • Slayton, William L., House, 3411 Ordway St., NW, Washington DC, 08000956, LISTED, 10/02/08
  • Eldbrooke United Methodist Church, 4100 River Rd., NW., Washington, D.C., 08000840, LISTED, 9/05/08
  • Methodist Cemetery, The, Murdock Mill Rd. between River Rd. and 42nd St., NW., Washington, D.C., 08000839, LISTED, 9/05/08
  • Barker, George M., Company Warehouse, 1525 7th St., NW., Washington, 08000820, LISTED, 8/27/08
  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th St., SW., Washington, 08000824, LISTED, 8/26/08 (pictures)
  • U.S. Tax Court, 400 2nd St., NW., Washington, 08000821, LISTED, 8/26/08
  • First Baptist Church of Deanwood, 1008 45th St. NE., Washington, D.C., 08000720, LISTED, 7/24/08
  • Garden Club of America Entrance Markers at Wisconsin Avenue, Wisconsin Ave. at Western Ave., Washington, 08000394, LISTED, 5/12/08
  • Garden Club of America Entrance Markers at Chevy Chase Circle, Reservation 335A, Washington, 08000346, LISTED, 4/29/08 (picture)
  • Garden Club of America Entrance Marker at Georgia Avenue, Georgia Ave. at Kalmia Rd. & Alaska Ave., Washington, 08000347, LISTED, 4/29/08
  • Garden Club of America Entrance Markers at Westmoreland Circle, Reservation 559, Washington, 08000348, LISTED, 4/29/08 (picture)

APK How you durrin? 13:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks APK! All info captured into new rows in the table. doncram (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

coords and/or location questions[edit]

If someone can figure these out, put em into the right list-articles, and post any corrections info in wp:NRIS info issues, that would be great. Sorting these out properly may require requesting and getting the NRHP documents for them, first. Those are all the coordinates issues that jump out, for me, when looking at the Google map. Maybe others can spot other discrepancies to be fixed. doncram (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady is correct. Here's a picture of the Dalecarlia Water Treatment Plant which is located on the D.C./Maryland border (5900 MacArthur Boulevard, NW).
The Suitland Parkway begans in Anacostia and ends at Andrews Air Force Base in Prince George's County, Maryland.
Here's a map of the GW Parkway. I thought it was only located in Virginia, but apparently it does run through a small portion of the District via Columbia Island.
Friendship's old building is definitely located in D.C. I added coordinates to the Commons image. APK How you durrin? 15:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Orlady and APK. I revised the Friendship Baptist Church coords from NRIS values to APK's info, after converting to degrees-minutes-seconds format for the NRHP infobox in the new article. That was the biggest coords mistake, at least farthest outside DC. About the parkways and waterworks, I don't care very much, but if someone wants to look up coordinates for some point of Suitland Parkway inside the District, some point on the waterworks system inside the district, etc., those could be used in this DC list article (and provided in the articles about the individual places, too). That way the Google map would show all DC locations. It doesn't bother me that the locations show outside, but in a few other state/county list-articles, others have been bothered more about this than and have made corrections to tidy up the appearance that way. Given your confirmations that the parkways, etc., do run through DC in part, actually i think the list-article coords for these are fine now, without further tidying. doncram (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Historic Districts vs. Neighborhoods[edit]

  • I have come across this before, and it really bugs me when a Historic District directs toward an article about the neighborhood with the same name (for instance, Capitol Hill Historic District directs to Capitol Hill). The NRHP historic district is a well-defined area that may or may not happen to coincide with the boundaries of the neighborhood. Has there been a convention established to combine the two into a single article anyway? (perhaps to condense articles, etc.) I just was wondering. This does not just apply to D.C. --Marcbela (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does anyone have an opinion on this matter? --Marcbela (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whether to combine or not is an an issue. In many cases, it would be helpful to create separate articles about the NRHP-listed historic district, and it would be great if you would go ahead and create those, especially where you have knowledge that the district is different than the neighborhood of similar name. If the NRHP article is short, it may tend to attract merger proposals to combine it into the neighborhood article, such as one outstanding for Takoma Park Historic District some other DC HD article that i visited recently. But that is not so bad, even if the NRHP historic district article is absorbed into the other, after the NRHP gets some chance to develop and to include an infobox and a bit more, at least. In a properly handled merger, the NRHP info will get transfered over. It is often awkward, on the other hand, to force NRHP district stuff like an NRHP infobox into a pre-existing article on the neighborhood. I don't think there can be a general policy about whether, permanently, there should be separate or combined articles. It depends partly on how closely the common meaning of the neighborhood overlaps with the specifics of the historic district. However, in the short term, it is usually not clear whether the historic district boundaries are the same or different as the neighborhood boundaries, so it is usually helpful to let there be two articles. Does this help? doncram (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was generally my thinking too. I know I have done so with the local districts, around Providence, for instance that I am familar with. Providence has very well defined neighborhoods on their home page. The Histric Districts have defined limits also. The average person should know that there is usually a difference between the two. Without having the HD maps handy, or if their descriptions are vague, it's tough to easily to split them up. At least if they point to the "neighborhood" for now, they can be split off on a case-by-case basis.--Marcbela (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

next steps before splitting[edit]

Almost all the old list entries have been processed. I'll plug away at the boundary change items in the "research and/or editing needed" section. Otherwise, there remain two tasks which are easier done before splitting:

  1. Cross-check vs. List of NHLs in DC, indicating here where are the 87 or so NHLs, NHSs, etc., by changing "NRHP color" to "NHS color" or whichever, for each of those rows. Perhaps there are pics in the NHL list-article which can be added here too. This is easier to do while this list-article is in mostly the same alphabetical order as the NHL list-article.
  2. Use Google Earth or other means to look up coordinates for the NRHP sites covered in 19 or so new rows which are currently in a separate section here, using the addresses or street intersections given in the rows. Approximate coordinates are okay. It seems to me more efficient to look them up, before scattering those rows amongst all the others. I don't happen to run Google Earth though, would appreciate if someone else could handle this.

Again, i'll plug away at the boundary increase issues. Is there anything else that's easier done before splitting? I mean splitting by NW, SE, SW, NE, leaving any further split of NW until later. There are some which can't be split out because their quadrant is not known, and the Washington Mall ones can be kept here in this main article, too, per other discussion. doncram (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the proper way to alphabetize listings such as "U.S.", "U.S.S", "United States", "US" and "USS", etc? It seems the NRHP is all over the place with their naming convention (there is none). The listings in this area may need to be moved around before the split.--Marcbela (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that ship names starting with USS or not, are an issue for the naming of the article, which is different than being an issue for how they should show in an NRHP list. In the NRHP list, like in the NRHP infobox of the article, we should show the NRHP name. With refinement, that if the NRHP name is convoluted by commas, or it uses all capitals, we should unwind and down case it to use other emphasis, like from "SIMPSON, HOMER, USS" to "USS Homer Simpson". Since the article name may differ, set up a redirect from the official NRHP name to the article, and also you can use a pipelink in the NRHP list (but I think the redirect should be created even if you use a pipelink). This may not address all of what Marcbela is questioning. doncram (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • About the current situation, with names for government agency buildings and other places starting with United States, US, U.S., along with one or two ships, actually it doesn't bother me. We are just reflecting the actual National Register names for the places. If it really bothers you, I think you should take it up with the National Register, semi-seriously. They have changed a few National Historic Landmark names, or at least what appears for them in the NHL webpages, in response to my inquiries/requests in the past (although those were pretty clearly typos). I am corresponding about some other items covered in wp:NRIS info issues too. I don't think the inconsistencies in their abbreviation of United States matters so much, and it may even reflect different actual common usage for the various places, so I am not inclined to raise this as an issue for them. doncram (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then, we are going to stick with the NRHP listing names, whatever that might be. OK --Marcbela (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously i am fine with just leaving them that way. Anyhow, I am going to bug out of here, and probably drop this from my watchlist. I moved out the research issues/boundary increases to this Talk page, to keep them recorded. The coordinates on new rows don't really have to be put in, before splitting the areas out. It remains obvious enough which ones have coords and which don't. I think i pretty much responded to the original posting requesting extra help on this list-article, and I'd like to leave this now in the capable hands of the present company, to split out or do whatever. Enjoy. :) doncram (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Washington,_D.C./archive_1&oldid=1136370490"